The phrase separation of church and state is NOT in our Constitution.
Today, many Americans think that the First Amendment says "Separation of Church and State". The Courts and the media will often refer to a ruling as being in violation of the Separation of Church and State. A recent national poll showed that 69% of Americans believe that the First Amendment says Separation of Church and State. You may be surprised to learn that these words do not appear in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution! Here is what the First Amendment actually does say.
The First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So where did the words "Separation of Church and State" come from? They can be traced back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802. In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns about Religious Freedom. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote a letter to them in which he added the phrase "Separation of Church and State." When you read the full letter, you will understand that Jefferson was simply underscoring the First Amendment as a guardian of the peoples religious freedom from government interference. Here is an excerpt from Jefferson's letter.
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
If actions speak stronger than words, it is interesting to note that 3 days after Jefferson wrote those words, he attended church in the largest congregation in North America at the time. This church held its weekly worship services on government property, in the House Chambers of the U.S. Capital Building. The wall of separation applies everywhere in the country even on government property, without government interference. This is how it is written in the Constitution, this is how Thomas Jefferson understood it from his letter and actions, and this is how the men who wrote the Constitution practiced it.
By the way, do you know what constitution DOES have the phrase "separation of church and state"? Why yes, the Soviet Union has this phrase in their constitution.
The 1936 U.S.S.R. Constitution
"ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."
The 1977 U.S.S.R. Constitution
"Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church."
Thanks to schoolprayerinamerica where I found this info
Keith Olbermann & Rob Boston discuss Glenn Beck and Separation of Church And State. From Countdown, MSNBC.
[download]
Now I want you to listen to some of the things they say in this discussion. They're talking about David Barton from wallbuilders.com and discuss how he wrote a book and made up "fake quotes" from the founders and they were "completely fabricated" and that the people from the right "invent new history" to backup their arguments. They also say that the book from David Barton was re-written and re-named because of the mis-information. Note that the guy talking to Keith Olbermann is from a group called "Americans United For Separation Of Church And State". Notice though that they never say that his second book had any mis-quotes(more on that later).
Now I have to point out something here. The book that they're dumping on from David Barton was written TEN YEARS AGO! And I have to now show you an article that David Barton wrote in January, 2000.
Raising The Academic Standard For Quoting The Founding Fathers
In 1988, David Barton published The Myth of Separation, documenting the Founding Fathers religious beliefs and practices with over 700 footnotes. In that work, he cited from several sources, including history professors, legal scholars, and early textbooks. Although this is common practice in the academic community, David came to believe that historical debates undergirding public policy should be conducted using a standard of evidence that would be accepted by courts: only the "best evidence" should be used (e.g., eyewitness testimony, direct statements and actions by the participants, etc.). In other words, instead of quoting what a professor or judge said about Thomas Jefferson's (or the other 200+ Founding Fathers') views on the First Amendment, let Jefferson's (and the other Founders') own words and actions speak for themselves.
Consequently, David authored a second book (Original Intent, with over 1,400 footnotes) on the same theme as The Myth of Separation in which he does not use Founder's quotes unless they are documented to a primary source; he dropped all "historical" quotes from attorneys, professors, texts, etc.
In using this higher standard, he discovered there were about a dozen or so popular and widely-used quotes by historians and others (David had quoted these sources with documentation properly footnoted in The Myth of Separation) that he could not find in the Founders' own writings. Importantly, some of those quotes had come from works nearly a century-and-a-half old and therefore would seem to have been credible; yet David could not find those quotes in original documents.
David therefore released a paper entitled "Unconfirmed Quotations" in which he listed those dozen or so quotes that he had used in Myth of Separation and which he would voluntarily no longer use. He called on those on all sides of the debate to refrain from using these quotes in any subsequent writings until their veracity could be established in a source that would meet the legal standard of "best evidence." (Since the release of that article, we have actually been able to find the original documentation for some of those quotes that we originally listed as "unconfirmed" - and which antagonists claim that David had made up!)
Despite David's clear statement in the preface of "Unconfirmed Quotations" that he intended to raise the academic bar, David's antagonists (such as Rob Boston, et. al) claimed David had "admitted he made up his quotes" "" a complete mischaracterization of what occurred. On the contrary, David had simply challenged authors on all sides "" whether writing for the American Atheist Association or the National Association of Evangelicals, for Americans United for Separation of Church and State or for Christian Coalition - that they should not allege that the Founders said or believed something unless it could be documented in the Founders' own writings or some other equally authoritative source (e.g., the Records of the Continental Congress, Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention, the Debates of the First Congress, etc.).
It is significant that David's critics point to The Myth of Separation when they claim he "admits that he made up his quotes" but they remain completely silent about Original Intent. Both works arrive at exactly the same historical conclusion, but the history is "made up" in the one but not the other? To date, none of David's antagonists have ever been able to point out a single example in Original Intent in which he "made up a quote." They cannot do so. For that matter, they could not do so in The Myth of Separation either. Rather, they just continue to claim he "admits that he makes up his quotes."
The mischaracterizations of what David did were so egregiously untrue that distinguished attorneys who practice law before the U. S. Supreme Court asked David if they could sue these groups and individuals for libel and slander. Despite the difficult free-speech standards that courts have established to prove libel and slander, the attorneys still believed that they would prevail. To date, David has declined to proceed on the legal front, although such a suit remains a definite possibility. (By the way, some members and supporters of the organizations criticizing David actually resigned in protest over the mischaracterizations made about him by their own organizations; while they did not share David's philosophical viewpoint, they were offended by the blatant misportrayals their own organizations had made about David's work in a scurrilous effort to discredit him.) In short, there is no factual basis behind this charge, nor has any antagonist ever successfully pointed out even one occasion in which David fabricated any quote. David's work stands on its own merits for those who wish to verify his documentation rather than simply accepting mischaracterizations of his work without personal investigation.
Now, please watch this video from the Glenn Beck Show on our founding.
[download]
Then there's this from Rachel Maddow From August 10, 2010
[download]
Religious Oaths and Tests
In addition, many states required tests to keep non-Christians or in some cases Catholics out of public office:
- The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 restricted public office to all but Protestants by its religious test/oath.
- The Delaware Constitution of 1776 demanded an acceptance of the Trinity by its religious test/oath.
- The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 had a similar test/oath.
- The Maryland Constitution of 1776 had such a test/oath.
- The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 had a test/oath that restricted all but Protestants from public office.
- The Georgia Constitution of 1777 used an oath/test to screen out all but Protestants.
- The Vermont state charter/constitution of 1777 echoed the Pennsylvania Constitution regarding a test/oath.
- The South Carolina Constitution of 1778 had such a test/oath allowing only Protestants to hold office.
- The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 and New Hampshire Constitution of 1784 restricted such office holders to Protestants.
- Only Virginia and New York did not have such religious tests/oaths during this time period.
XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.
ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.
SECT. 10. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall each of them before they proceed to business take and subscribe, as well the oath or affirmation of fidelity and allegiance hereinafter directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz:
I do swear (or affirm) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which stall appear to free injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of only judgment and abilities.
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.
And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.
LV. That every person, appointed to any office of profit or trust, shall, before he enters on the execution thereof, take the following oath; to wit :–"I, A. B., do swear, that I do not hold myself bound in allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland;" and shall also subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion.
32. That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.
ART. VI. The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county, who shall have resided at least twelve months in this State, and three months in the county where they shall be elected; except the freeholders of the counties of Glynn and Camden, who are in a state of alarm, and who shall have the liberty of choosing one member each, as specified in the articles of this constitution, in any other county, until they have residents sufficient to qualify them for more; and they shall be of the Protestent religion, and of the age of twenty-one years, and shall be possessed in their own right of two hundred and fifty acres of land, or some property to the amount of two hundred and fifty pounds.
SECTION IX. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall, each of them, before they proceed to business, take and subscribe, as well the oath of fidelity and allegiance herein after directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz.
" I ____ do solemnly swear, by the ever living God, (or, I do solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the Constitution of this State; but will, in all things' conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities."
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.
" I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion."
And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.
III. That as soon as may be after the first meeting of the senate and house of representatives, and at every first meeting of the senate and house of representatives thereafter, to be elected by virtue of this constitution, they shall jointly in the house of representatives choose by ballot from among themselves or from the people at large a governor and commander-in-chief, a lieutenant-governor, both to continue for two years, and a privy council, all of the Protestant religion, and till such choice shall be made the former president or governor and commander-in-chief, and vice-president or lieutenant-governor, as the case may be, and privy council, shall continue to act as such.
Massachusetts Art. III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subject an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.
Provided, notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right and electing their public teachers and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.
And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship and of public teachers aforesaid shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid toward the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.
And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
New Hampshire VI. As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these, is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the DEITY, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote those important purposes, the people of this state have a right to impower, and do hereby fully impower the legislature to authorize from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this state, to make adequate provision at their own expence, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality:
Provided notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, bodies-corporate, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their own public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. And no portion of any one particular religious sect or denomination, shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect or denomination.
And every denomination of christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good subjects of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another, shall ever be established by law.
And nothing herein shall be understood to affect any former contracts made for the support of the ministry; but all such contracts shall remain, and be in the same state as if this constitution had not been made.
Virginia Constitution of 1776
SEC. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Religion in the Original 13 Colonies
Aitken Bible
09/12/1782
Prior to the American Revolution, the only English Bibles in the colonies were imported either from Europe or England. Publication of the Bible was regulated by the British government, and required a special license. Robert Aitken's Bible was the first known English-language Bible to be printed in America, and also the only Bible to receive Congressional approval. Aitken's Bible, sometimes referred to as "The Bible of the Revolution," is one of the rarest books in the world, with few copies still in existence today.
 |
History of the Aitken Bible
On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken presented a "memorial" [petition] to Congress offering to print "a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools." This is the text of that memorial:
To the Honourable The Congress
of the United States of America
The Memorial of Robert Aitken
of the City of Philadelphia, Printer
Humbly Sheweth
That in every well regulated Government in Christendom The Sacred Books of the Old and New Testament, commonly called the Holy Bible, are printed and published under the Authority of the Sovereign Powers, in order to prevent the fatal confusion that would arise, and the alarming Injuries the Christian Faith might suffer from the Spurious and erroneous Editions of Divine Revelation. That your Memorialist has no doubt but this work is an Object worthy the attention of the Congress of the United States of America, who will not neglect spiritual security, while they are virtuously contending for temporal blessings. Under this persuasion your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools, But being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible to Issue forth without the sanction of Congress, Humbly prays that your Honours would take this important matter into serious consideration & would be pleased to appoint one Member or Members of your Honourable Body to inspect his work so that the same may be published under the Authority of Congress. And further, your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States, provided the same be in all things perfectly consonant to the Scriptures as heretofore Established and received amongst us.
After appointing a committee to study the project, Congress acted on September 12, 1782, by "highly approv[ing of] the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken." The endorsement by Congress was printed in the Aitken Bible:
 |
The endorsement was signed by Charles Thomson, who was Secretary of the Continental Congress. Thomson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, is also famous for "Thomson's Bible," the first American translation of the Greek Septuagint, published in 1808 (Thomson was an accomplished theologian, publishing such works as "A Regular History of the Conception, Birth, Doctrine, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ.")
Robert Aitken printed three documents in the front of his Bible, the report of the committee established to review his memorial; the report of the Congressional Chaplains; and Congresses endorsement. Below is the text of these documents:
BY THE UNITED STATES IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED:
September 12th, 1782.
THE Committee to whom was referred a Memorial of Robert Aitken, printer, dated 21st January, 1781, respecting an edition of the Holy Scriptures, report, "That Mr. Aitken has, at a great expense, now finished an American edition of the Holy Scriptures in English; that the Committee have from time to time attended to his progress in the work; that they also recommended it to the two Chaplains of Congress to examine and give their opinion of the execution, who have accordingly reported thereon; the recommendation and report being as follows:
"Philadelphia, 1st September, 1782.
"Reverend Gentlemen,
"Our knowledge of our piety and public spirit leads us without apology to recommend to your particular attention the edition of the Holy Scriptures publishing by Mr. Aitken. He undertook this expensive work at a time when, from the circumstances of the war, and English edition of the Bible could not be imported, nor any opinion formed how long the obstruction might continue. On this account particularly he deserves applause and encouragement. We therefore wish you, Reverend Gentlemen, to examine the execution of the work, and if approved, to give the sanction of our judgment, and the weigh of your recommendation.
We are, with very great respect,
Your most obedient humble servants.
(Sign'd) JAMES DUANE, Chairman in behalf
of a Committee of Congress on Mr. Atken's Memorial.
Reverend Doct. White and Revd. Mr. Duffield,
Chaplains of the United States in Congress assembled.
Report.
Gentlemen,
AGREEABLY to your desire we have paid attention to Mr. Robert Aitken's impression of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Having selected and examined a variety of passages throughout the work, we are of opinion that it is executed with great accuracy as to the sense, and with as few grammatical and typographical errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude. Being ourselves witnesses of the demand for this invaluable book, we rejoice in the present prospect of a supply; hoping that it will prove as advantageous as it is honorable to the Gentleman, who has exerted himself to furnish it, at the evident risk of private fortune. We are, Gentlemen,
Your very respectful and humble servants,
(Sign'd) WILLIAM WHITE,
GEORGE DUFFIELD.
Philadelphia, September 10th, 1782.
Honble James Duane, Esq. Chairman, and the other
Honble Gentlemen of the Committee of Congress on
Mr. Aitken's Memorial."
Whereupon,
RESOLVED,
THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.
CHA. THOMSON, Sec'ry.
In 1968, the American Bible Society reprinted the Aitken Bible, this is the title page of that reprint:
 |
IV. Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89
The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.
Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.
The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."
 The Liberty WindowAt its initial meeting in September 1774 Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776. He defected to the British the next year. Pictured here in the bottom stained-glass panel is the first prayer in Congress, delivered by Duché. The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215.
Stained glass and lead, from The Liberty Window, Christ Church, Philadelphia, after a painting by Harrison Tompkins Matteson, c. 1848 Courtesy of the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church, Philadelphia (101)
Oil on canvas by Charles Peale Polk, 1790 Independence National Historical Park Collection, Philadelphia (103)
Broadside, April 22, 1782 Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (102)
Holograph notes, Benjamin Franklin (left) and Thomas Jefferson (right) Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (104-105)
"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." Drawing by Benson Lossing, for Harper's New Monthly Magazine, July 1856. General Collections, Library of Congress. (106) First Great Seal Committee – July/August 1776
For the design team, Congress chose three of the five men who were on the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence. Although these distinguished committee members were among the ablest minds in the new nation, they had little knowledge of heraldry. To help convey their vision, they chose the artist Pierre Eugène Du Simitière to work with them. Skilled in portraiture and heraldry (the state seals of Delaware and New Jersey are his designs), Du Simitière was also an avid collector of all things American and founded the first history museum in the United States. The four men consulted among themselves between July 4 and August 13, then each brought before the committee a suggestion for the design of the Great Seal. Benjamin Franklin's proposal is preserved in a note of his own handwriting: "Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity. Thomas Jefferson also suggested allegorical scenes. For the front of the seal: children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. For the reverse: Hengist and Horsa, the two brothers who were the legendary leaders of the first Anglo-Saxon settlers in Britain. John Adams chose the allegorical painting known as the "Judgment of Hercules" where the young Hercules must choose to travel either on the flowery path of self-indulgence or ascend the rugged, uphill way of duty to others and honor to himself. Du Simitière designed a proper heraldic seal that the committee liked and submitted to Congress on August 20, 1776: "The shield has six Quarters... pointing out the Countries from which these States have been peopled."
The shield is bordered with the initials for "each of the thirteen independent States of America."
Supporting the Shield on its right side: "The Goddess of Liberty in a corslet of armour alluding to the present Times, holding in her right hand the Spear & Cap and with her left supporting the Shield of the states."
Below left is an 1856 realization of the first committee's design. (The states' initials should be around the shield, not the outside of the seal.) On the right is the reverse side (also drawn in 1856).
The Reverse Side of the Great Seal "Pharaoh sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his head and a Sword in his hand, passing through the divided Waters of the Red Sea in Pursuit of the Israelites: Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Cloud, expressive of the divine Presence and Command, beaming on Moses who stands on the shore and extending his hand over the Sea causes it to overwhelm Pharaoh." Motto: "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God" The same day Congress received the committee's report, it was "Ordered, To lie on the table." In other words, Congress was unimpressed by their design.
Broadside Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (107)
Broadside Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (108)
Broadside Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (109)
Broadside Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (110)
and filling out Privateers, together with the Rules and Regulations of the Navy, and Instructions to Private Ships of War [page 16] - [page 17] Philadelphia: John Dunlap, 1776 Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (113)
Horn, c. 1876 Mariner's Museum, Newport News, Virginia (114)
Philadelphia: David C. Claypoole, 1782 from the Journals of Congress Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (115)
Philadelphia: printed and sold by R. Aitken, 1782 Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (116)
Broadside, Continental Congress, 1785 Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (117)
Broadside, Continental Congress, 1787 Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (118)
Records of the Continental Congress in the Constitutional Convention, July 27, 1787 National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C. (119)
of the United Brethren [left page] - [right page] David Zeisberger Philadelphia: Mary Cist, 1806 Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (120)
|
"Resolved, That Dr. Franklin, Mr. J. Adams and Mr. Jefferson, be a committee, to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America." – July 4, 1776, Journals of Continental Congress 
The Separation of Church and State
David Barton - 01/2001
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
The election of Jefferson – America's first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.
Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. [1]
However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for "the free exercise of religion":
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. [2]
In short, the inclusion of protection for the "free exercise of religion" in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone's religious practice caused him to "work ill to his neighbor."
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. [7]
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. [8]
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson's view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. [9]
Jefferson's reference to "natural rights" invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase "natural rights" communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.
By definition, "natural rights" included "that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain." [10] That is, "natural rights" incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their "natural rights" they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.
So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America's inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? [11]
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "fence" of the Webster letter and the "wall" of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.
Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded:
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) [12]
That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state":
[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13]
With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government "to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor."
That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.
Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were "subversive of good order" and were "overt acts against peace." However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in "the Books of the Law and the Gospel" – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
Therefore, if Jefferson's letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson's Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson's Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.
For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the "power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States" (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.
One further note should be made about the now infamous "separation" dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state." It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
In summary, the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
Endnotes
1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. (Return)
2. Id. (Return)
3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179. (Return)
4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. (Return)
5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. (Return)
6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808. (Return)
7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790. (Return)
8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800. (Return)
9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. (Return)
10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207. (Return)
11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237. (Return)
12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878). (Return)
13. Reynolds at 163. (Return)
Early Court Decisions on the Separation of Church and State
Runkel v. Winemiller, 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."
The People v. Ruggles, 1811
"[W]e are a Christian people and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity and not upon the doctrines or worship of those imposters [other religions].... [We are a] people whose manners... and whose morals have been elevated and inspired... by means of the Christian religion.
Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment... This [constitutional] declaration, noble and magnanimous as it is, when duly understood, never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law..."
Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 1824
"The assertion is once more made that Christianity never was received as part of the common law of this Christian land; and... if it was, it was virtually repealed by the Constitution of the United States...
We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection -- the constitutionality of Christianity... Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law... not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.
Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws for a Christian country and a Christian people.... [T]hus it is irrefragably proved that the laws and institutions of this State are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity.... In this the Constitution of the United States has made no alteration nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity."
City of Charlston v. Benjamin, 1846
"Christianity is part of the common law of the land, with liberty of conscience to all. It has always been so recognized.... If Christianity is a part of the common law, its disturbance is punishable as common law. The U.S. Constitution allows it as part of the common law.... The observance of Sunday is one of the usages of the common law recognized by our U.S. and State Governments.... Christianity is part and parcel of the common law.... Christianity has reference to the principles of right and wrong... it is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed; it is their basis. Remove it and they would fall... it [morality] has grown upon the basis of Christianity."
"What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There certainly is none other.... The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of Pagan immorality...."
"In the Courts over which we preside, we daily acknowledge Christianity as the most solemn part of our administration. A Christian witness, having no scruples about placing his hand upon the book, is sworn upon the holy Evangelists -- the books of the New Testament which testify of our Savior's birth, life, death, and resurrection; this is so common a matter that it is little thought of as an evidence of the part which Christianity has in the common law...."
Commonwealth v. Nesbit, 1859
"By our... laws against vice and immorality we do not mean to enforce religion; we admit that to be impossible. But we do mean to protect our customs, no matter that they may have originated in our [Christian] religion; for they are essential parts of our social life.... Law can never become entirely infidel; for it is essentially founded on the moral customs of men and the very generating principles of these is most often religion."
Lindenmuller v. The People, 1860
"It would be strange for a people Christian in doctrine and worship, many of whom or whose forefathers had sought these shores for the privilege of worshipping God in simplicity and purity of faith, and who regarded religion as the basis of their civil liberty and the foundation of their rights, should, in their zeal to secure to all the freedom of conscience which they valued so highly, solemnly repudiate and put beyond the pale of the law the religion which was dear to them as life and dethrone the God who they openly and avowedly professed to believe had been their protector and guide as a people."
"All agreed that the Christian religion was engrafted upon the law and entitled to protection as the basis of our morals and the strength of our government."
Davis v. Beason, 1889
"Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States.... To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind....
Probably never before 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... must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect... may be carried out without hindrance."
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892
"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.... These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic [official, governmental] utterances that this is a Christian nation."
United States v. Macintosh, 1931
"We are a Christian people... according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God."
Zorach v. Clausen, 1952
"The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State.... Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly....
We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.... When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities... it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifnature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not, would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.... [W]e find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.... We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion."
Court Rulings and Decisions prior to 1945
| • | 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." |
| • | In 1811 the New York state court upheld an indictment for blasphemous utterances against Christ, and in its ruling, given by Chief Justice Kent, the court said, "We are Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of other religions. In people whose manners are refined, and whose morals have been elevated and inspired with a more enlarged benevolence, it is by means of the Christian religion."[43] |
| • | In 1861 this same court said that "Christianity may be conceded to be the established religion."[19] |
| • | Vidal v. Girad's Executors, 1844. "Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in [schools] — its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? . . .Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? — Unanimous Decision Commending and Encouraging the use of the Bible in Government-Run Schools.[43,48] |
| • | Commonwealth v. Nesbitt, 1859: The court listed representative actions into which, if perpetrated in the name of religion, the government had legitimate reason to intrude: human sacrifice concubinage, incest, injury to children, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc. In all other orthodox religious practices where the public prayer, the use of the scriptures or whatever, the government was not to interfere. The clearly understood of the intent of Jefferson's letter and the way his phrase was applied for nearly a century and a half.[48] |
| • | Reynolds v. United States, 1878: The Court presented Jefferson's full letter, not just the eight words, "A wall of Separation between Church and State" and summed the intent of his phrase "Congress was deprived of all legislative powers over mere [religious] opinions but was left free to reach [only those religious] actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." [The rightful purpose of civil government regarding religion was] to interfere [with religion only] when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In this is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the state."[48] |
| • | In the case of Holy Trinity v. United States in 1892, after thoroughly researching volumes of founder's documents and citing an amazing 89 precedents, declared: "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."[13] |
| • | As justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States v. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion."[20] |
Religion and Government — Equal Partners
After signing the American Declaration of Independence, the new Congress appointed a committee to design a great seal of the United States. Committeeman Thomas Jefferson suggested the seal should include the children of Israel in the wilderness, led day and night by cloud and fire. Committeeman Ben Franklin suggested a more fitting image would be Moses, dividing the red sea, and pharaoh in his chariot being swamped by the returning waters. And the motto: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."[30]
The Continental Congress hired a chaplain — Rev. Jacob Duche, an Episcopal minister — to open their first meeting in 1774 with prayer. Rev. Duche read the Episcopal Church's assigned scripture reading for that day which just happened to be Psalm 35 that reads, in part, "Plead my cause, O LORD, with those who strive with me; Fight against those who fight against me. Take hold of shield and buckler, And stand up for my help. Also draw out the spear, And stop those who pursue me." (NKJV) Then Rev. Duche led them into a long and extemporaneous prayer. The Psalm and the prayer were very moving to the delegates. John Adams wrote his wife Abigail, "I never saw a greater effect upon [an] audience. It seemed as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to read on that morning. I must beg you to read that Psalm."[45]
Congress has been opening with prayer ever since.[45]
The Continental Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, ... imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war.[16]
The Minutemen, so called because they could be called to fight a minute's notice had strong ties to Christianity. The Minutemen were largely deacons out of churches because it was people like the Rev Jonas Clark who rallied his church deacons to go out and defend their town from attack. One of the clear teachings they believed was that they had the God given right of self defense; that it was a Biblical right.[45]
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration and member of Continental Congress: "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." - The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry by Bernard C. Steiner 1907, from a letter from Charles Carroll, Nov. 4, 1800.[5]
"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in the order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour [sic] of the Universe." — James Madison[39]
"... prior to 1789 (the year that eleven of the thirteen states ratified the Constitution), many of the states still had constitutional requirements that a man must be a Christian in order to hold public office."[26]
"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart." — President Thomas Jefferson[40]
From The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, P. 36: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."[13]
"The Promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providences of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social and benevolent virtues — these can never be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed,difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them." — Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story[37]
To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness, which mankind now enjoys . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government - and all blessings which flow from them — must fall with them. — Jedediah Morse, Patriot, called "The Father of American Geography"[28]
James Wilson and William Patterson — placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room.[13]
We are a Christian people ... not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay due regard to Christianity? — Senate Judiciary Committee Report, January 19, 1853[5]
Government and the Bible
The Continental Congress, in 1777, recommended and approved that the Committee of Commerce "import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere," because of the great need of the American people and the great shortage caused by the interruption of trade with England by the Revolutionary War.[14]
Under British law it had been illegal to print a Bible in the English Language in America; after Surrender of British at Yorktown 1781, Congress approved the plan and established a committee to oversee the printing of America's very first very own English Bible. The endorsement in the front of it read, "The United States and Congress assembled recommends this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States."[15]
The Church in the State
Church services were held The Old House of Representatives in what is now called Statuary Hall from 1807 to 1857. The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the "hall" of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the "Oven," which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years. ... The Speaker's podium was used as the preacher's pulpit.[16]
Manasseh Cutler, In his journal dated December 23, 1804, describes a four-hour communion service in the Treasury Building, conducted by a Presbyterian minister, the Reverend James Laurie: "Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. Laurie alone. Sacrament. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours."[16]
Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. . . . Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.[16]
John Quincy Adams, a US Senator in 1803, wrote in his diary, "Religious Service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury Office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury."[15]
Inside the Capitol, just off the rotunda, is a prayer and meditation room that was set aside by the 83rd Congress for members' use. The focal point of the room is a magnificent stained glass window depicting George Washington kneeling in prayer. Etched around him are the words from Psalm 16:1 "Preserve me, O God, for in thee do I put my trust."[17]
Religion in Public Education
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."[13]
Thomas Paine, in his discourse on "The Study of God," forcefully asserts that it is "the error of schools" to teach sciences without "reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin." He laments that "the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism."[13]
The following five quotations are from "A Defense of the Use of the Bible in Schools" (1830) by Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, member of Continental Congress, and founder of 5 universities.
"Let the children ... be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education.[36]
"In Scotland and in parts of New England, where the Bible has been long used as a schoolbook, the inhabitants are among the most enlightened in religions and science, the most strict in morals, and the most intelligent in human affairs of any people whose history has come to my knowledge upon the surface of the globe."[36]
"We err, not only in human affairs but in religion likewise, only because we do not "know the Scriptures" and obey their instructions. Immense truths, I believe, are concealed in them. The time, I have no doubt, will come when posterity will view and pity our ignorance of these truths as much as we do the ignorance sometimes manifested by the disciples of our Savior, who knew nothing of the meaning of those plain passages in the Old Testament which were daily fulfilling before their eyes.
"The perfect morality of the Gospel rests upon a doctrine which, though often controverted, has never been refuted; I mean the vicarious life and death of the Son of God … By withholding the knowledge of this doctrine from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds . . .I cannot but suspect that the present fashionable practice of rejecting the Bible from our schools has originated from deists. And they discovered great ingenuity in this new mode of attacking Christianity. If they proceed in it, they will do more in a half a century in extirpating our religion than Bolingbroke or Voltaire could have effected in a thousand years " — Benjamin Rush: A Defense of the Use of the Bible in Schools[36]
"Surely future generations wouldn't try to take the Bible out of schools. In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, if we were to remove the Bible from schools, I lament that we could be wasting so much time and money in punishing crime and would be taking so little pains to prevent them."[5]
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration and member of Continental Congress: "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry by Bernard C. Steiner 1907, from a letter from Charles Carroll, Nov. 4, 1800.[5]
Thomas Jefferson signed a bill to build a church at government expense for the Indians. He signed a bill to pay the salary of a missionary to the Indians. He recommended and signed treaties which gave federal government money to support a Roman Catholic priest in his priestly duties and to help build a Roman Catholic church. Jefferson, while president, was also the Chairman of the Board for education in Washington, DC, and he required that two books be taught in our schools — the Bible and Watt's Hymnal. "Thomas Jefferson, the guru of separation of church and state, whose name has been lifted up as a reason for snatching away Bibles from numerous little kids who have read them on recess or at their lunch break because they say Thomas Jefferson would never countenance having Bibles in the school. He mandated it!!"[3, 20]
Noah Webster, Founding Father, scholar, author of the first and still respected American Dictionary: "The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of governments." 1832, History of the United States, Noah Webster, America's God and Country, William Federer, p.678[5]
John Marshal argued, by some to be our greatest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it." - letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833[5]
Public Religious Testimonies in our National Capital
The words "In God We Trust" are inscribed in the House and Senate chambers.[21]
On the walls of the Capitol dome, these words appear: "The New Testament according to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."[21]
The Capitol Rotunda contains eight massive oil paintings, each depicting a major event in history. Four of these paintings portray Jesus Christ and the Bible: 1) Columbus landing on the shores of the New World, and holding high the cross of Jesus Christ, 2) a group of Dutch pilgrims gathered around a large, opened Bible, 3) a cross being planted in the soil, commemorating the discovery of the Mississippi River by the Explorer DeSoto, and 4) the Christian baptism of the Indian convert Pocahontas.[14]
Also in the Rotunda is the figure of the crucified Christ.[21]
Statuary Hall contains life size statues of famous citizens that have been given by individual states. Medical missionary Marcus Whitman stands big as life, holding a Bible. Another statue is of missionary Junipero Serra, who founded the missions of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Monterey and San Diego. Illinois sent a statue of Francis Willard, an associate of the evangelist Dwight L. Moody.[14]
The Latin phrase Annuit Coeptis, "[God] has smiled on our undertaking," is inscribed on the Great Seal of the United States.[21]
Under the Seal is the phrase from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: "This nation under God."[21]
President Eliot of Harvard chose Micah 6:8 for the walls of the Library of Congress: "He hath shown thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (KJV).[21]
Also inscribed on the walls of the Library of Congress honoring the study of art, is "Nature is the art of God." A quote honoring Science says, "The heavens declare the glory of God."[14]
The lawmakers' library quotes the psalmist's acknowledgment of the beauty and order of creation: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork" Psalm 19:1 KJV).[21]
Engraved on the metal cap on the top of the Washington Monument are the words: "Praise be to God." Lining the walls of the stairwell are numerous Bible verses: "Search the Scriptures" (John 5:39 KJV), "Holiness to the Lord," and "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6 KJV).[21]
At the opposite end of the Lincoln Memorial, words and phrases from Lincoln's second inaugural address allude to "God," the "Bible," "providence," "the Almighty," and "divine attributes."[21]
A plaque in the Dirksen Office Building has the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" in bronze relief.[21]
The Ten Commandments hang over the Supreme Court bench.[21]
Original Intent Of First Amendment
The words "Separation of Church and State" are NOT FOUND in any American Founding Document.
"[In] the Congressional Records from June 7th through September 25th, 1789 (when they framed the first amendment) the founders explained clearly and succinctly that all they wanted to preclude what they had experienced in Great Britain. They did not want the establishment by the Federal Government of one single domination and the exclusion of all others. There is not going to be, by government decree, one national denomination in America. This is why the wording in the first amendment prevents Congress from the establishment of religion, or in the words proposed by James Madison, the chief architect of the constitution, "the establishment of a national religion."[48]
The records show a dozen or so iterations which they, themselves, proposed.[48]
| • | Original version proposed in the Senate on September 3rd, 1789: "Congress shall not make any law establishing any religious denomination." |
| • | Second version: "Congress shall not make any law establishing any particular denomination." |
| • | Third version: "Congress shall not make any law establishing any particular denomination in preference to others." |
| • | Final version, passed on that day: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." agreed upon by the house and the senate. In their words, the word religion was interchangeable with the word denomination. |
The First Amendment denied Congress the power of establishing any particular religion or restricting the free exercise of any religion. The people and statesmen who gave us the First Amendment did not want a union of church and state in the sense of a national established church. But neither did they want to divorce Christianity from our national counsels, fundamental law, or laws made pursuant to the Constitution. ... They wanted a separation of church and state without a separation of Christianity and civil government, law or public life.[21]
The Separation of Church and State never meant to separate God from government — Chief Justice Roy Moore, Alabama[23]
"No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint, and each is permitted to worship his maker after his own judgment. The offices of government are open alike to all. The Mohammedan, if he will come to live among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political institutions." — John Tyler, 10th President of the US[22]
Founding Father's Views on Church and State
From a letter that John Adams wrote his wife Abigail on the day they approved the Declaration of Independence: "I am apt to believe that [this day] will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the 'Day of Deliverance' by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty!"[13]
Patrick Henry (Served in the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1776 and worked successfully to have first 10 amendments added to the US Constitution) stated: "Whether this [new government] will prove a blessing or a curse will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation [Proverbs 14:34]. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself and encourage it in others."[41]
Fisher Ames: (A Founding Father who, according the congressional records on 9/20/1789, offered the final wording of the first amendment) wrote in an article written for a national magazine in 1801 expressing concern that as more and more textbooks were being introduced into the school classrooms, that the Bible might someday drift to the back of the classroom. "Why then, if these new books for children must be retained as they will be, why should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book?" Clearly the use of the Bible in schools did not violate his view of the first amendment.[48]
Noah Webster (Founding Father, an educator, a solider during the Revolution, a legislator in Connecticut and Massachusetts, a judge and the man responsible for article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution) writing in a textbook he authored for students, he identified the reasons that serious social problems might befall America. "All the miseries and evils that men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."[48]
In his first Inaugural Address, President Washington (President of the convention which framed the constitution, President of the United States who called for and oversaw the formation and the ratification of the Bill of Rights including the first amendment) stated, "It would be improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplication to that Almighty Being.... No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than people of the United States.... We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." The Inaugural Ceremony concluded with a church service at Saint Paul's Chapel, led by the chaplains of Congress.[35]
George Washington's Farewell Address was printed as a separate text book for over a century because of its singular importance. Students were taught it was the most significant political speech ever delivered by an American President. Virtually unknown today, it has not been seen in most American History book for more than four decades. Clearly he understood the constitutional intent and the meaning of the first amendment. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars . . .Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. . . .Where is the security for life, for reputation, for property if the sense for religious obligation desert?"[48]
Robert Winthorp, an early Speaker of the House of Representatives: "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or a power without them. Either by the Word of God or the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or the bayonet."[48]
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration and member of Continental Congress: "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." — The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry by Bernard C. Steiner 1907, from a letter from Charles Carroll, Nov. 4, 1800.[5]
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, member of Continental Congress, founder of 5 universities: "The only foundation for … a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." America's God and Country, William Federer, p.543[5]
John Witherspoon, signer of The Declaration of Independence: "He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who set himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country." - speech at the College of New Jersey (Princeton) , May 17,1776, America's God and Country, William Federer, pp. 703-704[5]
"The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the 'public prosperity' of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a 'spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens,' Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."[16]
Repeatedly in early congressional records, the Bible was used as the premise for discussions and law making as illustrated from this excerpt from the Congressional Record of September 25, 1789 asking President Washington to declare the first National Thanksgiving holiday. "Mr. [Elias] Boudinot (who was the President of Congress during the American Revolution) said he could not think of letting the congressional session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings He had poured down upon them. With this view, therefore, he would move the following resolution: Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God . . . Mr. [Roger] Sherman (a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) justified the practice of thanksgiving on any signal event not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ . . . This example he thought worthy of a Christian imitation on the present occasion; and he would agree with the gentleman who moved the resolution . . . The question was put on the resolution and it was carried in the affirmative."[48]
First Amendment:
“Separation of Church and State”?
from America’s Godly Heritage | David Barton
The First Amendment never was intended to separate Christian principles from government. Yet, today, we often hear “First Amendment” coupled with the phrase, “separation of church and state.” The First Amendment simply states,Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Obviously, the words “separation,” “church,” or “state” are not found in the First Amendment. Furthermore, the phrase “separation of church and state” appears in NO founding document. While most people recognize the phrase “separation of church and state,” few know its source. But it is important to understand the origins of that phrase, as well as the history of the First Amendment.
The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear. Before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different revisions and intensive discussions. Those discussions, recorded in the U.S. Congressional Records, from June 7 to September 25, 1789, made clear their intent for the First Amendment.
By it, the Founders were saying that they did not want in America what they had had in Great Britain. They did not want one denomination running the nation. They did not want everybody to be Anglicans or Catholics or any single denomination. They wanted God’s principles to run the nation, not one denomination. This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment.
For instance, in the Runkel v. Winemiller case of 1799, a court made the following declaration:
By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing.They wanted Christian principles, and they wanted God’s principles. But they did not want one denomination to run the nation.
Thomas Jefferson, to whom the now-popular phrase “separation of church and state” is attributed, also believed (as did the other Founders) that the First Amendment simply prevented the federal establishment of a single denomination. He made this fact clear in a letter to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800. In that letter, Jefferson committed himself, as President, not to allow the Episcopalians, the Congregationalists, nor any other denomination to achieve what Jefferson called the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity.”
So what is the source of Jefferson’s now infamous phrase? On November 7, 1801, the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, wrote Jefferson. They were concerned that the guarantee of the “free exercise of religion” appeared in the First Amendment. To them, this suggested that the right to religious exercise was a government-granted, rather than a God-granted, right—thus implying that, some day, the government might try to regulate religious expression. They believed that the freedom of religion was a God-granted, unalienable right, and that government should be powerless to restrict religious activities unless, as the Baptists explained, those activities caused someone to “work ill to his neighbor.”
Jefferson understood their concern. In his response on January 1, 1802, he assured them that the free exercise of religion was, indeed, an unalienable right and would not be meddled with by the government. Jefferson pointed out to them that there was a “wall of separation between church and state,” to ensure that the government never would interfere with religious activities.
Today, all that is heard of Jefferson’s letter is the phrase, “a wall of separation between church and state,” without either the context or the explanation given in the letter, nor it’s application by earlier courts. The clear understanding of the First Amendment, for a century and a half, was that it prohibited the establishment of a single national denomination. In that century and a half, national policies always reflected that interpretation.
For example, in 1853, a group petitioned Congress to separate principles from government. They desired a so-called “separation of church and state,” with chaplains being turned out of Congress, the military, etc. Their petition was referred to House and the Senate Judiciary Committees, which investigated for almost a year to see if it would be possible to separate Christian principles from government. Eventually, both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees returned with their reports. Here are excerpts from the House report, delivered on March 27, 1854 (the Senate report was similar):
Had the people [the Founding Fathers], during the Revolution, a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. ... At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and its amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination]. ... In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity. ... That was the religion of the Founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.Two months later, the House Judiciary Committee made this strong declaration:
The great vital and conservative element in our system [the thing that holds our system together] is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.The Committees explained that they would not separate these principles, for it was these principles and activities that had made us so successful. They had been our foundation and our basis.
During the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s, there was another group which challenged, before the Supreme Court, specific Christian principles in government. Now, Jefferson’s letter had remained unused for years. As time had progressed after its use in 1802, and after no national denomination had been established, his letter had fallen into obscurity. But then, 75 years later, in the case of Reynolds v. the United States, the plaintiffs resurrected Jefferson’s letter, hoping to use it as an issue to their advantage.
At that time, the Court printed a lengthy segment of Jefferson’s letter. Then it used that letter on the “separation of church and state” to prove, again, that it was permissible to maintain Christian values, principles, and practices in official policy. For the next 15 years, during that legal controversy, the Supreme Court utilized Jefferson’s letter to ensure that Christian principles remained a part of government.
Following this controversy, Jefferson’s letter again fell into disuse. It remained silent for the next 70 years, until 1947 when, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education, the Court, for the first time, did not cite Jefferson’s entire letter but selected only eight words from it. The Court now announced,
The First Amendment has erected “a wall of separation between church and state.” That wall must be kept high and impregnable.This was a new philosophy for the Court. Why would the Court take Jefferson’s letter completely out of context and cite only eight of its words? Dr. William James, the father of modern psychology, and a strong opponent of religious principles in government and education, perhaps explained the Court’s new strategy when he stated,
There is nothing so absurd but that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.This statement precisely describes the tactic utilized by the Court in the years following its 1947 announcement. The Court regularly began to speak of a “separation of church and state,” broadly explaining, “This is what the Founders wanted—separation of church and state. This is their great intent.” The Court failed to quote the Founders; they just generically asserted that this is what the Founders wanted.
The Court continued on this track so steadily that in 1958, in a case called Bael v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges was tired of hearing the “separation of church and state” phrase. He wrote a dissent warning that if this court did not stop talking about the “separation of church and state,” people were going to start thinking that it was part of the Constitution.
Nevertheless, the Court continued talking about “separation” until June 25, 1962, when in the case of Engel v. Vitale, the Court delivered its first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from education. The Court struck down school prayer. Even the World Book Encyclopedia, 1963 Yearbook, noted that this case had been the first time that there had been a “separation of church and state” in education.
In the 1962 case, the Court redefined the meaning and the application of a single word: “church.” For 170 years prior to that case, the Court had defined “church,” as used in the phrase “separation of church and state,” as being a federally established denomination. However, in 1962, the Court explained that the word “church” now would mean any religious activity performed in public. This was a turning point in the interpretation of the First Amendment.
No longer would the First Amendment simply prohibit the establishment of a federal denomination. It now would prohibit religious activities in public settings. The current doctrine defining “separation of church and state” is a brand new doctrine. It is not something from the Founding Fathers, and it is not in any founding document. Even outside observers recognize that this policy is a recent one. Yet notice how much has been relinquished in recent years under this new doctrine.
School prayer was the first casualty of the redefinition of the First Amendment in the early 1962 Engel case. School prayer never before had been challenged, for clearly school prayer never had established a national denomination and, therefore, always had been acceptable. But, under the new definition, school prayer was a religious activity in public and, therefore, was deemed to be “unconstitutional.”
That 1962 case, which first redefined the First Amendment, and then removed school prayer, was notable in a number of aspects. An 1892 Supreme Court case, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United states, had offered 87 precedents to maintain the inclusion of Christian principles in our laws and in our institutions. But the 1962 case, which removed school prayer, was just the opposite. It was the first case in court history to use zero precedents. The Court quoted zero previous legal cases; and without any historical or legal base, the Court essentially made this announcement: “We’ll not have prayers in school anymore. That violates the Constitution.”
A brand new direction had been taken in America. Within a twelve-month period of time, with two more cases in 1963 (Abington v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett), the Court not only reaffirmed the ban on school prayer, but it but also removed Bible reading, religious classes, and religious instruction from schools. This was a radical reversal, since many school textbooks prior up to that time freely printed Christian and biblical information. A school textbook from 1946 illustrates this.
Remember, the Founders of this nation relied on the Bible, early textbooks quoted the Bible, and early Supreme Court cases ruled that a school must teach religion and the Bible. Therefore, on what possible basis could the 1963 Supreme Court have justified its rulings to stop the use of the Bible in public schools? The Court always explains its decisions in written form. In the decision for the 1963 cases, the Court wrote,
If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and...had been psychologically harmful to the child.Now that is quite a statement. For the second time in the same year, here was a case lacking both historical and legal precedent. Again, the Court simply made a new announcement of policy: “No more Bible reading in schools.”
The Court continued to extend the new boundary outward. In 1965, in the case Reed v. Van Hoven, the Court determined that it was possible for students to pray over their lunches in school, so long as no one knew they were praying. They couldn’t say words or move their lips, but they could pray if no one knew about it.
In DeKalb v. DeSpain, 1967, the Court declared a four-line nursery rhyme, used by a kindergarten class, to be “unconstitutional.” The Court explained that although the word “God” was not contained in this nursery rhyme, if someone were to hear the rhyme, someone might think that it was talking about God—and that would be “unconstitutional.” When the Court declares something unconstitutional, it is inferring that our Founding Fathers, the men who drafted the Constitution, would have opposed it.
Yet, notice what James Wilson—a signer of the Constitution, an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, and co-author of America’s first commentaries on the Constitution—had to say about this:
Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are “twin sisters.” Indeed, these two societies run into each other. The Divine law...forms an essential part of both.Our Founders were clear about the important and inseparable role that religious principles played in the public life of the nation.
This trend continued in case after case, year after year. Previously, the existence of the Ten Commandments on the walls of school classrooms was not a problem. It was assumed that students could look at them or not look at them, as they wished. However, in 1980, in Stone v. Graham, the Court determined,
If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey the Commandments...[which] is not a permissible...objective.Essentially, they were saying that we cannot let students see the Ten Commandments, because if they do, they might obey them—things like “do not steal” and “do not kill”—and that would be “unconstitutional.”
The entire controversy over God and religious activities and teachings in school had begun with a 22-word prayer in the Engel v. Vitale case (1962). That prayer, which led to the removal of all prayers from America’s schools, read as follows:
Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country.That prayer, which only acknowledged God, and didn’t even contain the word Jesus, was a “bland” prayer. In fact, it was so bland that eight years later a court, when discussing that prayer, described it as a “to whom it may concern” prayer.
That bland prayer had acknowledged God only one time—the same number of times that God is acknowledged in the Pledge of Allegiance and only one-fourth the number of times that God is acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence. Yet, the prayer had been declared “unconstitutional.”
Here are the four categories in that prayer on which God’s blessings were asked:
- students (“upon us”)
- families (upon “our parents”)
- schools (upon “our teachers”)
- the nation (upon “our Country”).
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.Essentially, Washington warned that to lose religious principles would be to lose national morality. The second president, John Adams, explained that there was no government in the world that was able to make someone do what was right or able to control those who did not wish to be controlled. Adams explained,
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.The Founders believed that the Constitution worked only for people who had internal restraints and internal controls, for people who had used the Word of God as their standard. We have moved away from that. Clearly, the Constitution, apart from religious principles, is not working the way it should—a fact evident on all the charts and statistics.
There are clear references to the Triune God and to Christian principles in state constitutions:
Every person appointed to public office shall say, “I do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration” (Delaware Constitution, 1776).An acknowledgement of Christian belief was a requirement for holding public office during the years of the Founding Fathers. This requirement is consistent with the First Amendment, because it did not require someone to be a member of one specific denomination to hold public office. It did not say that you had to be a Methodist, a Lutheran, a Catholic, an Anglican, a Presbyterian, or a Baptist; but it did say that you had to understand God’s principles, and you had to understand the Word of God, to hold office.
Each member [of the legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the wicked” (Pennsylvania and Vermont Constitutions).The constitutions of the other states were very similar. Basically, a politician wouldn’t just answer to the voters; he/she would be individually accountable to God. But what about the accountability of a nation to God?
On the floor of the Constitutional Convention, in 1787, was explained the difference between individual accountability to God and national accountability to God. An individual answers to God in the future. However, when a nation dies, it is forever dead; it will not be resurrected in the future to answer for what it has done. Therefore, when does a nation answer to God?
George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights, explained,
As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.The Founders believed that God would deal with a nation right now, in the present, for the stands that it takes. A nation has no other time to answer to God than in the present. Perhaps this is the best explanation as to why all the charts broke dramatically in 1962-63 when, for the first time in the nation’s history, we officially told God that He no longer was welcome in the public affairs of this nation. The charts simply illustrate a principle the Founders understood, believed, and discussed: A nation either will suffer or be blessed for the stands of its leaders.
Perhaps the most famous speech ever delivered by Benjamin Franklin was on June 28, 1787, on the floor of the Constitutional Convention. He reminded the delegates that they needed God to be their friend, not their enemy, and their ally, not their adversary. He said that they needed to keep God’s “concurring aid.” Franklin warned,
If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, it is probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We’ve been assured in the sacred writing that “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”Thus, Benjamin Franklin called for regular, daily prayer to make sure that the people of the nation kept God in the midst of what they were doing. The third president, Thomas Jefferson, also understood this principle. He declared,
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis—a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.A nation does answer to God for the stands it takes. This understanding of national accountability to God has been part of our heritage and part of our history. Our Founders understood that a nation needs to take stands which line up with God’s principles so that God’s blessings and his “concurring aid,” as Franklin described it, could rest on that nation. The so-called “separation of church and state,” as we have it today,
- is NOT the teaching of this nation’s Founders,
- is NOT a historical teaching,
- is NOT a teaching of law (until recent decades), and
- is NOT a biblical teaching.
References cited in this section
| 1 | The Bill of Rights | |
| 2 | "What do I owe the government?" Answers to your Kid's Questions, Chuck Colson, 2000, Tyndall House, Wheaton, IL | |
| 3 | "These Shall Not Have Died in Vain," D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries, PO Box 555, Ft Lauderdale FL 33302 | |
| 4 | "Our Conscience Formed: The Founding of America", Reclaiming the Lost Legacy, Coral Ridge Ministries, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2001. | |
| 5 | PaleoConservative Wisdom | |
| 6 | Mayflower Compact | |
| 7 | Articles of Confederation | |
| 8 | The Declaration of Independence | |
| 9 | Declaration on Taking up Arms | |
| 10 | The Northwest Ordinance | |
| 11 | Constitution of the United States | |
| 12 | Video "One Nation Under God," Coral Ridge Ministries, PO Box 555, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302,, 2001. | |
| 13 | Wallbuilders | |
| 14 | America's Christian Heritage - Part Two - The Revolution and Beyond | |
| 15 | Video: A Spiritual Tour of the Capitol, WallBuilders, PO Box 397, Aledo, TX 76008 | |
| 16 | Library of Congress: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | |
| 17 | "Prayer returns to front," Dayle Shockley, Dallas Morning News, 10/12/2001 | |
| 18 | Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3 | |
| 19 | "Local Solutions," Whatever Happened to the American Dream, Larry Burkett, 1993, Moody Press, Chicago | |
| 20 | A Christian Manifesto - Francis A. Schaeffer, 1981, Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL | |
| 21 | Reclaiming the Lost Legacy, various authors, Coral ridge Ministries, 2001 (P O Box 555, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302) | |
| 22 | "Our 'noble experiment' is being tested," Terry Eastland, Dallas Morning News, 11/5/2001 | |
| 23 | Coral Ridge Hour, TV Program, 10/14/2001 | |
| 24 | Family Voice, September/October 2000, Concerned Women For America, PO Box 65453, Washington DC 20035 | |
| 25 | A Nation Without Conscience, Tim and Beverly Lahaye, Concerned Women For America, 1994 | |
| 26 | The Role of the Bible and Christianity in America | |
| 27 | Jeremiah Project: Separation of Church and State | |
| 28 | In God We Trust | |
| 29 | The Separation of Church and State | |
| 31 | America's Godly Heritage | |
| 30 | First Great Seal Committee – July 1776 | |
| 31 | The Soaring Arrow | |
| 32 | God and Country | |
| 33 | Commentary on The Declaration of Independence | |
| 34 | "America's Christian Heritage," Mind Siege, Tim Lahaye and David Noebel, Word Publishing, 2000 | |
| 35 | George Washington's First Inaugural Address | |
| 36 | A Defense of the use of the Bible in schools | |
| 37 | Rule of Law | |
| 38 | America's Judeo Christian Heritage Foundational Quotes | |
| 39 | A Puritan's Mind | |
| 40 | America's Christian Heritage | |
| 41 | Patrick Henry | |
| 42 | Does American government need the Ten Commandments anymore? | |
| 43 | Christian Evidences Part II | |
| 44 | Separation of Church and State: Has it gone too far? | |
| 45 | Coral Ridge Hour Memorial Day TV Special, 5/30/2004, Coral Ridge Ministries, PO Box 555, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302,, 2001. | |
| 46 | Charters of Freedom: Bill of Rights | |
| 47 | United States Ambassador to France | |
| 48 | 1992 Video "Separation of Church and State," Wallbuilders, Inc., PO Box 397, Aledo, TX 76008 | |
| 49 | The Full Text of Thomas Jefferson's Letter | |
| 50 | Address by Dr. Daniel L. Dreisbach at the Center For Reclaiming America For Christ broadcast on the Coral Ridge Hour, July 22, 2007. | |
| 51 | Thomas Jefferson and the Mammoth Cheese | |
| 52 | Daniel L. Dreisbach | |
| 53 | Government and Theocracy | |
| 54 | Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3 | |
| 55 | BOE of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens | |
| 56 | Nude Dancing |
| Church in the U.S. Capitol | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| David Barton - 11/10/2005 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol's use as a church, and some of the prominent individuals who attended services there.
The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson's approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.
Significantly, the Capitol building had been used as a church even for years before it was occupied by Congress. The cornerstone for the Capitol had been laid on September 18, 1793; two years later while still under construction, the July 2, 1795, Federal Orrery newspaper of Boston reported:
The reason for the original use of the Capitol as a church might initially be explained by the fact that there were no churches in the city at that time. Even a decade later in 1803, U. S. Senator John Quincy Adams confirmed: "There is no church of any denomination in this city." 3 The absence of churches in Washington eventually changed, however. As one Washington citizen reported: "For several years after the seat of government was fixed at Washington, there were but two small [wooden] churches. . . . Now, in 1837 there are 22 churches of brick or stone." 4 Yet, even after churches began proliferating across the city, religious services still continued at the Capitol until well after the Civil War and Reconstruction.
In addition to Mary Bayard Smith and Congressman Manasseh Cutler, others kept diaries of the weekly Capitol church services "" including Congressman Abijah Bigelow and statesman John Quincy Adams. (Adams served in Washington first as a Senator, then a President, and then as a Representative; and his extensive diaries describe the numerous church services he attended at the Capitol across a span of decades.) Typical of Adams' diary entries while a U. S.
Jefferson was not the only President to attend church at the Capitol. His successor, James Madison, also attended church at the Capitol. 14 However, there was a difference in the way the two arrived for services. Observers noted that Jefferson arrived at church on horseback 15 (it was 1.6 miles from the White House to the Capitol). However, Madison arrived for church in a coach and four. In fact, British diplomat Augustus Foster, who attended services at the Capitol, gave an eloquent description of President Madison arriving at the Capitol for church in a carriage drawn by four white horses. From Jefferson through Abraham Lincoln, many presidents attended church at the Capitol; and it was common practice for Members of Congress to attend those services. For example, in his diary entry of January 9, 1803, Congressman Cutler noted: "Attended in the morning at the Capitol. . . . Very full assembly. Many of the Members present." 16 The church was often full "so crowded, in fact, one attendee reported that since "the floor of the House offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker's chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in" was filled. 17 U. S. Representative John Quincy Adams (although noting that occasionally the "House was full, but not crowded" 18) also commented numerous times on the overly-crowded conditions at the Capitol church. In his diary entry for February 28, 1841, he noted: "I rode with my wife, Elizabeth C. Adams, and Mary, to the Capitol, where the Hall of the House of Representatives was so excessively crowded that it was with extreme difficulty that we were enabled to obtain seats." 19 Why did so many Members attend Divine service in the Hall of the House? Adams explained why he attended: "I consider it as one of my public duties- as a representative of the people- to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall." 20
From 1800 to 1801, the services were held in the north wing; from 1801 to 1804, they were held in the "oven" in the south wing, and then from 1804 to 1807, they were again held in the north wing. From 1807 to 1857, services were held in what is now Statuary Hall. By 1857 when the House moved into its new home in the extension, some 2,000 persons a week were attending services in the Hall of the House. 23 Significantly, even though the U. S. Congress began meeting in the extension on Wednesday, December 16, 1857, the first official use of the House Chamber had occurred three days earlier, when "on December 13, 1857, the Rev. Dr. George Cummins preached before a crowd of 2,000 worshipers in the first public use of the chamber. Soon thereafter, the committee recommended that the House convene in the new Hall on Wednesday, December 16, 1857." 24 However, regardless of the part of the building in which the church met, the rostrum of the Speaker of the House was used as the preacher's pulpit; and Congress purchased the hymnals used in the service. The church services in the Hall of the House were interdenominational, overseen by the chaplains appointed by the House and Senate; sermons were preached by the chaplains on a rotating basis, or by visiting ministers approved by the Speaker of the House. As Margaret Bayard Smith, confirmed: "Not only the chaplains, but the most distinguished clergymen who visited the city, preached in the Capitol" 25 and "clergymen, who during the session of Congress visited the city, were invited by the chaplains to preach." 26 In addition to the non-denominational service held in the Hall of the House, several individual churches (such as Capitol Hill Presbyterian, the Unitarian Church of Washington, First Congregational Church, First Presbyterian Church, etc.) met in the Capitol each week for their own services; there could be up to four different church services at the Capitol each Sunday.
The Library of Congress provides an account of one of those churches that met weekly at the Capitol: "Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 Chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime, the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services- ˜at the Hall of Representatives' where- ˜the audience is the largest in town. . . . nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath' for services, making the congregation in the House the ˜largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States.' The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868." 27
With so many services occurring, the Hall of the House was not the only location in the Capitol where church services were conducted. John Quincy Adams, in his February 2, 1806, diary entry, describes an overflow service held in the Supreme Court Chamber, 28 and Congressman Manasseh Cutler describes a similar service in 1804. 29 (At that time, the Supreme Court Chamber was located on the first floor of the Capitol.) Services were also held in the Senate Chamber as well as on the first floor of the south wing. Church In The Capitol Milestones * 1806. On January 12, 1806, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832) became the first woman to preach before the House. One female attendee had noted: "Preachers of every sect and denomination of Christians were there admitted- Catholics, Unitarians, Quakers, with every intervening diversity of sect. Even women were allowed to display their pulpit eloquence in this national Hall." 30 In attendance at that service were President Thomas Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr. Ripley conducted the lengthy service in a fervent, evangelical, camp-meeting style.
* 1826. On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina (Bishop over North and South Carolina and Georgia) became the first Catholic to preach in the House of Representatives. Of that service, President John Quincy Adams (a regular attendee of church services in the Capitol) noted: Walked to the Capitol and heard the Bishop of Charleston, [John] England -" an Irishman. He read a few prayers and then delivered an extemporaneous discourse of nearly two hours' duration. . . . He closed by reading an admirable prayer. He came and spoke to me after the service and said he would call and take leave of me tomorrow. The house was overflowing, and it was with great difficulty that I obtained a seat. 31
* 1827. In January 1827, Harriet Livermore (1788-1868) became the second woman to preach in the House of Representatives. (Three of her immediate family members: " her father, grandfather, and uncle" had been Members of Congress. Her grandfather, Samuel Livermore, was a Member of the first federal Congress and a framer of the Bill of Rights; her uncle was a Member under Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; her father was a Member under President James Monroe.) The service in which she preached was not only attended by President John Quincy Adams but was also filled with Members of Congress as well as the inquisitive from the city. As Margaret Bayard Smith noted, "curiosity rather than piety attracted throngs on such occasions." 32 Livermore spoke for an hour and a half, resulting in mixed reactions; some praised her and were even moved to tears by her preaching, some dismissed her. Harriet Livermore preached in the Capitol on four different occasions, each attended by a different President.
* 1865. On February 12, 1865, Henry Highland Garnet (1815- 1882) became the first African American to speak in Congress. Two weeks earlier, on January 31, 1865, Congress had passed the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, and Garnet was invited to preach a sermon in Congress to commemorate that event. In his sermon, Garnet described his beginnings: 'I was born among the cherished institutions of slavery. My earliest recollections of parents, friends, and the home of my childhood are clouded with its wrongs. The first sight that met my eyes was my Christian mother enslaved." 33 His family escaped to the North; he became a minister, abolitionist, temperance leader, and political activist. He recruited black regiments during the Civil War and served as chaplain to the black troops of New York. In 1864, he became the pastor of the Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church in Washington, D. C. (where he served at the time of this sermon). He later became president of Avery College and was made Minister to Liberia by President Ulysses S. Grant. (For more information on this topic please see "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic: Religion and the Federal Government (Part 2)" on the Library of Congress website.) NOTES [1] Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800. [2] Federal Orrery, Boston, July 2, 1795, p. 2. [3] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Company, 1874), Vol. I, p. 268, October 30, 1803. [4] Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith (Margaret Bayard), The First Forty Years of Washington Society, Galliard Hunt, editor (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906), p. 16. [5] Bishop Claggett's (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, reveals that, as vice- President, Jefferson went to church services in the House. Available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives. [6] William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett's letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House. [7] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 12, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 113). [8] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13. [9] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13. [10] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114). [11] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 114, December 26, 1802. [12] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 268, October 30, 1803. [13] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 265, October 23, 1803. [14] Abijah Bigelow to Hannah Bigleow, December 28, 1812. "Letters of Abijah Bigleow, Member of Congress, to his Wife," Proceedings, 1810-1815, American Antiquarian Society (1930), p. 168. [15] See, for example, Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, from a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803. [16] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 116, January 9, 1803. [17] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14. [18] See, for example, John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. VII, pp. 437-438, February 17, 1828; Vol. XI, pp. 160-161, May 22, 1842; and others. [19] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. X, p. 434, February 28, 1841. [20] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. XI, p. 169, June 5, 1842. [21] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14. [22] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 16. [23] James Hutson (Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress), Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1998), p. 91. [24] William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 271. [25] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14. [26] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15. [27] Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html. [28] Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 90. [29] From the Library of Congress, at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html. [30] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15. [31] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. VII, p. 102, January 8, 1826. [32] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15. [33] Henry Highland Garnet, Memorial Discourse (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), p. 73. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Pg. 239
The Debates In The Convention Of Virginia
Gov. RANDOLPH
Freedom of religion is said to be in danger. I will candidly say, I once thought that it was, and felt great repugnance to the Constitution for that reason. I am willing to acknowledge my apprehensions removed; and I will inform you by what process of reasoning I did remove them. The Constitution provides that "the senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." It has been said that, if the exclusion of the religious test were an exception from the general power of Congress, the power over religion would remain. I inform those who are of this opinion, that no power is given expressly to Congress over religion. The senators and representatives, members of the state legislatures, and executive and judicial officers, are bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution. This only binds them to support it in the exercise of the powers constitutionally given it. The exclusion of religious tests is an exception from this general provision, with respect to oaths or affirmations. Although officers, &c., are to swear that they will support this Constitution, yet they are not bound to support one mode of worship, or to adhere to one particular sect. It puts all sects on the same footing. A man of abilities and character, of any sect whatever, may be admitted to any office or public trust under the United States. I am a friend to a variety of sects, because they keep one another in order. How many different sects are we composed of throughout the United States! How many different sects will be in Congress! We cannot enumerate the sects that may be in Congress! And there are now so many in the United States, that they will prevent the establishment of any one sect, in prejudice to the rest, and will forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty. If such an attempt be made, will not the alarm be sounded throughout America? If Congress should be as wicked as we are foretold they will be, they would not run the risk of {205} exciting the resentment of all, or most, of the religious sects in America.
Pg. 384
The Debates In The Convention Of Virginia
Mr. MADISON
The honorable member has introduced the subject of religion. Religion is not guarded; there is no bill of rights declaring that religion should be secure. Is a bill of rights a security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively: established by law? If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religions liberty in any society; for where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest, Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. I believe it to be so in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution; and it is sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber or depress the rest.
Pg.514
The Debates In The Convention Of Virginia
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen say there is no new power given by this clause. Is there any thing in this Constitution which secures to the states the powers which are said to be retained? Will powers remain to the states which are not expressly guarded and reserved? I will suppose a case. Gentlemen may call it an impossible case, and suppose that Congress will act with wisdom and integrity. Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not extend their implication? It appears to me that they may and will. And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men whose interest it may be to oppress us? That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise, the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.
Many gentlemen, whom I respect, take different sides of this question. We wish this amendment to be introduced, to remove our apprehensions. There was a clause in the Confederation reserving to the states respectively every power, jurisdiction, and right, not expressly delegated to the United States. This clause has never been complained of, but approved by all Why not, then, have a similar clause in this Constitution, in which it is the more indispensably necessary than in the Confederation, because of the great augmentation of power vested in the former? In my humble apprehension, unless there be some such clear and finite expression, this clause now under consideration will go to any thing our rulers may think proper. Unless there be some express declaration that every thing not given is retained, it will be carried to any power Congress may please.
Mr. HENRY moved to read from the 8th to the 13th article of the declaration of rights; which was done.
Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses. He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public debts and provide for the common defence; that this general welfare was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the purpose of paying the debts and providing for the common defence, - that is, that they could raise as much money as would pay the debts and provide for the common defence, in consequence of this power. The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained no new grant of power. To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was no augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant no new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.
He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the extent of legislative powers. If they exceed these powers, the judiciary will declare it void, or else the people will have a right to declare it void. Is this depending on any man? But, says the gentleman, it may go to any thing. It may destroy the trial by jury; and they may say it is necessary for providing for the general defence. The power of providing for the general defence only extends to raise any sum of money they may think necessary, by taxes, imposts, &c. But, says he, our only defence against oppressive laws consists in the virtue of our representatives. This was misrepresented. If I understand it right, no new power can be exercised. As to those which are actually granted, we trust to the fellow-feelings of our representatives; and if we are deceived, we then trust to altering our {444} government. It appears to me, however, that we can confide in their discharging their powers rightly, from the peculiarity of their situation, and connection with us. If, sir, the powers of the former Congress were very inconsiderable, that body did not deserve to have great powers.
It was so constructed that it would be dangerous to invest it with such. But why were the articles of the bill of rights read? Let him show us that those rights are given up by the Constitution. Let him prove them to be violated. He tells us that the most worthy characters of the country differ as to the necessity of a bill of rights. It is a simple and plain proposition. It is agreed upon by all that the people have all power. If they part with any of it, is it necessary to declare that they retain the rest? Liken it to any similar case. If I have one thousand acres of land, and I grant five hundred acres of it, must I declare that I retain the other five hundred? Do I grant the whole thousand acres, when I grant five hundred, unless I declare that the five hundred I do not give belong to me still? It is so in this case. After granting some powers, the rest must remain with the people.
Gov. RANDOLPH observed that he had some objections to the clause. He was persuaded that the construction put upon it by the gentlemen, on both sides, was erroneous; but he thought any construction better than going into anarchy.
Mr. GEORGE MASON still thought that there ought to be some express declaration in the Constitution, asserting that rights not given to the general government were retained by the states. He apprehended that, unless this was done, many valuable and important rights would be concluded to be given up by implication. All governments were drawn from the people, though many were perverted to their oppression. The government of Virginia, he remarked, was drawn from the people; yet there were certain great and important rights, which the people, by their bill of rights, declared to be paramount to the power of the legislature. He asked, Why should it not be so in this Constitution? Was it because we were more substantially represented in it than in the state government? If, in the state government, where the people were substantially and fully represented, it was necessary that the great rights of human nature should {445} be secure from the encroachments of the legislature, he asked if it was not more necessary in this government, where they were but inadequately represented? He declared that artful sophistry and evasions could not satisfy him. He could see no clear distinction between rights relinquished by a positive grant, and lost by implication. Unless there were a bill of rights, implication might swallow up all our rights.
Pg. 755
The Debates In The Convention Of Virginia
Mr. ZACHARIAH JOHNSON
We are also told that religion is not secured; that religious tests are not required. You will find that the exclusion of tests will strongly tend to establish religious freedom. If tests were required, and if the Church of England, or any other, were established, I might be excluded from any office under the government, because my conscience might not permit me to take the test required. The diversity of opinions and variety of sects in the United States have justly been reckoned a great security with respect to religious liberty. The difficulty of establishing a uniformity of religion in this country is immense. The extent of the country is very great. The multiplicity of sects is very great {646} likewise.
Pg. 755
The Debates In The Convention Of Virginia
"That there be a declaration or bill of rights asserting, and securing from encroachment, the essential and unalienable rights of the people, in some such manner as the following: - 20th. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others."
Pg. 1272
The Debates In The Convention Of North Carolina
Mr. HENRY ABBOT
It is feared, by some people, that, by the power of {192} making treaties, they might make a treaty engaging with foreign powers to adopt the Roman Catholic religion in the United States, which would prevent the people from worshipping God according to their own consciences. The worthy member. from Halifax has in some measure satisfied ray mind on this subject. But others may be dissatisfied. Many wish to know what religion shall be established. I believe a majority of the community are Presbyterians. I am, for my part, against any exclusive establishment; but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal. The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans. Every person employed by the general and state governments is to take an oath to support the former. Some are desirous to know how and by whom they are to swear, since no religious tests are required - whether they are to swear by Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Proserpine, or Pluto. We ought to be suspicious of our liberties. We have felt the effects of oppressive measures, and know the happy consequences of being jealous of our rights. I would be glad some gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections, in order to satisfy the religious art of the society. Could I be convinced that the objections were well founded, I would then declare my opinion against the Constitution. [Mr. Abbot added several other observations, but spoke too low to be heard.]
Pg. 1273
The Debates In The Convention Of North Carolina
Mr. IREDELL
I consider the clause under consideration as one of the strongest proofs that could be adduced, that it was the intention of those who formed this system to establish a general religious liberty in America. Were we to judge from the examples of religious tests in other countries, we should be persuaded that they do not answer the purpose for which they are intended. What is the consequence of such in England? In that country no man can be a member in the House of Commons, or hold any office under the crown, without taking the sacrament according to the rites of the Church. This, in the first instance, must degrade and profane a rite which never ought to be taken but from a sincere principle of devotion. To a man of base principles, it is made a mere instrument of civil policy. The intention was, to exclude all persons from offices but the members of the Church of England. Yet it is notorious that dissenters qualify themselves for offices in this manner, though they never conform to the Church on any other occasion; and men of no religion at all have no scruple to make use of this qualification. It never was known that a man who had no principles of religion hesitated to perform any rite when it was convenient for his private interest. No test can bind such a one. I am therefore clearly of opinion that such a discrimination would neither be effectual for its own purposes, nor, if it could, ought it by any means to be made. Upon the principles I have stated, I confess the restriction on the power of Congress, in this particular, has my hearty approbation. {194} They Certainly have no authority to interfere in the establishment of any religion whatsoever; and I am astonished that any gentleman should conceive they have. Is there any power given to Congress in matters of religion? Can they pass a single act to impair our religious liberties? If they could, it would be a just cause of alarm. If they could, sir, no man would have more horror against it than myself. Happily, no sect here is superior to another. As long as this is the case, we shall be free from those persecutions and distractions with which other countries have been torn. If any future Congress should pass an act concerning the religion of the country, it would be an act which they are not authorized to pass, by the Constitution, and which the people would not obey. Every one would ask, "Who authorized the government to pass such an act? It is not warranted by the Constitution, and is barefaced usurpation." The power to make treaties can never be supposed to include a right to establish a foreign religion among ourselves, though it might authorize a toleration of others.
But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be kept out of our counsels. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own. It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? It made much greater progress for itself, than when supported by the greatest authority upon earth.
Pg. 1279
The Debates In The Convention Of North Carolina
Gov. JOHNSTON
I read the Constitution over and over, but could not see one cause of apprehension or jealousy on this subject. When I heard there were apprehensions that the pope of Rome could be the President of the United States, I was greatly astonished. It might as well be said that the king of England or France, or the Grand Turk, could be chosen to that office. It would have been as good an argument. It appears to me that it would have been dangerous, if Congress could intermeddle with the subject of religion. True religion is derived from a much higher source than human laws, When any attempt is made, by any government, to restrain men's consciences, no good consequence can possibly follow. It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President, or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the {199} people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen's candor to judge what probability there is of the people's choosing men of different sentiments from themselves.
But great apprehensions have been raised as to the influence of the Eastern States. When you attend to circumstances, this will have no weight. I know but two or three states where there is the least chance of establishing any particular religion. The people of Massachusetts and Connecticut are mostly Presbyterians. In every other state, the people are divided into a great number of sects. In Rhode Island, the tenets of the Baptists, I believe, prevail. In New York, they are divided very much: the most numerous are the Episcopalians and the Baptists. In New Jersey, they are as much divided as we are. In Pennsylvania, if any sect prevails more than others, it is that of the Quakers. In Maryland, the Episcopalians are most numerous, though there are other sects. In Virginia, there are many sects; you all know what their religious sentiments are. So in all the Southern States they differ; as also in New Hampshire. I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will see there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established.
Mr. CALDWELL thought that some danger might arise. He imagined it might be objected to in a political as well as in a religious view. In the first place, he said, there was an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us. At some future period, said he, this might endanger the character of the United States. Moreover, even those who do not regard religion, acknowledge that the Christian religion is best calculated, of all religions, to make good members of society, on account of its morality. I think, then, added he, that, in a political view, those gentlemen who formed this Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and heathens. All those who have any religion are against the emigration of those people from the eastern hemisphere.
{200} Mr. SPENCER was an advocate for securing every unalienable right, and that of worshipping God according to the dictates of conscience in particular. He therefore thought that no one particular religion should be established. Religious tests, said he, have been the foundation of persecutions in all countries. Persons who are conscientious will not take the oath required by religious tests, and will therefore be excluded from offices, though equally capable of discharging them as any member of the society. It is feared, continued he, that persons of bad principles, deists, atheists, &c., may come into this country; and there is nothing to restrain them from being eligible to offices. He asked if it was reasonable to suppose that the people would choose men without regarding their characters. Mr, Spencer then continued thus: Gentlemen urge that the want of a test admits the most vicious characters to offices. I desire to know what test could bind them. If they were of such principles, it would not keep them from enjoying those offices. On the other hand, it would exclude from offices conscientious and truly religious people, though equally capable as others. Conscientious persons would not take such an oath, and would be therefore excluded. This would be a great cause of objection to a religious test. But in this case, as there is not a religious test required, it leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority; and no kind of oppression can take place; I confess it strikes me so. I am sorry to differ from the worthy gentleman. I cannot object to this part of the Constitution, I wish every other part was as good and proper.
Gov. JOHNSTON approved of the worthy member's candor. He admitted a possibility of Jews, pagans, &c., emigrating to the United States; yet, he said, they could not be in proportion to the emigration of Christians who should come froth other countries; that, in all probability, the children even of such people would be Christians; and that this, with the rapid population of the United States, their zeal for religion, and love of liberty, would, he trusted, add to the progress of the Christian religion among us.
Pg. 1333
The Debates In The Convention Of North Carolina
"DECLARATION OF RIGHTS"
"20. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence: and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others."
Pg. 1603
The Debates In The Convention Of Massachusetts
Eleventh, Congress shall make no Laws touching Religion, or to infringe the rights of Conscience.
Pg. 1614
The Debates In The Convention Of Massachusetts
12. That there be no national religion established by law; but that all persons be equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.
Pg. 1757
The Debates In The Convention Of Massachusetts
Rev. Mr. SHUTE
I must therefore think, sir, that the proposed plan of government, in this particular, is wisely constructed; that, as all have an equal claim to the blessings of the government under which they live, and which they support, so none should be excluded from them for being of any particular denomination in religion.
The presumption is, that the eyes of the people will be upon the faithful in the land; and, from a regard to their own safety, they will choose for their rulers men of known abilities, of known probity, of good moral characters. The apostle Peter tells us that God is no respecter of persons, but, in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. And I know of no reason why men of such a character, in a community of whatever denomination in religion, caeteris paribus, with other suitable qualifications, should not be acceptable to the people, and why they may not be employed by them with safety and advantage in the important offices of government. The exclusion of a religious test in the proposed Constitution, therefore, clearly appears to me, sir, to be in favor of its adoption.
games, level the opposite; the demanding fair gaming methods can be
ReplyDeletebundled by engaging the options are accepted: payment Cards, trice Banking Transfers
or e-Wallets, Ladbrokes has you splattered no import who the supernatural virtue is.
Groups operative with them to restrain for you. Choosing a sales event structure, they can attractiveness best online casino for roulette games, justified the
opposite; the tight rational recreation methods can be bundled by
piquant the options are received: rely Cards, split second
finance Transfers or e-Wallets, Ladbrokes has you smothered no
content who the brotherly love is. Groups excavation with them to fix for you.
Choosing a blond organisation, they can collection
Review my blog - us online casino bonus codes