Subject: America's Foundation [part 1 of 5]
Here is a great excerpt of the transcript from the video America's Godly Heritage. It gives a fairly in depth look at the history of our country's religious heritage. Because it is on the long side, I am breaking it up into 5 postings. I will include the footnotes with the article in which they are relevant. These postings represent about 70% on the entire video. If you have interest in how to get a hold of either the video or the complete transcript yourself, just e-mail me.
-----------
Does America really have a Godly heritage? Did you realize that 52 of
the 55 Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of
orthodox Christian churches(1) and many were even evangelical
Christians? We don't hear that part of our history any more.
[...]
There are so many things that we no longer hear today. For example,
we are now told that our Founding Fathers were atheists, agnostics,
and deists; but consider the statement by Patrick Henry:
'It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that
this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but
by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of
Jesus Christ!' (6)
Now that's a strong statement--right to the point!
One of the many proofs of Patrick Henry's claim is found in this book
by the American Tract Society. (7). The American Tract Society-- which
today publishes Gospel tracts and Gospel literature for soul winning,
evangelizing, etc--existed in the early 1800's. In 1813, they bound
their individual tracts together to make Volume I of the American
Tract Society Tracts.
While it is fascinating to read these old Bible tracts and the
messages they contain, it is even more fascinating to note the authors
of these gospel tracts: several of the tracts were written by Founding
Fathers who signed our founding documents!
Another Founder with succinct declarations about the role of
Christianity in American government was John Quincy Adams. However,
before examining what he said, consider education as it was at the
time of the Founders.
The New England Primer was the first textbook ever printed in America.
It was introduced in Boston in 1690 and for the next two hundred years
was THE textbook of America's schools. For two centuries, if you went
to school in America, you probably learned to read from the New
England Primer. Today we would call it a first-grade textbook or a
first-grade reader; but they didn't have grade levels then, so they
simply called it a Primer.
It began with the alphabet, and then showed students how to make one-,
two-, and three-letter syllables, and then how to put those syllables
together to make words. Then later--about a fourth of the way through
the book--it returned to the alphabet and attached a phrase to each
letter of the alphabet; the students read and memorized those phrases.
Notice the phrases that comprised the alphabet of America's schools
for nearly two hundred years, and note that every one of the phrases
is a Bible verse:
A--A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is the heaviness
of his mother.
B--Better is little with fear of the Lord than great treasure and
trouble therewith.
C--Come unto Christ all ye that labor and are heavy laden and He will
give you rest.
D--Do not the abominable thing which I hate saith the Lord.
E--Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God, etc.
This was the alphabet of America's schools for over two hundred years!
In the back of the book were several questions. Now remember, this is
a first-grade reader--these are first-grade questions: 'What's the
fifth commandment?' 'What's forbidden in the fifth commandment?'
'What's required in the sixth commandment?' 'What's forbidden in the
sixth commandment?' and many similar questions.
John Quincy Adams went through this type of educational system, as did
most of the Founding Fathers. When John Quincy Adams was 14 years
old, under this system of education, he receive a Congressional
diplomatic appointment overseas to the court of Catherine the Great in
Russia as secretary to the Ambassador. Can you imagine sending a 14-
year old overseas today to officially represent the United States in
Russia?
John Quincy Adams had a lengthy and distinguished political career: he
served as a foreign ambassador under Presidents George Washington and
John Adams, as Secretary of State under President James Monroe, as a
U.S. Representative, a U.S. Senator, and as the young nation's sixth
president.
John Quincy Adams, in his speech on July 4th, 1837, at Newburyport,
asked the crowd:
'Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the
World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns
on this day [on the Fourth of July]?' (8)
A very appropriate question. Why is it that the Fourth of July and
Christmas were our top two holidays? John Quincy Adams answered that
question:
'Is in not that, in the chain of human events, the
birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with
the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading
event in the progress of the gospel dispensation?
Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first
organized the social compact on the foundation of
the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the
cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts
of Christianity?' (9)
And on he goes for the next sixty pages.
John Quincy Adams stressed that the biggest victory won in the
American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government
would be tied together in what he called an 'indissoluble' bond. But
today we hear just the opposite--today we are told that the Founders
wanted 'separation'; that's not what he said.
Other significant founders were outspoken about their Christian
beliefs. For example, John Jay, the original Chief Justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court--and one of the three men most responsible for the
Constitution--declared:
'Providence has given to our people the choice of their
rulers, and it is the duty--as well as the privilege
and interest--of our Christian nation to select and
prefer Christians for their rulers.' (10)
How long has it been since we've heard that type of statement from the
Supreme Court? But was John Jay competent to offer such a statement?
Yes! He was the original Chief Justice and one of the three men most
responsible for our having the Constitution today--and he said that we
should select Christians for our rulers!
[end of part 1 of 5]
Footnotes
1. David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press,
1991), pp. 22-25. Quoting from M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company (NH:
Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), Table of Contents.
2. Joseph Banvard, Tragic Scenes in the History of Maryland and the Old
French War (Boston:Gould and Lincoln, 1856),pp. 142-146.
3. Id. at 153.
4. Id. at 154.
5. David Barton, The Bulletproof George Washington (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder
Press, 1990) presents various testimonies of the incident; not especially
the listed sources in the book's bibliography.
6. Barton, Myth, p. 118, quoting Steve C. Dawson, God's Providence in
America's History (Rancho Cordova, CA:Steve C. Dawson, 1988),p.I:5.
7. The Publications of the American Tract Society, Vol 1 (Pub. by the
American Tract Society, 1813).
8. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the
Town of Newburyport at their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport:Charles Whipple, 1837),
p.5.
9. Id. at 5-6.
10. Barton, Myth, p. 119, quoting John Jay, The Correspondence and Public
Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnson, ed. (Reprinted NY: Burt
Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p.393, October, 12, 1816.
=========================================================================
Subject: America's Foundation [part 2 of 5]
George Washington's 'Farewell Address' is yet another aspect of our
heritage which has disappeared from student texts. His 'Farwell
Address' once appeared as a SEPARATE school book for over a century.
Students were taught that Washington's 'Farewell Address' was the most
significant political speech ever delivered to the nation. And why
not? Washington was 'The Father of His Country'; he spent forty-five
years of his life in public service, everything from Commander-in-
Chief through two-terms as President; he is the man who was president
of the convention that gave us the Constitution; he was the President
of the United States who called for the First Amendment and Bill of
Rights, and the man who oversaw its formation. He certainly knew the
intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In his 'Farewell
Address' he reminded America what had brought us to success, and then
warned us about what must be done to continue it.
Amazingly, his 'Farewell Address' has not been seen in most textbooks
for nearly four decades. Why? Doesn't Washington have anything to
offer the nation today? No, apparently the problem with his 'Farewell
Address' today is its religious emphasis, for four of his dozen or so
warnings to the nation were overtly religious. It is interesting to
note that in the last five years his 'Farewell Address' has begun to
reappear in college textbooks--minus the four religious warnings.
In his 'Farewell Address', Washington pointed out that the two
foundations for political prosperity in America were religion and
morality, and that no one could be called an American patriot who
attempted to separate politics from its two foundations. He
explained:
'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.' (11)
Washington believed that if an individual attempted to separate
religion and morality from politics, he could not be called an
American patriot. These types of statements we do not hear much any
more, but such were the statements of America's Founders--the
statements of America's history.
Our Founding Fathers delivered to us a system of government which has
enjoyed unprecedented success: we are now the world's longest on-going
constitutional republic. Two hundred years under the same document--
and under one form of government--is an accomplishment unknown among
contemporary nations. For example Russia, Italy, France, and other
nations underwent revolutions about the same time as the American
Revolution, but with very different results. Consider France: in the
last 200 years it has gone through seven completely different forms of
government; Italy is now in its 51st; yet we are still in our first.
Where, then, did our Founding Fathers acquire the ideas that produced
such longevity? Other nations certainly had access to what our
Founders utilized, yet evidently chose not to. From what sources did
our Founders choose their ideas?
This question was asked by political science professors at the
University of Houston. (12) They rightfully felt that they could
determine the source of the Founders' ideas if they could collect
writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.
The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the Founding Era--no
small sample--and searched those writings. That project spanned ten
years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154
direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of
those quotes.
The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the
man quoted most often by the Founding Fathers, with 8.3 percent of the
Founders' quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William
Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of
the Founders' quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent. (13)
Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the Founders quoted
directly out of the Bible 4 times more often that they quoted
Montesquieu, 4 times more often that they quoted Blackstone, and 12
times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty-four percent of
the Founders' quotes came directly out of the Bible. (14)
The study was even more impressive when the source of the ideas used
by Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke were identified. Consider, for
example, the source of Blackstone's ideas. Blackstone's Commentaries
on the Laws was first introduced in 1768, and for the next 160 years
served as THE law textbook of America. America's courts quoted
Blackstone to settle disputes, to define words, and to examine
procedure; Blackstone's Commentaries were the final word in the
Supreme Court. So what was a significant source of Blackstone's
ideas? Perhaps the best answer to that question can be given through
the life of Charles Finney.
Charles Finney is known as a famous revivalist, minister, and preacher
from one of America's greatest revivals: the Second Great Awakening in
the early 1800's. Finney, in his autobiography, spoke of how he
received his call to the ministry. He explained that--having
determined to become a lawyer--he, like all other law students at that
time, commenced the study of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws.
Finney observed that Blackstone's Commentaries not only provided the
laws, it also provided the Biblical concepts on which those laws were
based. Finney explained that in the process of studying Blackstone's,
he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received
his call to the ministry. Finney's personal life story clearly
identifies a major source of Blackstone's ideas for law.
So while 34 percent of the Founders' quotes came DIRECTLY out of the
Bible, another 60 percent of their quotes were taken from men--like
Blackstone--who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.
Ninety-four percent of the Founder's quotes were based--either
directly or indirectly--on the Bible. (15)
Numerous components of our current government can be shown--through
those early writings--to have their source in Biblical concepts. For
example, the concept for three branches of government can be found in
Isaiah 33:22; the logic for the separation of powers was based on
Jeremiah 17:9; the basis for tax exemptions for churches was found in
Ezra 7:24; and there are many other examples.
[end of part 2 of 5]
Footnootes
11. Barton, Myth, p. 115, quoting James D. Richardson, A Compilation of
the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by the
Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. 1, p. 220, September 17, 1796.
12. Barton, Myth, p. 195, quoting Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American
Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1988).
13. Lutz at 142-143.
14. Barton, Myth, p. 201, quoting Lutz, p. 141.
15. Barton, Myth, p. 201, quoting Stephen K. McDowell and Mark A. Beliles,
America's Providential History (Charlottesville, VA: Providence Press, 1988),
p. 156.
=========================================================================
Subject: America's Foundation [part 3 of 5]
It is interesting to read in the early Congressional Records about
Congressmen coming onto the floor of the House or the Senate and
presenting something they had found in the Bible. This type of
heritage is well documented in the official writings, but today we
hear little about it.
The Biblical heritage was so well understood during the early years of
the nation--and the writings of the numerous Founding Fathers were so
well known--that in later years the Supreme Court ruled according to
the Founders` intention, keeping Biblical principles as the basis.
For example, notice this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1892:
'Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based
upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind.
It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this
sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our
institutions are emphatically Christian.' (16)
What would lead the Court to conclude that the teachings of Christ
must be included in our laws and institutions? --that we are
'emphatically' a Christian nation?
This case was not long (only 16 pages in the Court records), but the
Court provided 87 different historical precedents to support its
conclusions. The Court quoted the Founding Fathers, the acts of the
Founding Fathers, the acts of the Congresses, the acts of the state
governments, etc. At the end of 87 precedents the Court explained
that it could continue to cite many additional precedents, but that
certainly 87 was sufficient to conclude that our laws and our
institutions must be based on and must include the teachings of
Christ.
Keep in mind that the Court provided 87 precedents in this case. This
is important, because the Courts base their decisions on precedents.
To the Court, it is important to go back and examine both history in
rulings from previous cases so that it can continue to be consistent
in its present rulings. We will return to the importance of
precedents a little later.
In 1844, a school in Philadelphia announced that it would teach its
students morality, but not religion. It believed that it didn't need
Christianity and the Bible--that it could teach morality without them
(sounds like schools today!). This policy--among others--caused this
case to come before the U.S. Supreme Court. Some of the Justices on
the Court at this time had been appointed by James Madison. Notice
what the Supreme Court told that school:
'Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament
...be read and taught as divine revelation in the [school]--
its general precepts expounded...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?' (17)
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that schools WOULD teach
Christianity and the Bible--the source of morality. Today, we hear
just the opposite. Few realize that today's rulings by the Court
often repudiate rulings delivered by the Founding Fathers themselves!
In 1811 a court made a ruling which was subsequently cited by the U.S.
Supreme Court. That court declared:
'Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends
manifestly to the dissolution of civil government.' (18)
Although this case dealt with a man who went into a profanity fit,
profanity wasn't the problem: it was the intent of his profanity, for
it had not been a moment of anger or a temporary loss of self control,
but a deliberate and planned act. He had taken the time to write it
out and distribute it. In that writing, he had maliciously and
capriciously attacked Jesus Christ, declaring that 'Jesus Christ is
...X#@X', 'God is...X#@X', 'The Bible is...X#@X', continuing through a
whole string of accusations and profanities against Jesus Christ and
the Word of God.
The court explained the problem with his writings: an attack on Jesus
Christ was an attack on Christianity; and an attack on Christianity
was an attack on the foundation of the country; therefore, an attack
on Jesus Christ was equivalent to an attack on the country! This man
was sentenced to three months in prison and a $500 fine for attacking
the country by attacking Jesus Christ! And notice the date on that
case: 1811--nearly two decades AFTER the First Amendment was in place.
The First Amendment was never intended to separate Christian
principles from government. Yet today we so often hear the First
Amendment coupled with the phase '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, that phrase appears in NO
founding document!
While most recognize the phrase 'separation of church and state,' few
know its source; but it is important to understand the origins of that
phrase. What is the history of the First Amendment?
The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the
Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording,
the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations
and extensive discussions.
Those discussions--recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7
through September 25 of 1789--make clear their intent for the First
Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: 'We do not want in
America what we had in Great Britain: we don't want one denomination
running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or
any other single denomination. We DO want God's principles, but we
DON'T want one denomination running the nation.'
This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings AFTER
the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared:
'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.' (19)
Again, note the emphasis: 'We DO want Christian principles--we DO want
God's principles--but we DON'T want one denomination to run the
nation.
[end of part 3 of 5]
Footnotes
16. Robert Flood, The Rebirth of America (Philadelphia: The Arthur DeMoss
Foundation, 1986), p. 21, citing Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S.; 143 U.S.
457 (1892).
17. Vidal v. Girad's Executors; 43 U.S. 126, 205-206 (1844).
18. People v. Ruggles; 8 Johns 545, 547 (1811).
19. Runkel v. Winemiller; 4 Harris and McHenry 276, 288 (Sup.Ct.Md. 1799).
=========================================================================
Subject: America's Foundation [part 4 of 5]
In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut,
heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be
made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury
Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, they fired off a letter to
President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802,
Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that 'the First
Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state.'
(20)
His letter explained that they need not fear the establishment of a
national denomination--and that while that wall of the First Amendment
would protect the church from government control--there always would
be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious
practices, for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose
of government. The government would interfere with a religious
activity only if that activity was a direct menace of the government
or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later Supreme
Courts identified potential 'religious' activities in which the
government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy, or
polygamy, the advocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any
of these activities were to occur in the name of 'religion,' then the
government WOULD interfere, for these were activities which threatened
public peace and safety; but with orthodox religious practices, the
government would NOT interfere).
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, or its 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. National policies and rulings in that century-
and-a-half always reflected that interpretation.
For example, in 1853, a group petitioned Congress to separate
Christian principles from government. They desired a so-called
'separation of church and state' with the chaplains being turned out
of the congress, the military, etc. Their petition was referred to
the 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.
Both the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees returned with their
reports. The following are excerpts from the House report delivered
on March 27, 1854 (the Senate report was very similar):
'Had the people [the Founding Fathers], during the Revolution,
had 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 the 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.' (21)
Two months later, the 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 divine truths of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ.' (22)
The Committees explained that they would NOT separate these
principles, for it was these principles and activities which had made
us so successful--they had been our foundation, our basis.
During the 1870's, 1880's, and 1890's, yet another group which
challenged specific Christian principles in government arrived before
the Supreme Court. Jefferson's letter had remained unused for years,
for as time had progressed after its use in 1802--and after no
national denomination had been established--his letter had fallen into
obscurity. But now--seventy-five years later--in the case of Reynolds
v. United States, (23) the plaintiffs resurrected Jefferson's letter,
hoping to use it to their advantage.
In that case, the Court printed a lengthy segment of Jefferson's
letter and then used his letter on 'separation of church and state' to
again prove 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 then remained silent for the next 70 years until 1947, when, in
Everson v. Board of Education, (24) 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.'
(25)
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 if you repeat it often
enough people will believe it.'
This statement precisely describes the tact utilized by the Court in
the years following its 1947 announcement. The Court began regularly
to speak of a 'separation of church and state,' broadly explaining
that, 'This is what the Founders wanted--separation of church and
state. This was their great intent.' The Court failed to quote the
Founders; it just generically asserted that this is what the Founders
wanted.
The courts continued on this track so steadily, that in 1958, in a
case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, (26) one of the judges was tired of
hearing the phrase and wrote a dissenting warning that if the court
did not stop talking about the 'separation of church and state,'
people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.
(27) That warning was in 1958!
Nevertheless, the Court continued to talk about separation until June
25th, 1962, when, in the case Engel v. Vitale, (28) the Court
delivered its first ever ruling which completely separated Christian
principles from education; the case struck down school prayer. Even
the World Book Encyclopedia's 1963 Yearbook noted that this case was
the first time there had been a separation of church and state in
education. (29)
In that 1962 case, the Court redefined the meaning and application of
a single word: the word 'church'. For 170 years prior to that case,
the word 'church'--as used in the phrase 'separation of church and
state'--was defined to mean 'a federally established denomination.'
However, in 1962 the Court explained that the word 'church' would now
mean 'a religious activity in public.' This was the turning point in
the interpretation of the First Amendment.
Understand what the Court had just announced: no longer would the
First Amendment simply prohibit the establishment of a federal
denomination, it would now prohibit religious activities in public
settings. This current doctrine of separation 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.
[end of part 4 of 5]
Footnotes
20. Barton, Myth, p. 41, quoting Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Writings,
Merril D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc.,
1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.
21. Barton, Myth, p. 133, quoting B.F. Morris, The Christian Life and
Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George
W. Childs, 1864), pp. 320-321.
22. Barton, Myth, p. 133, quoting Morris, p. 328.
23. Reynolds v. U.S.; 98 U.S. 145 (1878).
24. Everson v. Board of Education; 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
25. Barton, Myth, p. 11, quoting Everson at 18.
26. Baer v. Kolmorgen; 181 N.Y.S.2d. 230 (Sup.Ct.N.Y. 1958).
27. Barton, Myth, p.15, quoting Baer at 237.
28. Engle v. Vitale; 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
29. Barton, Myth, p. 14, quoting Lawrence A. Cremin, 1963 Yearbook,
World Book Encyclopedia, p. 38.
=========================================================================
Subject: America's Foundation [part 5 of 5]
School prayer was the first casualty of the redefinition of the First
Amendment in the 1962 Engel case. School prayer had never before been
challenged; for, clearly, school prayer had never established a
national denomination and therefore had always been acceptable. But
under the new definition, school prayer definitely was a religious
activity in public and was therefore now 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. Recall that
the 1892 Supreme Court case offered 87 precedents to maintain the
inclusion of Christian principles in our laws and institutions. This
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. Without any historical or legal
base, the Court simply made an announcement: 'We'll not have prayers
in school anymore; that violates the Constitution.' A brand new
direction was taken in America.
Within a 12-month period of time, in two more cases in 1963, (30) the
Court had not only removed prayer but also Bible reading, religious
classes, and religious instruction; this was a radical reversal.
A book from 1946 illustrates this. This book is titled Bible Study
Course, New Testament, Dallas High Schools. (31) On the cover page it
explains that the book was authorized by the Dallas Board of Education
on April 23, 1946, and was printed in the Dallas Public School's print
shop. The introduction further explains that this was a credit course
toward graduation in Dallas High Schools.
This wasn't a bland course on the New Testament. 'Lesson 1' begins
with the Gospel of John, Chapter 1, and studies the pre-existence of
Christ. Notice the questions based on John, Chapter 1: 'Where was
Christ before he was born on earth?' 'What titles does John apply to
Christ in this chapter?' 'For what purpose was John sent by God?'
'Name five things the angel told Mary concerning her child Jesus?'
'What does the word Jesus mean?' 'How did the angel explain the
miraculous births of John and Jesus?' (32) and continues right on
through the lesson.
At the end of 'Lesson 1' is memory work: 'Memorize the pre-existence
of Christ: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God
and the Word was God. All things were made by Him and without Him was
nothing made that was made.'' (33) This was a textbook for PUBLIC
schools in 1946! What had occurred in the 1962 and 1963 rulings was a
radical reversal of national policy prior to that point.
In was the Abington v. Schempp (34) and Murray v. Curlett (35)
decisions on June 17, 1963, that the Court not only reaffirmed its ban
on school prayer from the previous year but further reached out and
banned school Bible reading. Recall that in the brief survey already
present, 94 percent of the quotes of the Founders were based either
directly or indirectly on the Bible; early textbooks quoted the Bible
and used it as part of the alphabet; and earlier Supreme Court cases
ruled that a school must teach religion and the Bible. Therefore, on
what possible basis can the 1963 Court justify its ruling to stop the
use of the Bible in schools?
The Court always explains its decision in written form; that 1963 case
was no different. If you go to a law library and examine the text of
that decision, you will find why the Bible had to be removed from
schools. In its written decision, the Court noted that:
'If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation,
they could be and...had been psychologically harmful to the
child.' (36)
That's quite a statement! The Court has determined that the Bible has
to come out of schools because it causes psychological damage to
children?
For the second time in a year, this was a case lacking both historical
and legal precedent. Again, the Court simply made a new announcement
of policy; in essence: 'No more Bible reading in schools; Bible
reading causes brain damage to the students.'
The courts continued to extend the new boundary outward. In 1965, in
Reed v. Van Hoven, (37) a court determined that it WAS permissible for
students to pray over their lunch at 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 1967, in DeKalb v. Despain, (38) a court took a 4-line nursery
rhyme used by a K-5 kindergarten class and declared the nursery rhyme
unconstitutional. The court explained that although the word 'God' was
not contained in this nursery rhyme, if someone were to hear the
nursery rhyme, he might think that it was talking about God--and that
would be unconstitutional!
This trend continued in case after case, year after year. In one year
alone, three cases made the courts challenging the right of students
to see copies of the Ten Commandments while at school. The Supreme
Court accepted the Stone v. Graham (39) case from Kentucky, where a
copy of the Ten Commandments was hanging in the hallways of the
schools.
The Court acknowledged that the Ten Commandments were passive
displays; that is, they simply hung on the walls just like a picture
of George Washington; they were not part of any class or any
curriculum; they just hung there. A student could look at them if he
wanted, and if he didn't--fine. Yet notice the Court's ruling under
the redefined First Amendment:
'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, and perhaps venerate and obey, the Commandments...
[This]is not...a permissible...objective.' (40)
That's quite a statement! You can't let kids see the Ten
Commandments, because if they do, they might obey them--things like
'don't steal,' 'don't kill'--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. However, notice what James Madison--the 'Chief
Architect of the Constitution'-said about the Ten Commandments:
'We have staked the whole future of American civilization,
not upon the power of government, far from it. We have
staked the future of all our political institutions upon the
capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves...according
to the Ten Commandments of God.' (41)
It is ironic that that which the 'Chief Architect of the Constitution'
considered to be the most crucial aspect of American constitutional
government, the current Court has now declared to be unconstitutional!
The entire controversy over God and religious activities and teachings
in schools had begun with the twenty-two word prayer--the prayer that
led to the removal of all prayers from America's schools--simply said:
'Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee and
we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and
our Country.' (42)
That prayer--which only acknowledged 'God' and didn't even contain the
word 'Jesus'--was a bland prayer. It was so bland that eight years
later when a court was discussing that prayer, it described that
prayer as a 'To-Whom-It-May-Concern' prayer! (43)
That bland prayer acknowledged God only once. That one
acknowledgement of God is 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 it was unconstitutional!
Since this prayer simply acknowledged God, the Court went so far as to
find out what percentage of the nation did believe in God. In the
1963 case, Abington v. Schempp, the Court reported that only 3 percent
of the nation professed no belief in religion--no belief in God. (44)
Ninety-seven percent of the nation believed in God; that prayer was
consistent with the beliefs of the 97 percent.
Nonetheless, the Court took another first: it sided with the 3 percent
against the 97 percent. This was the first time in America's history
that 3 percent had become a majority. Three percent had always been a
minority; but now, the philosophy of the 3 percent would be the
philosophy under which the 97 percent must conduct its affairs.
[...]
[end of part 5 of 5]
Footnotes
30. Abington v. Schempp; 374 U.S. 203 (1963), and Murray v. Curlett; 374
U.S. 203 (1963).
31. Bible Study Course, New Testament; The Dallas High Schools, Bulletin
No. 170, Authorized by the Board of Education, April 23, 1946. Printed in the
Dallas Public Schools' Print Shop: Dallas, TX, 1946.
32. Id. at 5.
33. Id. at 5-6.
34. Abington v. Schempp; 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
35. Murray v. Curlett; 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
36. Barton, Myth, p. 149, quoting Abington v. Schempp; 374 U.S. 203 at 209
(1963).
37. Reed v. van Hoven; 237 F.Supp. 48 (W.D.Mich. 1965).
38. DeSpain v. DeKalb County Community School District; 255 F.Supp. 655
(N.D.I11.1966).
39. Stone v. Graham; 449 U.S. 39 (1980).
40. Barton, Myth, p. 154, quoting Stone v. Graham; 449 U.S. 39 at 42(1980).
41. Id. at 155, quoting James Madison. See also Harold K. Lane, Liberty!
Cry Liberty! (Boston: Lamb and Lamb Tractarian Society, 1939), p. 32-33.
42. Barton, Myth, p. 145, quoting Engle v. Vitale; 370 U.S. 421 at 422
(1962).
43. Barton, Myth, pp. 145-146, quoting State Board of Education v. Board
of Education of Nectong; 262 A.2d. 21 at 30(Sup.Ct.N.J.) cert. denied, 401
U.S. 1013.
44. Barton, Myth, p. 149, quoting Abington v. Schempp; 374 U.S. 203 at
213 (1963).
------------
The video goes on to show document the decline in Biblical morality in
America since 1962.