David Barton U.S. Congress's blog

The 1984 Federal Law by David Barton

This was the case 14 in which the Supreme Court upheld the display of a government owned crèche, ruling that the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, had a secular purpose with its nativity display, that it had not advanced religion, and that the display had not created an excessive entanglement between religion and government thus satisfying all three prongs of the Court’s “Lemon Test.”

What was the basis for this decision? PRE-1947: 16; POST-1947: 118. Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985

This was the case 15 in which the Court struck down Alabama’s statute authorizing a one-minute period of silence in schools. What precedents caused the Court to rule that a period for silent prayer by students was unconstitutional? PRE-1947: 25; POST-1947: 197. Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987

The issue in this case 16 was a Louisiana statute mandating a so-called “balanced-treatment” in science instruction. The State law forbid “the teaching of the theory of evolution  unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of ‘creation science.’ ” 17 The Court ruled the law violated the

“Lemon Test” and therefore declared it unconstitutional. On which First Amendment precedents? PRE-1947: 13; POST-1947: 114. Allegheny v. ACLU, 1989

Here the Court struck down “stand-alone” crèches displayed in public buildings. 18 On what basis? PRE-1947: 0; POST-1947: 126. Westside v. Mergens, 1990

In this case, 19 the Court upheld the 1984 federal law which provided “Equal Access” to public school buildings for both religious and nonreligious groups. 20 Since Westside High School had allowed nonreligious clubs e.g, Chess, Journalism, Scuba, etc., the Court ruled that the school must also allow Christian clubs “equal access.” On what precedents was this decision based? PRE-1947: 0; POST-1947: 69. Lee v. Weisman, 1992

This was the case 21 in which the Court forbade clerical invocations and benedictions at student graduation ceremonies. From what sources did the Court derive its justification? PRE-1947: 16; POST-1947: 112.

The Constitutional Convention by David Barton

Those who are vested with civil authority ought to promote religion and good morals among all under their government. John Witherspoon, Signer of the

I had the honor of being one among many who framed that Constitution. In order effectually to accomplish these great ends, it is incumbent upon us to begin wisely and to proceed in the fear of God; and it is especially the duty of those who bear rule to promote and encourage piety respect for God and virtue and to discountenance every degree of vice and immorality. Henry Laurens, Presidential of Continental Congress; U.S. Diplomat; Selected as delegate to the Constitutional Convention

The primary objects of government are peace, order, and prosperity of society. To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support and among these religious institutions are eminently useful and important. Oliver Ellsworth, Constitutional Convention; Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court

It is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion. John Jay, Original Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court

Since the Founders who prohibited an establishment of religion also encouraged religion, it is clear contrary to the Court’s assertion in this case that the Founders did not equate encouraging or endorsing religion as an establishment of it. Chief Justice Burger struck out at the Court’s new anti-endorsement criterion:

It makes no sense to say that Alabama has “endorsed prayer” by merely enacting a new statute “to specify expressly that voluntary prayer is one of the authorized activities during a moment of silence.” To suggest that a moment of silence statute that includes the word “prayer” unconstitutionally endorses religion, while one that simply provides for a moment of silence does not, manifests not neutrality but hostility toward religion. The notion that the Alabama statute is a step toward creating an established church borders on, if it does not trespass into, the ridiculous. The statute does not remotely threaten religious liberty. It accommodates the purely private, voluntary religious choices of the individual pupils who wish to pray while at the same time creating a time for nonreligious reflection for those who do not choose to pray. The statute “endorses” only the view that the religious observances of others should be tolerated. Since this decision represented yet another in the Court’s recent series of historically untenable rulings, Justice William Rehnquist undertook a review of the basic history of the First Amendment. His dissent in this case is recommended reading as one of the best historical overviews of the First Amendment available from any source. After his lengthy history lesson, he concluded:

The Christian Nature by David Barton

I have a thorough contempt for all men who appear to be the irreclaimable enemies of religion. Samuel Adams

The most important of all lessons from the Scriptures is the denunciation of ruin to every State that rejects the precepts of religion. Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution

Shun, as a contagious pestilence, those especially whom you perceive to be infected with the principles of infidelity or who are enemies to the power of religion. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country. John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declarations

There is abundant evidence to refute any notion that the Founding Fathers were atheists, agnostics, or deists, or that they wanted to divorce religious principles from public affairs. The more one learns about their activities and writings, the easier it is not only to understand but also to agree with the characterization given by many of them concerning the Christian nature of the American nation and its government. In fact, following the death of Richard Henry Lee President of the Continental Congress and the man who officially introduced in Congress the call for America’s independence, his papers and correspondence, including numerous original handwritten letters from other patriots e.g., George Washington, Benjamin Rush, John Dickinson, etc., were passed on to his grandson who compiled those documents into a two-volume work published in 1825. After having studied those personal letters, the grandson described the great body of men who founded the nation in these words:

The wise and great men of those days were not ashamed publicly to confess the name of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! In behalf of the people, as their representatives and rulers, they acknowledged the sublime doctrine of his mediation! Despite the abundance of evidence on the highly religious nature of the Founding Fathers, many groups have ignored the clear historical records. Instead, they have promoted their own view of the alleged anti or non-religious beliefs of our Founders in attempts to bolster their arguments for the current separation doctrine. The result is that the nation’s policies concerning religion and government have been turned upside-down. In fact, not only does much of the nation not realize that the current “separation of church and state” is not constitutionally mandated, many are not even aware that “the free exercise” of religion is. A recent study showed that “only a third of the nation’s citizens knew freedom of religion was guaranteed by the Constitution’s First Amendment.” How did this reversal happen?

Christianity Practiced in America by David Barton

The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as “wise and virtuous,” by John Quincy Adams as “civilized,” and by John Adams as “rational.” A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:

The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it. Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:

Christianity to which the sword and the fagot burning stake or hot branding iron are unknown general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land! Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes.

The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office; Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797 would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:

The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heretical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

The Sacred Writings by David Barton

Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth that God governs in the affairs of men.

And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel: we shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service. This is a striking speech since it reflects the sentiments of one who is admittedly one of the least religious of the Founders. Roger Sherman of Connecticut seconded Franklin’s motion for prayer, but some opposed it, pointing out that since the Convention had no funds it could not pay for a chaplain. 147 Franklin’s motion was therefore tabled.

However, some accounts indicated that prayer did later occur as a result of Franklin’s request. 149 Delegate Edmund Jennings Randolph of Virginia also proposed: That a sermon be preached at the request of the Convention on the Fourth of July. To accommodate that proposal, on Monday, July 2, the Convention adjourned until Thursday, July 5, so that, as James Madison explained, “time might be given to such as choose to attend to the celebrations on the anniversary of independence.” On July 4, many delegates attended that special service.

Scriptures by David Barton

The motion was seconded and passed in the affirmative. Accordingly next morning he appeared with his clerk and in his pontificallibus robes and read several prayers. After this Mr. Duché, unexpected to everybody struck out into an extemporary prayer which filled the bosom of every man present. I must confess I never heard a better prayer or one so well pronounced with such fervor, such ardor, such earnestness and pathos, and in language so elegant and sublime for America, for the Congress, for the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and especially the town of Boston.

It has had an excellent effect upon everybody here. Several of those who attended were greatly affected by Duché’s prayer and commented upon it, including Samuel Adams, Joseph Reed, and Samuel Ward. 69 Silas Deane recorded: The Congress met and opened with a prayer made by the Revd. Mr. Duché which it was worth riding one hundred mile to hear. He read the lessons of the day Scriptures which were accidentally extremely applicable, and then prayed without book about ten minutes so pertinently, with such fervency, purity, and sublimity of style and sentiment and with such an apparent sensibility of the scenes and business before us, that even Quakers shed tears.

In fact, so strong and compelling had been the prayer that: Mr. Ward of Rhode Island moved that the thanks of the Congress be give to him Rev. Duché for his services which was unanimously agreed to; & Mr. Cushing & Mr. Ward were appointed a Committee for the purpose. It was then moved that he should be requested to print the prayer. However, for reasons noted by delegate James Duane, Congress decided against printing and distributing the prayer because: It being objected that as this might possibly expose him Rev. Duché to some disadvantage, it was out of respect to him waived.

Congress felt that the prayer had such a strong pro-American flavor that if a transcript of its words fell into British hands, Duché could be in danger. Notice, however, that according to the delegates’ records, not only the prayer, but also the “lessons” had strongly impacted the Congress. The “lessons” were the daily Scripture reading from the Psalter which, in the high-church tradition, had been selected years actually, centuries in advance. Yet the one for that day was unusually relevant.

The Historical Evidence by David Barton

When the Holy Trinity Court described America as a “Christian nation,” it did so because, as it explained: This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. 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. According to the Court, it was the “organic utterances” which proved that America was a “Christian nation.” “Organic utterances” are the bulk of historical documents and previous legal rulings that comprise what is called the “common law.”

The previous chapter examined several legal precedents which formed part of the “common law”; this chapter will survey some of its historical components. These historical precedents will be presented in the same chronological order noted by the Court: “from the discovery of the continent to the present hour.” The records from each period will sample the “volume” and “mass of organic utterances” which prompted the Court’s declaration that “this is a Christian nation.” America’s Discovery the Court’s allusion to the “discovery of this continent” immediately evokes an image of Christopher Columbus. Although Columbus clearly was not the first European to visit the “New World” Vikings had traveled here centuries earlier, he first widely publicized, and thus “discovered” its existence to the Europeans.

Columbus undertook his first voyage facing the prospect of great danger. The professional opinion of that day not only assured him of the impossibility of his proposed endeavor, but it also warned him that dragons and death awaited him beyond the charted waters. With such advice coming from the intellectual leaders, his decision to embark on this answered that question in his own writings: Our Lord opened to my understanding I could sense his hand upon me so it became clear to me that it the voyage was feasible.

All those who heard about my enterprise rejected it with laughter, scoffing at me. Who doubts that this illumination was from the Holy Spirit? I attest that He the Spirit, with marvelous rays of light, consoled me through the holy and sacred Scriptures they inflame me with a sense of great urgency. No one should be afraid to take on any enterprise in the name of our Savior if it is right and if the purpose is purely for His holy service. And I say that the sign which convinces me that our Lord is hastening the end of the world is the preaching of the Gospel recently in so many lands.

Defender of the Constitution by David Barton

To construe it the constitution as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 1844 United States Supreme Court This was the third case cited in Holy Trinity, and it involved the probation of the will of Frenchman Stephen Girard who had arrived in America before the Declaration of Independence was signed. Girard settled in Philadelphia and lived there until his death in 1831, whereupon his entire estate and personal property valued at over $7 million was bequeathed to the city on the condition that it construct an orphanage and a college according to his stipulations.

Girard’s heirs the plaintiffs filed suit contesting the will on two grounds: 1 that a private will could not be given to a public entity; and 2 that as a provision for the college, Girard had stipulated:  I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises. My desire is that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality.

His requirement to exclude clergy and religious teachings from a school was unprecedented. The great Daniel Webster the “Defender of the Constitution” and Walter Jones were the lawyers for the plaintiffs. Jones argued that: The plan of education proposed is anti-Christian and therefore repugnant to the law. Webster reminded the Court that: Both in the Old and New Testaments its importance i.e., the religious instruction of youth is recognized.

In the Old it is said, “Thou shalt diligently teach them to thy children,” and in the New, “Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not.” No fault can be found with Girard for wishing a marble college to bear his name forever, but it is not valuable unless it has a fragrance of Christianity about it. Webster believed that the single provision excluding clergy was sufficient to cause Girard’s entire will to be set aside. The city’s attorneys disagreed; although they, too, believed that it was wrong to exclude clergy, they claimed that instead of contesting the entire will, the plaintiffs should simply have: Joined with us in asking the State to cut off the obnoxious clause.

The Holy Evangelists of Almighty God by David Barton

An oath, whether taken by a court witness or a public official, inherently signified a belief in God. There are abundant examples that this was not just an eighteenth century phenomenon. For instance, an 1834 legal guide for Tennessee judges declared: Judges, justices of the peace, and all other persons who are or shall be empowered to administer oaths, shall require the party to be sworn to lay his hand upon the holy evangelists of Almighty God in token of his engagement to speak the truth as he hopes to be saved in the way and method of salvation pointed out in that blessed volume; and in further token that if he should swerve from the truth, he may be justly deprived of all the blessings of the gospels and be made liable to that vengeance which he has imprecated on his own head; and after repeating the words, ‘So help me God,’ shall kiss the holy gospels as a scale of confirmation to said engagement.

There were, however, some groups which held religious convictions for not conforming to this method of oath taking the Quakers, for example. Tolerant of such groups, the legal guide provided this recourse: In all cases where the person to be sworn shall be conscientiously scrupulous in taking a book oath then the party shall stand with his right hand lifted up towards Heaven in token of his solemn appeal to the Supreme God whose dwellings are in the highest Heavens, and also in token that if he should swerve from the truth he would draw down the vengeance of Heaven upon his head with these words, viz: “ ‘You solemnly appeal to God, as a witness of truth and avenger of falsehood, as you shall answer for the same at the great day of judgment, when the secrets of all hearts shall be made known, that,’ &c.

The evidence is clear: the Founders, and even legal authorities for generations afterwards, viewed a belief in God as an inherent part of taking an oath. The Constitution required an oath of office, but prohibited a religious test; an oath, however, presupposed a belief in God; therefore, only under the most extreme and absurd application of Article VI could a belief in God have been considered a religious test. Consequently, when the Torcaso Court struck down the requirement of belief in God to hold office, it essentially struck down the requirement that public officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

The Ratification of the First Amendment by David Barton

Mr. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said it would read better if it was that “no religious doctrine shall be established by law.”  Mr. James Madison of Virginia said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law.” The States seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution it enabled them Congress to make laws of such a nature as might establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended Mr. Madison thought if the word “national” was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen.

He thought if the word “national” was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent. The State debates surrounding the ratification of the First Amendment reinforce this intended purpose. Notice, for example, Governor Samuel Johnston’s comments during North Carolina’s ratifying convention: 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.

In that same convention, Henry Abbot further explained: 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 records are succinct; they clearly document that the Founders’ purpose for the First Amendment is not compatible with the interpretation given it by contemporary courts.