Articles Archives - Page 27 of 33

Private Property Rights Resolution

Resolution Acknowledging the Inalienable Rights of Private Property

I. Whereas, an overriding respect for the sanctity of the ownership and personal use of private property, free from restrictive and invasive regulatory regulations, is firmly embedded in American colonial law, common law, and constitutional law:

A. The three most-influential political philosophers impacting the formation of American law were Charles Montesquieu, William Blackstone, and John Locke¹

B. Charles Montesquieu, whose writings were recommended by major Framers such as James Madison, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, declared: “Let us therefore lay down a certain maxim: that whenever the public good happens to be the matter in question, it is not for the advantage of the public to deprive an individual of his property – or even to retrench the least part of it by a law or a political regulation”²

C. William Blackstone, whose legal writings were considered as the final authority in American courts for a century-and-a-half after the adoption of the U. S. Constitution, declared: “So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property that it will not authorize the least violation of it – no, not even for the general good of the whole community”³

D. John Locke, whose writings had direct impact in the framing both of the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution, succinctly declared that “the preservation of property [is] the reason for which men enter into society” and that “government . . . can never have a power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the subject’s. property without their own consent, for this would be in effect to leave them no property at all”;⁴ and

II. Whereas, the right to hold, possess, and use one’s own private property was also recognized by our Framers and in our founding government documents as one of the foremost of our inalienable, inviolable, God-given rights:

A. Samuel Adams declared that our inalienable rights included “first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly, to property – together with the right to support and defend them”⁵

B. John Adams declared that “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence”⁶ and that “Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty”⁷

C. John Jay, original Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and an author of the Federalist Papers declared that “It is the undoubted right and unalienable privilege of a [citizen] not to be divested or interrupted in the innocent use of . . . property. . . . This is the Cornerstone of every free Constitution”⁸

D. Adam Smith, famous economist of the Founding Era, foresaw the tendencies of governments to impinge the rights of private property, forewarning: “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords [e.g., the governments], like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce”⁹

E. Noah Webster, a Founding Father who served as a judge and legislator, declared that property is “the exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing; ownership. In the beginning of the world, the Creator gave to man dominion over the earth, over the fish of the sea and the fowls of the air, and over every living thing. This is the foundation of man’s property in the earth and in all its productions. Prior occupancy of land and of wild animals gives to the possessor the property of them. The labor of inventing, making or producing anything constitutes one of the highest and most indefeasible titles to property”¹⁰

F. Both John Adams (signer of the Declaration and framer of the Bill of Rights) and William Paterson (signer of the Constitution and Justice placed on the U. S. Supreme Court by President George Washington) declared: “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of . . . acquiring, possessing, and protecting property”¹¹

III. Whereas, our founding governing documents declare that it is the purpose of government to protect and not violate inalienable God-given rights, including the right of owning and using one’s own property;

A. James Madison declared that “Government is instituted to protect property. . . . This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own. . . . That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions [i.e., restrictive zoning requirements], exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their [own] faculties”¹²

B. Fisher Ames, a Framer of the Bill of Rights, forcefully declared that “The chief duty and care of all governments is to protect the rights of property”¹³

C. John Dickinson, a signer of the Constitution, declared: “Let these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds: (1) that we cannot be happy without being free; (2) that we cannot be free without being secure in our property; (3) that we cannot be secure in our property if without our consent others may as by right take it away”¹⁴

D. John Adams – one of only two signers of the Bill of Rights – declared: “Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist” and that “it is agreed that the end of all government is the good and ease of the people in a secure enjoyment of their rights without oppression”¹⁵

E. James Wilson – a signer of the Declaration, signer of the Constitution, original U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and founder of the first organized legal training in America – declared that American government was created “to acquire a new security for the possession or the recovery of those rights to . . . which we were previously entitled by the immediate gift or by the unerring law of our all-wise and all-beneficent Creator,” including the right of property, and that “every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind”¹⁶

F. Thomas Jefferson similarly declared that the purpose of government “is to declare and enforce only our natural [inalienable, God-given] rights and duties and to take none of them from us,”¹⁷ including the right to own, use, and enjoy one’s own private property

G. An early public school textbook on ethics, reprinted for generations, transmitted these original principles to young Americans, teaching them: “Property is something which one owns and has a right to own. . . . Everything which you see or touch belongs to you or to somebody else. If it belongs to you, you have the right to do what you please with it, provided you do not abuse it: if it belongs to somebody else, you have no right to it whatever”¹⁸ – a prohibition that applies equally to government entities as well as to individuals; and

IV. Whereas, the Common Law, directly incorporated into the U. S. Constitution by the Seventh Amendment, establishes that an “absolute right . . . is that of property. . . . So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property that. . . . [i]n vain may it be urged that the good of the individual ought to yield to that of the community; for it would be dangerous to allow any private man, or even any public tribunal [governmental body], to be the judge of this common good and to decide whether it be expedient or no [how to use that property]”;¹⁹ and

VI. Therefore, Be It Resolved, that all interpretations and applications of zoning ordinances shall be examined and applied so as to recognize and preserve the inalienable, inviolable principles of private property usage and that such individual rights may be infringed only if it is clearly proven that they directly injure or harm the same rights of another citizen.

Footnotes

¹ Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1988), 143; Donald S. Lutz, “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought,” American Political Science Review, 78:1:191, March 1984.

² Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws (London: J. Nourse and P. Vaillant, 1752), 210.

³ William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), I:139; The Founders’ Constitution, “Property: William Blackstone, Commentaries” (at http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s5.html).

⁴ John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (London: Awnsham and John Churchill, 1698) 273-274, Second Treatise §§ 138-40.

⁵ Samuel Adams, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, William V. Wells, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), I:502, “The Natural Rights of the Colonists As Men.”

⁶ John Adams, A Defence of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Young, 1797), III:217, “The Right Constitution of a Commonwealth Examined.”

⁷ John Adams, A Defence of the Constitution (1797), III:216, “The Right Constitution of a Commonwealth Examined.”

⁸ John Jay, John Jay The Making of a Revolutionary, Unpublished Papers, 1745-1780, ed. Richard B. Morris (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980), I:462, “A Freeholder: A Hint to the Legislature of the State of New York,” Winter 1778.

⁹ Adam Smith, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: Vol. I, Chapter 6.”

¹⁰ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. “property.”

¹¹ The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman and Bowen, 1785), 6; William Paterson, The Charge of Judge William Paterson to the Jury (Philadelphia, Smith, 1796), 15.

¹² James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906), VI:102, “Property,” March 29, 1792.

¹³ Fisher Ames, The Works of Fisher Ames (Boston: T.B. Wait & Co., 1809), 125, “Eulogy on Washington”, Feb. 8, 1800.

¹⁴ John Dickinson, The Political Writings of John Dickinson (Wilmington, Bonsal and Niles, 1801), I:275, “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the inhabitants of the British Colonies,” Letter XII.

¹⁵ John Adams, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), VI:280, “Discourse on Davila; a Series of Papers on Political History.”

¹⁶ John Adams, A Defence of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Young, 1797), III:293-294, “The Right Constitution of a Commonwealth Examined”; The Founders’ Constitution, “Balanced Government: John Adams, Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States” (at https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch11s10.html).

¹⁷ James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, ed. Bird Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), II:454, 466, “Of The Natural Rights Of Individuals.”

¹⁸ Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, ed. Thomas Jefferson Randolph (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), IV:278, to Francis Gilmer, June 7, 1816.

¹⁹ William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), I:138-139; The Founders’ Constitution, “Property: William Blackstone, Commentaries” (at https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s5.html).

Testimony on Global Warming

Testimony of David Barton in the June 7, 2007¹

U.S. Senate Hearing on Global Warming in the

Environment and Public Works Committee

My name is David Barton. I represent a group that works to integrate faith with the many practical issues of daily life, and each year I personally speak to hundreds of religious groups from numerous different Christian denominations. I was honored to be named by Time Magazine as one of America’s twenty-five most influential Evangelicals,² meaning, of course, that I will address this issue from an Evangelical perspective.

Evangelicals are generally characterized by an adherence to what is considered a traditional – that is, a conservative – Biblical theology. While Gallup has placed the number of Evangelicals at 124 million and Barna at much less, most estimates place the number at about 100 million.³ Significantly, statistics demonstrate that the religious groups and denominations in America adhering to conservative theological views (such as Evangelicals) are growing in membership and affiliation,⁴ whereas those adhering to liberal theological views are declining.⁵

In my experience, three factors influence how people of conservative religious faith – especially Evangelicals – approach the issue of man-caused Global Warming. The first is their theological view of man and the environment; the second is the perceived credibility of the scientific debate; and the third is how Evangelicals prioritize the issue of Global Warming among the other cultural and social issues of concern to them.

Concerning the first factor, a very accurate rendering of Evangelicals’ general theological position on the environment is presented in the Cornwall Declaration,⁶ prepared by twenty-five conservative Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish theologians. In general, conservative people of faith view the creation in Genesis as moving upward in an ascending spiritual hierarchy, beginning with the creation of the lowest (the inanimate) and moving toward the highest (the animate), with the creation of man and woman being the capstone of God’s work. God placed man and woman over creation, not under it;⁷ man and woman interacted with nature and the environment, they were not isolated from it.⁸ As the Cornwall Declaration explains, there is no conservative theological basis for the current belief of environmentalists that “humans [are] principally consumers and polluters rather than producers and stewards,” and that “nature knows best,” or that “the earth, untouched by human hands is the ideal.”⁹ Religious conservatives believe just the opposite; and as my orthodox Jewish Rabbi friend reminded me just last week, the Scriptures teach conservation, not preservation. Man is the steward of nature and the environment and is definitely to tend and guard it, but it is to serve him, not vice versa.¹⁰ From the beginning, God strongly warned against elevating nature and the environment over humans and their Creator.¹¹ This generally summarizes the theology common among Evangelicals on this point.

The second factor influencing conservative religious adherents is the credibility of the scientific debate; and when something is still debated as heavily as is the issue of man-caused Global Warming, and when there is still not a clear consensus, Evangelicals tend to approach that issue with great skepticism. Significantly, in 1992, Al Gore declared: “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”¹² Yet a Gallup Poll that same year revealed that “53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe [man-caused] global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed [man-caused] global warming had begun.”¹³ Clearly, despite Gore’s claims to the contrary, there was much more than “an insignificant fraction of scientists” denying that there was a man-caused Global Warming crisis.

Now, fifteen years later, there still is no consensus. For example, even though 2,500 of the world’s top scientists agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertions about man-caused Global Warming,¹⁴ well over 10,000 scientists do not.¹⁵ Recent national articles have attempted to draw attention to this fact (see, for example, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Atmospheric Science Professor Richard Lindzen declaring: “There is no ‘Consensus’ on Global Warming”;¹⁶ “They Call This A Consensus?” in the Canada Financial Post<¹⁷

Yet, when such truthful claims are made, those making them are aggressively attacked by the Global Warming supporters, whose counter-claims are eagerly broadcast by the mainstream media. For example, when NASA head Michael Griffin recently stated that he did not see Global Warming as a “problem we must wrestle with,”¹⁸ outspoken Global Warming promoter James Hansen (called “a grandfather of the Global Warming theory”¹⁹) immediately and fiercely attacked the NASA chief, telling national news reporters: “It’s an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement. It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change.”²⁰

Even though numerous scientists across the globe sided with NASA chief Griffin,²¹ their voices were unreported. Griffin eventually acknowledged that he wished “he’d stayed out of the debate on climate effects,” noting that “this is an issue which has become far more political than technical.”²²

There are many others in the scientific community who are unwilling to openly air their view for fear of being similarly attacked in what truly is a much more of a political than a technical debate.

The lack of consensus in the scientific community is paralleled in the Evangelical community. For example, although more than 100 religious leaders in a highly-publicized announcement signed onto the Evangelical Climate Initiative on Global Warming calling for immediate action on what they believed was man-caused Global Warming,²³ more than 1,500 religious leaders signed onto the Cornwall Declaration that reached quite different conclusions;²⁴ yet that much larger declaration went without media notice.

Many Evangelicals, like many scientists, are skeptical on the issue of man-caused Global Warming; and in the case of Evangelicals, their skepticism is heightened by their memory of previous politically-driven “scientific” consensuses. For example:

Twenty years ago the scientific community proclaimed that fetal tissue research held the solution for many of the world’s health problems, but the science on that issue has subsequently proven to be a complete bust.²⁵
In the 1960s, environmental scientists warned that the Global Population Bomb would soon doom the entire planet;²⁶ in the 1980s as population growth continued to increase, they further warned that by the year 2000, economic growth would be destroyed.²⁷ and there would be a worldwide unemployment crisis.²⁸ The world population has almost doubled since those predictions, but the current worldwide unemployment rate is only 6.3 percent.²⁹ and worldwide economic growth is and has been booming for many years.
In the 1960s, environmental scientists similarly claimed that DDT harmed humans and caused cancer, thus resulting in a near worldwide ban on the use of that pesticide. Now, four decades later, the scientific community has found no harm to humans from DDT,³⁰ so it has been reintroduced to fight the mosquitoes that carry malaria.³¹ Regrettably, in the intervening years, between one and two million persons each year needlessly died each year from malaria because DDT had been banned.³² Recent years have been filled with scientific claims that embryonic stem-cell research holds the cure for human maladies from Alzheimer’s to diabetes to the reversal of spinal cord injuries and everything in between.³³ However, after twenty-five years of embryonic stem-cell research, not a single cure has been documented,³⁴ yet during the same time, adult stem-cell research has produced dozens of documented cures for some of mankind’s most serious medical problems.³⁵
For more than a century, scientists have asserted unaided materialistic evolution – that God had no part in the appearance of man. Yet, despite a century of this aggressive “scientific” indoctrination, today only 12-18 percent of the nation accepts that position; some eighty percent do not believe what “science” avows on this issue.³⁶
Less than a decade ago, science was warning of the worldwide problems that would result from the world arriving at a new millennia – a problem known as Y2K, or the millennium bug. It was viewed as an impending disaster, and after U. S. Senators received a 160-page report on the issue in a closed-door briefing session, “Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, advised citizens to stock up on canned goods. Senator Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican, suggested that passengers ask airlines about Y2K before boarding a plane this New Year’s Eve. Senator Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, said there was a great likelihood of economic disruptions around the world . . . [and] would not rule out the possibility of intercontinental warfare as a result of Y2K.”³⁷ States such as Ohio built underground bunkers into which they moved state operations in preparation for the coming massive failures; the U. S. military and National Guard were put on alert; the U. S. Treasury printed an additional $200 million in extra currency; and the FBI created a special division to deal with the problems. The U. S. spent some $225 billion to address an impending disaster based on what turned out to be inaccurate scientific warnings.³⁸
In the 1970s, scientists claimed that aerosols were a leading cause of harm to the environment,³⁹ but a recent report now shows that “Aerosols actually have a cooling effect on global temperatures” which helps “cancel out the warming effect of CO2.”⁴⁰ In short, science – especially environmental science – has a demonstrated pattern of announcing strong and emphatic conclusions and then later reversing itself.Further buoying the current skepticism about man-caused

Global Warming is the fact that the scientific clamor about radical climate change has been occurring for almost a century. For example, in the 1920s, the newspapers were filled with scientists warning of a fast approaching Glacial Age; but in the 1930s, scientists reversed themselves and instead predicted serious Global Warming.⁴¹ But by 1972, Time was citing numerous scientific reports warning of imminent “runaway glaciation,”⁴² and in 1975, Newsweek reported overwhelming scientific evidence that proved an approaching Ice Age, with scientists warning the government to stockpile food; proposals were even advanced to melt the artic ice cap in an effort to help forestall the oncoming Ice Age.⁴³ In fact, in 1976, the U. S. Government itself even released a study affirming that “the earth is heading into some sort of mini-ice age.”⁴⁴

Now, however, just a few years later, the warning of an imminent Ice Age has been replaced with the warning of an impending Global Warming disaster. In less than a century, environmental science has completely reversed itself on this issue no less than three times.Yet, in deference to the scientific community, some of the reversals in their predictions are completely understandable, for the scientific community was merely responding to the changing temperature trends as measured at the Artic. For example, notice that on the chart below, the temperature did indeed fall throughout the 1920s, rise throughout the 1930s, fall throughout the 1960s, and has been rising since the 1980s. However, is the current temperature rise man-caused as environmental activists and liberals claim, or might it stem from something else? Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon has correlated the last century of temperature changes to solar activity rather than to human activity producing increased carbon-dioxide emissions.⁴⁵ Those charts therefore suggest that unless Congress can pass legislation controlling the sun, it is unlikely that restricting human activity will have any significant effect in reducing the rising global temperatures.Another indication of the current volatility of the science among Global Warming proponents is the fact that they are reversing themselves even on their own recent claims. For example, just a few years ago scientists predicted that the seas would rise from 20 to 40 feet because of Global Warming,⁴⁶ with “waves crashing against the steps of the U.S. Capitol” that would “launch boats from the bottom of the Capitol steps”; additionally, one-third of Florida and large parts of Texas were projected to be under water.⁴⁷

Now, however, the estimates have been revised radically downward to a maximum water rise of anywhere from only a few inches to just a few feet at most.⁴⁸

Clearly, the science on this issue continues to oscillate; in fact, Senator Inhofe is one of many who have tracked the number of leading scientists who, after announcing their position in support of anthropogenic Global Warming, have reversed that position upon further research. This lack of consensus, coupled with the issuing of so many forceful assertions followed by subsequent repudiations, certainly merits a very cautious and guarded approach to any proposed congressional policy on this subject.The truth is that Evangelicals and people of conservative religious faith are very comfortable with theological teachings that have been proved correct for millennia, but not with science that often reverses its own claims on the same issue. And while science is still debating the causes of Global Warming and trying to decide where the ocean waves will end up, religious conservatives rest in the many promises of the Scriptures. For example, in Genesis 8:21-22, God promised that the natural cycles would continue (“While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease”); and Psalm 104:9 declares: “You set a boundary that they [the waters] may not pass over, so that they will not return to cover the earth”; and in Jeremiah 5:22, God asks: “Will you not tremble at My presence, Who have placed the sand as the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree that it [the sea] cannot pass beyond it? And though its waves toss to and fro, yet they cannot prevail.” To date, neither science nor experience has disproved the promises of those Scriptures. Considering not only the theological beliefs of Evangelicals but also the rapidly-changing science surrounding anthropogenic Global Warming, the skepticism of religious conservatives on this issue is understandable.The third factor affecting Evangelicals’ approach to man-caused Global Warming is how they rank that issue among other issues of importance to them, for Evangelicals are concerned about many issues, not just one. In fact, polls indicate that it is not conservative Christians who are fixated with single issues such as abortion but rather it is liberals. As a recent poll on Americans’ views toward the judiciary reported, for liberals, “no other issue rivals abortion in importance,” but among Evangelicals, “three-quarters . . .view abortion as very important, [and] nearly as many place great importance on court rulings on the rights of detained terrorist suspects (69%) and whether to permit religious displays on government property (68%).”⁴⁹

Very simply, Evangelicals tend to have many issues of importance on their list of concerns, not just one. So where does the issue of man-caused Global Warming rank on that list of concerns?Current polling shows that Evangelicals are not cohesive about the issue;⁵⁰ and while 12 percent of the nation overall ranks Global Warming as a top priority issue,⁵¹ less than 6 percent of Evangelicals do so.⁵² However, they do remain the most cohesive group in the nation on many other issues, including their opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and civil unions;⁵³ in teaching teenagers to abstain from sex until marriage;⁵⁴ and in support of public religious expressions.⁵⁵

In fact, in this latter area, among Evangelicals, 99.5 percent support public displays of the Ten Commandments; 99 percent support keeping the phrase “In God We Trust” on the nation’s currency; 96 percent support keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance; and 86 percent support teaching Creationism in the public school classroom; additionally, 94 percent oppose allowing the use of profanity on broadcast television.⁵⁶ It is unlikely that Global Warming will overshadow these other issues at anytime in the near future.

One other issue on which Evangelicals show cohesive support is in global efforts to fight extreme poverty: not only do 90 percent support such efforts,⁵⁷ but 87 percent directly cite their Evangelical faith as the reason for “helping those less fortunate than [them]selves.”⁵⁸ Yet, significantly, the poor will suffer most under the current “cap and trade” policy proposals for reducing man-caused Global Warming. (Under “cap & trade” programs, a “cap” is set on the total amount of emissions permitted and companies may then buy and “trade” to receive permits to release emissions). Independent analyses affirm that “cap and trade” programs definitely will be “regressive” – that is, there will definitely be higher consumer costs caused by the programs, and those higher costs will be felt most directly by the poor who least can afford to bear those costs as the price they pay for energy and utilities will soar. (See, for example, the April 27, 2007, report from the Congressional Budget Office⁵⁹ or the report “A Call to Truth>, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming” from the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance.⁶⁰

Given the fact that the current proposals will harshly impact the poor in developing nations and dramatically impede their hopes for a more prosperous life, it is even less likely that Evangelicals will place the theoretical needs of the environment above the actual needs of the poor.In summary, the three primary factors influencing how Evangelicals respond to the current vigorous debate on Global Warming are: (1) their theological views of man and his relationship to nature and the environment; (2) their skepticism over scientific disputes until a clear and unambiguous consensus has emerged; and (3) their ranking of that issue within the list of the many other issues of concern to them. (Of course, the fact the climate-change agenda is being so aggressively promoted by the same groups which regularly oppose Evangelicals on core issues of faith and values further exacerbates Evangelicals’ suspicion about anthropogenic, or man-caused, Global Warming.)

Currently, I do not find any substantial widespread movement in the mainstream Evangelical community to support any policy proposal on Global Warming that would significantly alter the way individuals now live, or that might inflict additional burdens on the poor and potentially confine them to a permanent state of poverty. Based on these points, I urge extreme caution in crafting any legislative policy on this issue.

Endnotes

¹ At the time this document was being prepared for submission to the Senate Committee, additional inquiries were still underway by the author; that information was not available in time for the hearing, but was subsequently submitted to the Committee and then added to this document, thus making it slightly different from what was originally submitted to the Senate Committee. Additionally, this document also incorporates much of what the author presented orally during the question and answer period with the Senators.

² “The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals In America,” Time, February 7, 2005.

³ See, for example, Wheaton College, “Defining Evangelicalism.”

⁴ Such as the National Association of Evangelicals, which now represents about 30 million people from 60 member denominations as well as individual churches from numerous other denominations (at National Association of Evangelicals, “Benefits of Membership”).

⁵ For example, mainline churches that make up organizations such as the National Council of Churches have lost over 35 percent of their members since the 1970s. “The National Council of Churches (NCC) now receives more funding from private foundations, most of them secular and politically liberal, than from its member denominations, it was revealed at its fall 2005 Governing Board meeting. In the fiscal year ending in June 2005, the NCC received $1,761,714 from liberal foundations, compared to $1,750,332 from its 35 member churches. The foundations include the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Tides Foundation, the Better World Fund, the Sierra Club, the AARP, the Ocean Conservancy, and the National Religious Partnership on the Environment,” from Touchstone,
“NCC Exit Poll” (at https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=19-02-057-r).

⁶ Available at Cornwall Alliance, “A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor”; Cornwall Alliance, “The Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship.”

⁷ In Matthew 10:31 and Luke 12:7, Christ reminds man that “You are of more value than many sparrows,” and Psalm 8:6-8 declares: “You have made man to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, all animal, birds, and fish, whether on land or in the sea.”

⁸ In Genesis 1:25-29, God created all, and then placed man over his creation to interact with all of it, whether animate or inanimate.

⁹ The Cornwall Alliance, https://www.cornwallalliance.org.

¹⁰ Genesis2:8-20 records man’s stewardship and interaction with creation, not his removal from it. God put him in the Garden to tend and keep it; and God brought his
creation before Adam, who named it all.

¹¹ See, for example, Romans 1:20-25; for instances where man wrongly turned their primary focus toward animals and the creation rather than the Creator; see also Exodus 32:7-9, 34-35; 2 Kings 17:14-16l 2 Kings 18:3-5; 2 Chronicles 11:14-15; Nehemiah 9:17-19; Psalms 106:19-23; Ezekiel 8:9-12; Acts 7:40-42; etc.

¹² “They call this a consensus?” Financial Post, June 2, 2007.

¹³ “They call this a consensus?” Financial Post, June 2, 2007.

¹⁴ “They call this a consensus?” Financial Post, June 2, 2007.

¹⁵ “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine; “List of Signers by State,” Petition Project.

¹⁶ “There is No ‘Consensus’ on Global Warming,” Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006.

¹⁷ “They call this a consensus?” Financial Post, June 2, 2007.

¹⁸ “Scientists Surprised by NASA Chief’s Climate Comments: NASA Administrator Michael Griffin Questions Need to Combat Warming,” ABC News, May 31, 2007.

¹⁹ See, for example, Harmonious Living, “A New Global Warming Strategy”; Veganica.com, “Biggest Cause of Global Warming Ignored”; Energy Tribune, “Global Warming: Witnesses for the Skeptical Perspective”; and others.

²⁰ “Scientists Surprised by NASA Chief’s Climate Comments: NASA Administrator Michael Griffin Questions Need to Combat Warming,” ABC News, May 31, 2007.

²¹ “Scientists Rally Around NASA Chief After Global Warming Comments,” E-Wire, June 4, 2007.

²² See, for example, “NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming,” MSNBC, June 5, 2007.

²³ “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action,” Evangelical Climate Initiative.

²⁴ Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, “About ISA.”

²⁵ See, for example, testimony of Andrew Kimbrell of the International Center for Technology Assessment before the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee on February 5, 2002, from United States Senate, “Committee on the Judiciary: Human Cloning: Must We Sacrifice Medical Research in the Name of a Total Ban?”

²⁶ See, for example, Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (New York: Ballantine Books, 1968), and many other books and articles.

²⁷ “Get Serious About Population,” The New York Times, April 12, 1984, A-26.

²⁸ Warren Brown, “A Population Bomb: Report Warns Increase in Children May Trigger Third-World Unrest,” The Washington Post, March 10, 1979, A-2; “The Right Number of American,” The New York Times, February 2, 1989, A-24; “We are too many,” The Globe and Mail (Canada), September 14, 1983; “Our crowded planet,” The Globe and Mail (Canada), December 26, 1985.

²⁹ International Labour Office, “Global Employment Trends.”

³⁰ “Dr. Conyers, I Presume,” Wall Street Journal, April 28, 2007; “Without DDT, malaria bites back,” Spiked, April 24, 2001.

³¹ “Dr. Conyers, I Presume,” Wall Street Journal, April 28, 2007; “Without DDT, malaria bites back,” Spiked, April 24, 2001.

³² “Dr. Conyers, I Presume,” Wall Street Journal, April 28, 2007; “Without DDT, malaria bites back,” Spiked, April 24, 2001.; “Forty years of perverse ‘social responsibility’,” Canada Free Press, March 26, 2007.

³³ See, for example, Joe Palca, “Q&A: Embryonic Stem Cells: Exploding the Myths,” NPR, March 30, 2007; “Current state of stem cell-based therapies: an overview,” Stem Cell Investigation, 2020; and many others.

³⁴ See, for example, “Nascent Falsehood: If embryonic research is so promising, why do its backers need to lie?” National Review; “Empty Hope Of Stem Cell Science,” New York Sun; Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, “Where’s The Beef” citing Diana Kapp, “The $3 Billion Cell Job,” San Francisco, January, 2005 (acknowledging “Not a single embryonic stem cell has ever been tested in a human being, for any disease”); “Science’s Stem-Cell Scam: It should change its name to Pseudoscience,” National Review; and many others.

³⁵ See, for example, “Expectant Families: Diseases Treated with Stem Cells,” CorCell; Lifenews.com, “Science’s New Era Centers On Adult, Not Embryonic Stem Cell
Research,” Lifenews.com, June 11, 2007; National Review, “Science’s Stem-Cell Scam: It should change its name to Pseudoscience”; The Washington Times, “Adult stem
cells produce treatment breakthroughs,” The Washington Times, December 28, 2003; Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, “Where’s The Beef? Hint: Not with Embryonic Stem Cells”; and many others.

³⁶ For example, the contrast was 13% v. 78% in the March 28-29, 2007 Newsweek Poll; 13% v. 82% in the May 8-11, 2006 Gallup Poll; 17% v. 76% in the April 6-9, 2006 CBS Poll; 12% v. 84% in the September 8-11, 2005 in CNN/USA Today Poll: “Science and Nature: Origin of Human Life,” PollingReport.com.

³⁷ Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, “Senate Y2K Watchers Sound Muted Alarm,” United States Senate.

³⁸ For a collage of the various articles chronicling the government’s preparedness actions, see “Y2K Emergency Update,” Cinemonky.

³⁹ W. Sullivan. “Tests Show Aerosol Gases May Pose Threat to Earth,” New York Times, 26 September 1974, A1.

⁴⁰ “A New Global Warming Strategy: How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes,” EarthSave, August 2005.

⁴¹ Chicago Daily Tribune, August 9, 1923, “Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada”; Los Angeles Times, October 7, 1932, “Fifth Ice Age Is On The Way”; Los Angeles Times, April 6, 1924, “New Ice-Age is Forecast”; Los Angeles Times, March 11, 1929, “Is Another Ice Age Coming?”; New York Times, February 24, 1867, “The Glacial Period”; New York Times, February 24, 1895, “Prospects of Another Glacial Period”; New York Times, October 7, 1912, “Sees Glacial Era Coming”; New York Times,
June 10, 1923, “Menace of a New Ice Age to be Tested by Scientists”; New York Times, September 28, 1924, “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age”; New York Times, January 27, 1972, “Climate Experts Assay Ice Age Clues”; New York Times, May 21, 1975, “Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing”; “Major Cooling May Be Ahead”; Washington Post, August 10, 1923, “Volcanoes in Australia”; “Ice Age Coming Here”; Washington Post, October 28, 1928, “An Ice-Free World, What Then?”; Washington Post, August 2, 1930,”Hot Weather”; Washington Post, May 3, 1932, “Second World Flood Seen, if Earth’s Heat Increases”; Washington Post, January 11, 1970, “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age”; Atlantic, December 1932, “This Cold, Cold World”; Fortune, August 1954, “Climate – the Heat May Be Off”; International Wildlife, July-August 1975, “In the Grip of a New Ice Age?”; Newsweek, April 28, 1975, “The Cooling World”; Science News, Nov 15, 1969, “Earth’s Cooling Climate”; Science News, March 1, 1975, “Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities”; Time, January 2, 1939, “Warmer World”; Time, October 29, 1951, “Retreat of the Cold”; Time, June 24, 1974, “Another Ice Age?”; U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976, “Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend.”

⁴² “Another Ice Age?” Time, November 13, 1972.

⁴³ “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975. See also George Will, “Cooler Heads Needed on Warming,” RealClearPolitics, April 2, 2006. Science Magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.” Science Digest (February 1973) reported that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age.” The Christian Science Monitor (“Warning: Earth’s Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect,” Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers “have begun to advance,” “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” and “the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.” Newsweek agreed (“The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975) that meteorologists “are almost unanimous” that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said “may mark the return to another ice age.” The Times (May 21, 1975) also said “a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable” now that it is “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950.” . . . “About the mystery that vexes ABC – Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? – perhaps the . . . problem is big crusading journalism.”

⁴⁴ “Worrisome CIA report; Even U.S. Farms May Be Hit By Cooling Trend,” U. S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976.

⁴⁵ Charts prepared and presented by Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, “Remarks for the Council on National Policy Meeting,” May 11, 2007.

⁴⁶ See, for example, “Trouble on the Rise,” Sea Grant New York; “Climate Changes Futures: Health, Ecological and Economic Dimensions,” ClimateChangesFutures.org; “Global Warming’s Increasingly Visible Impacts,” Environmental Defense.

⁴⁷ Robert Locke, AP Science Writer, January 8, 1979, coving the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting, Christian Science Monitor, October 8, 1980.

⁴⁸ See, for example, “Global Warming’s Increasingly Visible Impacts,” Environmental Defense; “We’re All New Orleanians Now,” The Atlantic, September 29, 2010; “Trouble on the Rise,” Sea Grant New York; “Climate Changes Futures: Health, Ecological and Economic Dimensions,” ClimateChangesFutures.org.

⁴⁹ “Abortion and Rights of Terror Suspects Top Court Issues,” Pew Research Center, August 3, 2005.

⁵⁰ ABCNews/Time/Stanford Poll: Global Warming; March 26, 2006, p. 7 that “There’s been interest in the views of evangelical white Protestants . . . since 86 evangelical leaders last month signed a statement citing ‘general agreement’ among scientists working on the issue that climate change is happening, and urging federal legislation to deal with it. This survey, however, finds little resonance for that statement among evangelical white Protestants.”

⁵¹ “Political climate changing on global warming,” MarketWatch.

⁵² “POLL: Priority of ‘global warming’ for evangelicals,” OneNewsNow.

⁵³ “Pragmatic Americans Liberal and Conservative on Social Issues,” Pew Research Center, August 3, 2006.

⁵⁴ “Abortion and Rights of Terror Suspects Top Court Issues,” Pew Research Center, August 3, 2005.

⁵⁵ “Abortion and Rights of Terror Suspects Top Court Issues,” Pew Research Center, August 3, 2005.

⁵⁶ “Barna Poll: 33 Percent of Adults Agree with Declaring America a ‘Christian Nation’,” The Christian Post, July 31, 2004.

⁵⁷ “Poll: Faith Sometimes Drives Support for AIDS, Poverty Relief,” Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy.

⁵⁸ “Poll: Faith Sometimes Drives Support for AIDS, Poverty Relief,” Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy.

⁵⁹ “Trade-Offs in Allocating Allowances for CO2 Emissions,” Congressional Budget Office.

⁶⁰ “A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming,” Cornwall Alliance.

* This article concerns a historical issue and may not have updated information.

Why Christians Must Vote in This Election

Despite the remarkable progress made in 2006 on pro-faith and pro-family issues, virtually all the mainstream media news about Washington politics has been almost completely negative. Apparently, the liberal media does not consider progress on traditional religious and moral values to be newsworthy, but only news about the Mark Foley scandal, being bogged down in Iraq, conservative voter discouragement, etc.

Unfortunately, highlighting the negative news while ignoring the substantial progress made in the culture war tends to disengage values voters (which, by the way, certainly might be part of the reason for their selective reporting). Nevertheless, many good bills have been signed into federal law:

ØThe Internet Gambling Prohibition Act closes down a huge anti-family industry. Four federal laws already prohibit Internet gambling, but since all major gambling sites operate outside the United States, federal enforcement is virtually impossible. This Act now requires financial institutions to block credit card and other payments to Internet gambling sites. The impact of the bill was immediate: the value of stock in Great Britain’s online gambling companies dropped fifty percent upon passage of the bill; two Internet gambling firms sold their American operations for only $1; the directors of a major Internet gambling company simply resigned and walked off, leaving the company in the hands of creditors. Internet gambling – one of the fastest growing forms of addiction in America – is now dramatically curtailed, if not completely stopped.

ØThe Broadcast Decency Act imposes significant penalties on networks and stations for public broadcasts of indecent incidents (such as the infamous “wardrobe malfunction” at the halftime of the Super Bowl) and indecent speech (such as the egregious language used by Howard Stern on his programs). Instead of a maximum FCC fine of $32,500 per program, the fine is now raised to $325,000 per incident/word, with no cap on the amount of total fines per program. Already, Howard Stern has been dropped from broadcast TV, and many other programs and networks are also cleaning up their act.

ØA religious liberty measure was signed into law that reverses the current Pentagon policy preventing military chaplains from praying according to their faith – a policy that specifically kept them from using words such as “Jesus” or “Christ” in their prayers. Military chaplains once again have the freedom to pray in the manner they choose – as they did during the first 230 years of American history.

ØThe Fetal Farming Ban prohibits the creation of fetuses solely to be aborted for research purposes. As embryonic stem-cell research continues to falter and persists in proving unsuccessful, researchers are seeking new sources of embryonic stem cells; this bill shuts off one significant venue by prohibiting the creation of human embryos for the purpose of harvesting their stem cells. (Incidentally, during the past decade, congressional leadership has allowed over 170 votes on pro-life issues, the overwhelming majority of which have ended favorably.)

ØThe Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act increases availability to patients of cord blood stem-cell treatments, a rich source of stem cells (a source obtained without destroying any human embryo) that has already successfully been used to treat at least 85 diseases.

ØThe Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act prohibits government at any level from using federal funds to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens during emergencies (as happened in Louisiana after Katrina, when 1,300 guns were confiscated from law-abiding citizens, directly resulting in many of those specific homes and businesses being stripped by looters).

ØThe defunding of a $300 million grant to build a gay-lesbian center in Los Angeles.

ØThe Freedom to Display the American Flag Act ensures that an individual has the right to display the U. S. flag on residential property, even if condominium associations and homeowner groups object.

ØThe Child Pornography Prevention Act strengthens and enhances prosecution of child pornography. Previously, interstate pornography (i.e., instances where child pornography is transmitted from one state to another) was prohibited, but this Act now prohibits intrastate child pornography (i.e., material that stays within the same state). Additionally, it prohibits prosecutors from making additional copies to distribute to defendant’s attorneys, thereby limiting its use and exposure of exploited children even in appropriate prosecutions.

ØThe Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Act transfers possession of a 29-foot high cross (part of a Korean War memorial in San Diego under assault from the ACLU) to the federal government. A federal judge ruled that the cross violated the California constitution and ordered it be torn down or the City of San Diego to pay $5,000 per day in fines until it was removed. With this Act, the Memorial will no longer be subject to that judge’s opinion of the California constitution and thus will remain proudly standing, as it has for the past fifty years.

There have also been many other good bills passed during Congress, including bills strengthening faith-based programs, limiting judicial powers and thus restraining judicial activism, etc. Furthermore, there have been some very, very close “near misses,” whereby only one individual has prevented complete success. For example:

ØThe “Child Custody Protection Act” prohibits minor girls from being transported across state lines for an abortion without their parents’ knowledge. This bill passed the House twice this session, and the Senate once; yet, despite the 4-1 margin of support from the American public, one member of the Senate prevented a Conference Committee with the House on this measure, thereby effectively killing the bill. If not for the procedural maneuver, this bill would now be law.

ØThe House passed a constitutional amendment to prevent flag desecration, and the vote in the Senate was 66-34 – one vote short of the two-thirds needed for final approval. This constitutional amendment would forever prohibit activist federal judges from addressing this issue.

ØThe House voted (for the fourth time) to abolish the immoral Death Tax, and the Senate came within one vote of passing the repeal. Only 50 Senators are needed to rescind this outrageous anti-family tax, and 59 Senators currently support the repeal; but the measure has been filibustered, and the vote to break the filibuster failed by one vote as anti-family liberals hung together to keep the filibuster alive.

Furthermore, one of the most significant (and unheralded) successes in this Congress has been the confirmation of scores of strict-constructionists to the federal bench – an achievement that may be directly attributed to increased Christian voter activity in the past two elections. Over the last four years, Christian voter turnout increased 82 percent, and the result of that increase has been apparent in the changed composition of Congress.

For example, of the 94 freshmen elected to the House in those two elections, 61 were pro-life, pro-faith, and pro-family (i.e., about two-thirds of the new members). Similarly, of the 19 freshmen elected to the Senate during that time, 15 were pro-life, pro-faith, and pro-family (about 79 percent of new members). These new Senators provided the margin of victory needed to confirm the appointment of two new strict-constructionist pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court; and the Court has already begun to change, including this year’s decision reversing a pro-abortion policy implemented twenty-five years ago in 1981. In addition to these two Justices, those Senators have confirmed dozens of other strict-construction judges to the federal Courts of Appeal.

These are just some of the many pro-faith and pro-family measures that have recently passed through Congress – measures very encouraging to most Americans, but measures almost completely ignored by the national media. Nevertheless, be encouraged! Good things are happening! Therefore, encourage your friends in states across America to stay engaged in this election! The results of this year’s contest will determine whether America will keep moving forward in winning the culture war, or whether we will start retreating. Be active this election! Much is at stake!

In closing, while I’ve approached this article from a positive viewpoint, allow me to offer a thought for those who are better motivated by negatives than positives: What will Christians say to themselves (and to the Lord) if: (1) they don’t vote this election, (2) we lose pro-family champions in the House and Senate, (3) after the election, a Supreme Court Justice announces his retirement (two-thirds of the Court is now older than 65), and (4) we no longer have the necessary votes to confirm a fifth strict-constructionist Justice to the Supreme Court and thus begin bringing the culture war to its well-deserved demise? I certainly wouldn’t want to try to explain that one to my friends or family (or especially to the Lord!). Just a thought for those who might need additional motivation!

(If you do not know where your federal candidates stand on pro-family issues, you can find candidate positions at websites such as Project Vote Smart and On The Issues, where you can see what each says about abortion, judges, marriage, etc.; or you can go to WallBuilders’ “Election Resources and Information” for links to voting sites and other organizations that provide information about candidates’ views on pro-family issues.)

Meet The ACLU

The ACLU aggressively pursues an agenda in many different areas that seeks to undermine the values and beliefs of most Americans in those areas. (Unless noted otherwise in the footnotes, the sources are from the ACLU’s website: www.aclu.org

Criminal Justice Issues

The ACLU opposes:

The use of drug-sniffing dogs¹
Attempts to strengthen DUI alcohol laws²
Laws restricting areas where the sexual offenders of children can live³
Life sentences for juveniles convicted of extremely violent crimes⁴
The “Three Strikes” law mandating harsher sentences for those with three felony convictions⁵
Withholding voting rights for felons⁶

The ACLU opposes the death penalty, and:

Claims: “The death penalty is contrary to fundamental notions of human rights. The United States is the only major country of the Western world that tolerates the death penalty.”¹⁷
Seeks to halt death penalty executions,⁸ claiming that “death by lethal injection is extraordinarily painful and [can] constitute cruel and unusual punishment.”⁹

Illegal Drug Issues

The ACLU opposes:

Mandatory sentencing laws for crack-cocaine possession¹⁰
Shutting down Methadone clinics¹¹
Laws stipulating where half-way houses may be located¹²
Drug testing of welfare recipients¹³
Federal faith-based drug treatment programs¹⁴
Federal laws banning student loans to convicted drug addicts¹⁵

The ACLU supports:

“Medical” marijuana laws¹⁶

Abortion Issues

The ACLU supports:

Abortion and abortion-on-demand¹⁷
Increased funding for pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood¹⁸
Euthanasia¹⁹

The ACLU opposes:

Abstinence-only sex education for students²⁰
Conscience protection rights for medical providers²¹
Informed consent and “Women’s Right to Know” laws²²
Pro-life state license plates²³

Immigration & Illegal Alien Issues

The ACLU supports:

Government services for illegal aliens²⁴

The ACLU opposes:

Federal immigration laws targeting border security and preventing entrance of illegal aliens²⁰⁵ as well as the enforcement of those laws²⁶
Denying drivers licenses to illegal aliens²⁷
Federal laws identifying citizenship status of those receiving treatment at medical facilities²⁸

Homosexual Issues

The ACLU supports:

Homosexuality²⁹
Gay marriage³⁰ and benefits for gay “families”³¹
Adoptions by gays,³² gays as foster parents,³³ “parental” rights for gay “parents,”³⁴ and gay parent family training³⁵
Gay clubs on school campuses,³⁶ gay campus publications and articles on campus,³⁷ and forcing straight students to attend gay sensitivity training³⁸
Gays in the military³⁹
Pro-gay state license plates⁴⁰

The ACLU opposes:

Marriage between only a man and a woman⁴¹
A school competition asking “students to explain why preserving marriage between men and women is vital to society and why unborn children merit respect and protection.”⁴²

The ACLU supports:

Bigamy and polygamy⁴³
Pedophilia and legalizing sex between children and adults⁴⁴
Transgender rights⁴⁵

Religious Expression Issues

The ACLU opposes:

Ten Commandments displays⁴⁶
Use of government facilities by the Boy Scouts⁴⁷
Religious symbols in public parks⁴⁸
Prayers at military academies⁴⁹

At the federal level, the ACLU opposes:

Keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance⁵⁰
Keeping the national motto (“In God We Trust”) on currency⁵¹
Faith-based programs⁵²
The observance of religious holidays⁵³

At the state level, the ACLU opposes:

The mention of God in a state motto⁵⁴
Prayers to open legislatures⁵⁵
Moment-of-silence laws at schools⁵⁶
Religious sales tax exemptions⁵⁷
Educational choice and vouchers⁵⁸
Prayer in judicial arenas⁵⁹

At the local level, the ACLU opposes:

Character cities⁶⁰
Mayor’s prayer breakfasts⁶¹
City council prayers⁶²
School board prayers⁶³
Nativity scenes⁶⁴
Religious symbols in city seals⁶⁵
Voluntary distribution of Gideon Bibles⁶⁶

In schools, the ACLU opposes:

Graduation prayers⁶⁷
Athletic prayers⁶⁸
Intelligent Design or any mention of creation or a Creator⁶⁹
Prayers at school⁷⁰ or at school events⁷¹
School choirs singing religious songs⁷²

Miscellaneous Issues

Opposes library policies blocking access of minors to sexual content, gambling, and illegal activities⁷³
Opposes denying visas to foreigners who oppose the United States government⁷⁴
Opposes one federal agency from sharing with another federal agency the information that it has on Arabs in America⁷⁵
Supports anti-American foreign terrorists captured on the battlefield having the same constitutional protections as U. S. citizens,⁷⁶ even though the guarantees in the U. S. Constitution apply only to American citizens
Supports activists disrupting military funerals and confronting the distraught family members with offensive and inappropriate language⁷⁷
Opposes banning convicted sex offenders from having access to parks where children play⁷⁸
Supports the notion that the “separation of church and state” trumps students’ freedom of speech⁷⁹
Supports prison inmates being permitted to view pornography⁸⁰

Endnotes

¹ ACLU.org, “ACLU of Illinois Disappointed with High Court Ruling on Drug Dog Searches,” January 24, 2005 ; ACLU.org, “Nine Mile Falls School District Abandons Drug-Sniffing Dog Searches,” March 30, 2006.

² ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics,” January 9, 2006.

³ ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review Iowa’s Sex Offender Residency Restriction,” September 29, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Washington Files Lawsuit over Issaquah Housing Ordinance” August 31, 2005.

⁴ ACLU.org, “Children Sentenced to Life Without Parole Bring Plea to Human Rights Body,” February 22, 2006.

⁵ ACLU.org, “After High Court Upholds Harsh ‘Three Strikes’ Sentencing Law,” March 5, 2003.

⁶ ACLU.org, “ACLU of WA Supports New Legislation to Restore Voting Rights to Ex-Felons,” February 24, 2003.

⁷ ACLU.org, “ACLU of Massachusetts Decries Federal Imposition of Death Penalty Charge in Local Murder Case,” December 23, 2003.

⁸ ACLU.org, “ACLU Says California’s Use of Paralytic Drug During Executions is Unconstitutional,” January 13, 2005; ACLU.org, “Kansas Supreme Court Strikes Down Death Penalty Law,” December 21, 2004; ACLU.org, “NYCLU Hails New York Appeals Decision Invalidating State Death Penalty,” June 24, 2004; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Massachusetts Decries Federal Imposition of Death Penalty Charge in Local Murder Case,” December 23, 2003; ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues Ohio Officials to Expose Hidden Procedures in Execution of Death Row Inmates,” September 25, 2003.

⁹ ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Maryland’s Death Penalty,” January 20, 2006; ACLU.org, “Tennessee’s Use of Lethal Injection Chemical Blocks Public’s First Amendment Right to Know, Says ACLU,” June 8, 2005.

¹⁰ ACLU.org, “ACLU Says Mandatory Minimums are Discriminatory and Urges Inter-American Commission to Condemn Unfair Practice,” March 3, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU and Sentencing Experts Urge Federal Court to Uphold Judges’ Right to Reject 100-to-1 Crack/Powder Ratio,” January 20, 2006.

¹¹ ACLU.org, “ACLU of Virginia Offers Legal Aid to Methadone Clinics Barred From Opening Under New Law,” March 3, 2005.

¹² ACLU.org, “ACLU of Florida Asks Court to Strike Down Ban on Residential Housing for Recovering Addicts,” March 7, 2003.

¹³ ACLU.org, “Settlement Reached in ACLU of Michigan Lawsuit Over Mandatory Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients,” December 18, 2003.

¹⁴ ACLU.org, “ACLU Decries House Legislation that Earmarks $100 Million For Unproven Faith-Based Drug Treatment Programs,” July 10, 2003.

¹⁵ ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Federal Law That Refuses Financial Aid to Students With Drug Convictions,” March 22, 2006.

¹⁶ ACLU.org, “Round Two Begins in Legal Fight to Force Feds to Honor States’ Medical Marijuana Laws,” January 31, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Alaska Calls on Attorney General to Clarify State’s Commitment to Uphold Medical Marijuana Statute,” June 16, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Oregon Urges State Officials to Immediately Resume Medical Marijuana Card Program,” June 9, 2005.

¹⁷ ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Defeat of Abortion Ban in Mississippi,” March 28, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls on South Dakotans to Join the Effort to Stop Extreme Abortion Ban,” March 24, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU Says South Dakota’s Extreme Abortion Ban Will Endanger Women’s Health and Lives,” March 6, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Call On U.S. Supreme Court to Hold Women’s Health Paramount,” February 21, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Hail Two Appeals Court Rulings Holding Federal Abortion Ban Unconstitutional,” January 31, 2006; ACLU.org, “Planned Parenthood and ACLU Ask Supreme Court to Protect Women’s Health in First Abortion Case Before the Roberts Court,” November 30, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Decision Allowing Access to Reproductive Healthcare Services for MO Prison Inmate,” October 17, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Ask Appeals Court to Uphold Ruling Striking Down Federal Abortion Ban,” October 6, 2005; ACLU.org, “Federal Court Strikes Michigan Abortion Ban for Third Time; Reproductive Rights Groups Hail the Decision,” September 15, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU Praises Court Decision Striking Arizona Jail Policy Denying Inmates Access to Timely, Safe and Legal Abortions,” August 25, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Hail First Appeals Court Ruling Holding Federal Abortion Ban Unconstitutional,” July 8, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU and Planned Parenthood Applaud Court Decision Striking Idaho’s Third Attempt at Restricting Teenagers’ Access to Abortion,” July 1, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU Launches Web Site for Reproductive Rights Activists,” June 23, 2005; ACLU.org, “Groups Ask Court to Block Michigan’s Abortion Ban,” June 14, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls Upon Congress to Protect the Health and Reproductive Rights of Women in the Military,”; ACLU.org, “ACLU Confident the U.S. Supreme Court Will Uphold Lower Court Decision Striking New Hampshire Law Restricting Teenagers’ Access to Abortion”; ACLU.org, “ACLU Awarded 2005 Christopher Tietze Humanitarian Award for Its Work on Challenge to the Federal Abortion Ban”; ACLU.org, “Planned Parenthood and ACLU Applaud Decision by U.S. Supreme Court Refusing to Review Idaho Law Restricting Teenagers’ Access to Abortion”; ACLU.com, “ACLU Denounces Teen Endangerment Act”; ACLU-Mn.org, “Michigan Abortion Ban Put on Hold While Challenge Proceeds”; ACLU.org, “As House Convenes Hearings, ACLU Says Teen Endangerment Act Puts Vulnerable Lives at Risk”; CLRP.org, “Women’s Health Care Providers Challenge MI Law Banning Virtually All Abortions”; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Vow to Defend Federal Abortion Ban Victory As DOJ Pursues Appeal”; ACLU.org, “Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down New Hampshire Law Restricting Teens’ Access to Abortion”; ACLU.org, “Federal Abortion Ban Struck Down Today in Nebraska”; ACLU.org, “Federal Abortion Ban Struck Down Today in New York”; ACLU.org, “ACLU Warns Legislation Would Put Lives of Young Women at Risk”; ACLU.org, “Planned Parenthood and ACLU Hail Appeals Court Decision Striking Down Idaho’s Extreme Parental Consent Law”; ACLU.org, “Closing Arguments in Federal Abortion Ban Trial Heard Today in New York”; ACLU.org, “ACLU Says Adults Helping Frightened Teens Should Not Become Outlaws”; ACLU.org, “Reproductive Rights Groups Hail First Ruling To Permanently Block Federal Abortion Ban”.

¹⁸ ACLU.org, “ACLU Hails Amendment to Increase Funding to Prevent Unplanned Pregnancies” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/24612prs20060316.html).

¹⁹ ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Federal Court Decision Upholding Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law” (at https://www.aclu.org/disability/gen/10634prs20020417.html).

²⁰ ACLU.org, “ACLU Hails Rhode Island Department of Education Efforts to Stop the Use of Harmful “‘Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage’ Curriculum in Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/24721prs20060322.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Announces Settlement in Challenge to Government-Funded Religion in the Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program the “‘Silver Ring Thing'” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/24246prs20060223.html); “ACLU Announces Nationwide Action Aimed at Combating Dangerous Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Curricula in the States” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/20117prs20050921.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Federal Government’s Decision to Suspend Public Funding of Religion by Nationwide Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program” (at https://www.aclu-mass.org/news/08.22.05%20SilverRing.pdf); LAACLU.org, “ACLU Troubled by Court’s Refusal to Hold Louisiana Governor’s Program on Abstinence in Contempt for Continuing to Preach with Taxpayer Dollars” (at https://www.laaclu.org/News/2005/June24GPADecision.htm); ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Misuse of Taxpayer Dollars to Fund Religion in Nationwide Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12602prs20050516.html); LAACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Court to Stop Louisiana Governor’s Program on Abstinence From Continuing to Preach with Taxpayer Dollars” (at https://www.laaclu.org/News/2005/March24AbstinenceHearing.htm); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Court to Hold Louisiana’s Abstinence-Only Program in Contempt” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12754prs20050120.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls On Lawmakers to Stop Spending Taxpayer Dollars on Dangerous Abstinence-Only Sex Education” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12740prs20041201.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Louisiana to Remove Religious Content from Abstinence-Only Website” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/12734prs20041117.html); ACLU.org, “NYCLU Criticizes Ban on Condom Demonstrations in Sex Education Classes in New York” (at https://www.aclu.org/hiv/prevention/11572prs20040827.html).

²¹ ACLU.org, “ACLU Condemns Passage of Measure That Allows Religiously Affiliated Health Care Institutions to Jeopardize Women’s Health” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12737prs20041120.html).

²² ACLU.org, “Planned Parenthood and ACLU Hail Florida Appeals Court Decision Striking Down Law that Would Have Forced Physicians to Give Patients Irrelevant Information” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/medical/12731prs20041013.html).

²³ ACLU.org, “ACLU Troubled By Appeals Court Decision Allowing Anti-Choice License Plate in Tennessee” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/24696prs20060317.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Appeals Court To Uphold Ruling Blocking Anti-Choice License Plate in TN” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/21253prs20051102.html); ACLU.org, “Tennessee Court Blocks Anti-Choice License Plate; ACLU and Planned Parenthood Say Decision Protects Free Speech” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12711prs20040924.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Planned Parenthood Ask Tennessee Court to Block Anti-Choice License Plate” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12709prs20040923.html).

²⁴ ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “Ohio’s Proposed Immigration Plan Will Disadvantage Community” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/24486prs20060307.html) ACLU.org, “Leaving Immigrants Out of Census Will Result in Funding Shortfalls, ACLU Says” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/24486prs20060307.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Indiana Urges Rejection of Anti-Immigrant Bill” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/23963prs20060127.html).

²⁵ ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls Flawed House Border Security Bill An Assault on Privacy” (at https://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/22437prs20051208.html).

²⁶ ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “Community Members Express Concerns Over Orange County Plan to Involve Local Police in Federal Immigration Enforcement” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/23230prs20051216.html).

²⁷ ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “ACLU of Rhode Island Sues DMV Over Driver’s License Procedures For Immigrants” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11746prs20050523.html).

²⁸ ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Rhode Island Hospitals to Protect Patients’ Privacy” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11817prs20040921.html).

²⁹ ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “About Us” (at https://www.aclu.org/about/index.html).

³⁰ ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York’s High Court to End Unfairness Against Gay Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24354prs20060303.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Tennessee Files Appeal Over Passage of Anti-Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24349prs20060223.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Promises to Appeal Marriage Case for Same-Sex Couples to New York’s Highest Court” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24175prs20060216.html); ACLU.org, “Oral Arguments Held in Federal Appeals Court: ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Court to Uphold Prior Ruling Striking Down Extreme Antigay Nebraska Law Banning All Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24136prs20060213.html); ACLU.org, “Six Same-Sex Couples Urge Florida Supreme Court to Strike Initiative Threatening Families of Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24103prs20060208.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Pennsylvania Calls Proposed Constitutional Amendment Anti-Family and Discriminatory” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24079prs20060124.html); ACLU.org, “Maryland Court Says State Cannot Bar Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/23558prs20060120.html); ACLU.org, “Religious and Civil Rights Groups Support Same-Sex Couples in Legal Battle to Marry” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/23411prs20060110.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Utah Files Friend-of-the-Court Brief in Support of Domestic Partner Benefits for Salt Lake City Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21623prs20051111.html); ACLU.org, “Senate Panel Must Rebuff Discriminatory Amendment to Constitution, ACLU Says Measure Must be Stopped Again” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/21213prs20051109.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU, NCLR, and Lambda Legal Urge California Appeals Court to Affirm Decision Ending Unfairness Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/21204prs20051109.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Federal Appeals Court to Uphold Ruling Striking Down Extreme Nebraska Law Banning All Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21251prs20051101.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls on Lawmakers to Reject Discriminatory Marriage Amendment Again” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/21165prs20051020.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York Appeals Court to Strike Down Law Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21150prs20051017.html); ACLU.org, “Proponents of Anti-Gay Initiative Concede It Would Ban Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership Laws” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21139prs20051012.html); ACLU.org, “Six Same-Sex Couples File Challenge to a Florida Anti-Gay Initiative Threatening all Protections for Families of Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/19955prs20050921.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Massachusetts Praises Legislators for Voting Down Discriminatory Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/20044prs20050914.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Maryland Court to Strike Down Law Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/19936prs20050830.html); ACLU.org, “Maryland Religious Leaders Join Together to Support Marriage for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/19866prs20050829.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York Appeals Court to End Unfairness Against Gay Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12202prs20050519.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Court Strikes Down Nebraska’s Anti-Gay-Union Law Banning Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12201prs20050512.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Tennessee Files Lawsuit Challenging State Amendment Banning Marriages for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12233prs20050421.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds California Judge’s Decision Ending Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu-mn.org/16Mar20052.html); “Massachusetts ACLU and Town Clerks Challenge Governor’s Discriminatory Ban on Marriage Licenses for Non-Resident Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12138prs20050311.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Washington Supreme Court To Uphold Marriage Equality” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12144prs20050308.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Decision by New York Trial Judge Striking Down Laws Banning Same-Sex Couples from Marrying” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12432prs20050204.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Criticizes Reintroduction of Federal Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12431prs20050124.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges California Trial Court to End Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12446prs20041222.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU to Ask the Oregon Supreme Court to Provide Same-Sex Couples With Protections of Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12443prs20041215.html); ACLU.org, “New York Trial Court Decision Denying Marriage for Same-Sex Couples Advances ACLU Lawsuit to Appeals Court” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12456prs20041207.html); ACLU.org, “New CD Marry Me Supports the ACLU’s Efforts to Win Marriage for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/12427pr
s20041112.html); ACLU.org, “Following Passage of Gay Marriage Bans in 11 States, ACLU Vows to Continue Striving for Equality” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12430prs20041103.html); ACLU.org, “Prominent Legal Scholars Join ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Georgia Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12420prs20041020.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Federal Court To Strike Down Nebraska Law Banning Recognition of Gay Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12417prs20041015.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Disappointed with Arkansas Supreme Court’s Decision on Misleading “Marriage” Ballot Initiative” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12422prs20041007.html).

³¹ ACLU.org, “Unanimous Alaska Supreme Court Says It Is Unconstitutional to Deny Equal Benefits to Lesbian and Gay State Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21248prs20051028.html). ACLU.org, “Michigan Marriage Amendment Does Not Reach the Workplace, Judge Rules” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/20055prs20050927.html?ht); ACLU.org, “ACLU Sets Record Straight on Costs of Domestic Partner Benefits” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/19859prs20050714.html); ACLU.org, “California Supreme Court Clears the Way for Comprehensive Domestic Partnership Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12248prs20050629.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Launches Marriage Campaign to Move Americans to Treat Families of Same-Sex Couples More Fairly” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/12210prs20050516.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Seeks Health Insurance and Family Leave for Lesbian and Gay Wisconsin State Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12232prs20050420.html); ACLUFL.org, “ACLU Says Florida’s Proposed Marriage Ban Threatens Health Benefits for Thousands of Families” (at https://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=961); ACLU-SC.org, “ACLU Cheers Decision by California Appeals Court Removing Legal Challenge to Domestic Partnership Law” (at https://www.aclu-sc.org/News/Releases/2005/100848/); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Michigan Files Lawsuit of Behalf of 21 Couples Who May Lose Same-Sex Partner Benefits Under Proposal 2” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12192prs20050321.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Files Discrimination Lawsuit on Behalf of Couple Kicked Out of Health Care Center Because They Are Lesbian” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12133prs20050224.html); ACLU.org, “NYCLU Files Same-Sex Benefits Lawsuit on Behalf of Rochester Woman” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12436prs20050113.html); ACLU.org, “Montana High Court Says University System Must Provide Gay Employees with Domestic Partner Benefits” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12451prs20041230.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Ends Discrimination Lawsuit Against the University of Pittsburgh Following Decision to Provide Equal Benefits to Gay Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12404prs20041005.html).

³² ACLU.org, “ACLU and NCLR Halt Legal Action After Promise from California Adoption Agency that It Won’t Discriminate” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/20088prs20051005.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Disappointed the Supreme Court Will Not Hear an Appeal in Case Challenging Florida’s Anti-Gay Adoption Law” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12438prs20050110.html); ACLU.org, “Child Welfare League of America Backs ACLU in Challenging Florida Gay Adoption Ban” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12454prs20041209.html).

³³ ACLU.org, “Missouri Judge Rules That Lesbian Can Be Foster Parent” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/24195prs20060217.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Arkansas Supreme Court to Uphold Ruling” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/23094prs20051219.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Argues Challenge to Missouri’s Anti-Gay Foster Care Ban” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/21258prs20051103.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Missouri Judge to Let Lesbian Become Foster Parent” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/19858prs20050721.html). ACLU.org, “Lesbian Challenges Missouri Policy Barring Gay People from Foster Parenting” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12196prs20050502.html); ACLU.org, “Arkansas Anti-Gay Foster Care Ban Overturned” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12448prs20041229.html); ACLU.org, “Trial Concludes in ACLU Challenge to Arkansas Anti-Gay Foster Care Ban” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12444prs20041220.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Resumes Challenge to Arkansas Anti-Gay Foster Care Policy” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12403prs20041005.html).

³⁴ ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Child Custody Award For Surviving Lesbian Mom in West Virginia” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12242prs20050617.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges West Virginia High Court Not to Take Four-Year-Old From His Surviving Lesbian Mom” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12433prs20041206.html).

³⁵ ACLU.org, “Just in Time for Mother’s Day, ACLU Launches Toolkit for LGBT Parents” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12197prs20050503.html).

³⁶ ACLU.org, “ACLU Files Federal Lawsuit Against White County, Georgia School District for Illegally Blocking Gay-Straight Alliance Club” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/24284prs20060227.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Florida Warns School Board Not to Deny Students’ Right to Form Gay-Straight Alliances” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/24119prs20060206.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Judge Rules That High Schools Cannot Out Lesbian and Gay Students” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/22068prs20051201.html); ACLU.org, “Following ACLU Lawsuit, Colorado Springs High School Ends Second-Class Status for Gay-Straight Alliance” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/21730prs20051122.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Judge to Reopen Kentucky Gay-Straight Alliance Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12240prs20050706.html). ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Georgia Students’ Gay-Straight Alliance Victory” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12180prs20050322.html).

³⁷ ACLU.org, “As a Result of Lawsuit, School Agrees to Allow Publication of Articles on Sexual Orientation” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/21200prs20051104.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Alabama Condemns Proposed Bill that Would Ban State Funds for Lesbian and Gay Books” (at https://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/11527prs20041202.html).

³⁸ ACLU.org, “ACLU Hails Federal Court Ruling on School Trainings Aimed at Reducing Anti-Gay Harassment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/24215prs20060218.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Court to Uphold Kentucky School’s Training Aimed at Reducing Anti-Gay Harassment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/23156prs20051220.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Tells Federal Court That Mandatory Anti-Gay Harassment Training Does Not Violate Students’ Freedom of Religion” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12236prs20050428.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Court to Let Students Join in Kentucky Anti-Gay Harassment Training Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12149prs20050401.html).

³⁹ ACLU.org, “Law Schools Shouldn’t Be Forced to Accommodate Military Recruiters, Says ACLU” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/rumsfeldv.fair041152/22304prs20051206.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Expresses Disappointment Over Supreme Court Ruling in Military Recruitment Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/rumsfeldv.fair041152/24377prs20060306.html).

⁴⁰ ACLU.org, “ACLU Persuades Utah to Approve Personalized License Plates with Gay-Positive Messages” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/20186prs20050727.html).

⁴¹ ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York’s High Court to End Unfairness Against Gay Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24354prs20060303.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Tennessee Files Appeal Over Passage of Anti-Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24349prs20060223.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Promises to Appeal Marriage Case for Same-Sex Couples to New York’s Highest Court” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24175prs20060216.html); ACLU.org, “Oral Arguments Held in Federal Appeals Court: ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Court to Uphold Prior Ruling Striking Down Extreme Antigay Nebraska Law Banning All Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24136prs20060213.html); ACLU.org, “Six Same-Sex Couples Urge Florida Supreme Court to Strike Initiative Threatening Families of Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24103prs20060208.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Pennsylvania Calls Proposed Constitutional Amendment Anti-Family and Discriminatory” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24079prs20060124.html); ACLU.org, “Maryland Court Says State Cannot Bar Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/23558prs20060120.html); ACLU.org, “Religious and Civil Rights Groups Support Same-Sex Couples in Legal Battle to Marry” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/23411prs20060110.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Utah Files Friend-of-the-Court Brief in Support of Domestic Partner Benefits for Salt Lake City Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21623prs20051111.html); ACLU.org, “Senate Panel Must Rebuff Discriminatory Amendment to Constitution” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/21213prs20051109.html; ACLU.org, “ACLU, NCLR, and Lambda Legal Urge California Appeals Court to Affirm Decision Ending Unfairness Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/21204prs20051109.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Federal Appeals Court to Uphold Ruling Striking Down Extreme Nebraska Law Banning All Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21251prs20051101.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls on Lawmakers to Reject Discriminatory Marriage Amendment Again” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/21165prs20051020.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York Appeals Court to Strike Down Law Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21150prs20051017.html); ACLU.org, “Proponents of Anti-Gay Initiative Concede It Would Ban Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership Laws” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21139prs20051012.html); ACLU.org, “Six Same-Sex Couples File Challenge to a Florida Anti-Gay Initiative Threatening all Protections for Families of Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/19955prs20050921.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Massachusetts Praises Legislators for Voting Down Discriminatory Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/20044prs20050914.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Maryland Court to Strike Down Law Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/19936prs20050830.html); ACLU.org, “Maryland Religious Leaders Join Together to Support Marriage for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/19866prs20050829.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York Appeals Court to End Unfairness Against Gay Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12202prs20050519.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Court Strikes Down Nebraska’s Anti-Gay-Union Law Banning Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12201prs20050512.html); ACLU.org, ACLU of Tennessee Files Lawsuit Challenging State Amendment Banning Marriages for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12233prs20050421.html); ACLU-MN.org, “ACLU Applauds California Judge’s Decision Ending Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu-mn.org/16Mar20052.html); ACLU.org, “Massachusetts ACLU and Town Clerks Challenge Governor’s Discriminatory Ban on Marriage Licenses for Non-Resident Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12138prs20050311.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Washington Supreme Court To Uphold Marriage Equality” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12144prs20050308.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Decision by New York Trial Judge Striking Down Laws Banning Same-Sex Couples from Marrying” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12432prs20050204.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Criticizes Reintroduction of Federal Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12431prs20050124.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges California Trial Court to End Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12446prs20041222.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU to Ask the Oregon Supreme Court to Provide Same-Sex Couples With Protections of Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12443prs20041215.html); ACLU.org, “New York Trial Court Decision Denying Marriage for Same-Sex Couples Advances ACLU Lawsuit to Appeals Court” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12456prs20041207.html); ACLU.org, “New CD Marry Me Supports the ACLU’s Efforts to Win Marriage for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/relatedinformation_press_releases.html); ACLU.org, “Following Passage of Gay Marriage Bans in 11 States, ACLU Vows to Continue Striving for Equality” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12430prs20041103.html); ACLU.org, “Prominent Legal Scholars Join ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Georgia Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12420prs20041020.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Federal Court To Strike Down Nebraska Law Banning Recognition of Gay Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12417prs20041015.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Disappointed with Arkansas Supreme Court’s Decision on Misleading “Marriage” Ballot Initiative” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12422prs20041007.html).

⁴² ACLU.org, “Civil Rights Groups in New Mexico Denounce High School Contest Soliciting Anti-Gay, Anti-Choice Student Essays” (at https://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/gen/21792prs20051122.html).

⁴³ ACLU.org, “ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html).

⁴⁴ GETACLU.org, “The ACLU needs to get A CLU” (at https://www.getaclu.org/).

⁴⁵ ACLU.org, “Federal Court Rules Transgender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Library of Congress Can Proceed” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/24851prs20060331.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Challenge Law Barring Transgender People Access to Medical Treatment in Prison” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/23913prs20060124.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Army Veteran Against Library of Congress for Transgender Discrimination” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/12256prs20050602.html).

⁴⁶ ACLU.org, “Georgia County Agrees to Remove Ten Commandments Display from Courthouse” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/20163prs20050719.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Ohio Victorious in Another Ten Commandments Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16351prs20040714.html); ACLU.org, “Supreme Court Agrees to Review Two Challenges to Government-Endorsed Ten Commandments Displays” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2004/13970prs20041012.html); ACLU.org, “Citing Religious Freedom, Appeals Court Bars Government Placement of Ten Commandments Monument in Nebraska Park” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16107prs20040218.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Appeals Court Hears ACLU Argument Against Government Endorsement of Ten Commandments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16203prs20030407.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Appeals Court Rejects KY’s Ten Commandments Monument as Government-Endorsed Religion” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16153prs20021009.html); ACLU.org, “High Court Again Refuses to Review Ban on Government Endorsement of Ten Commandments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16175prs20020225.html); ACLU.org, “Acting on Behalf of Concerned Residents and Clergy, ACLU of TN Challenges Posting of Ten Commandments in County Buildings” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16054prs20020129.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Kentucky Files Lawsuit Over Government-Endorsed Ten Commandments Postings in Four Counties” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16045prs20011127.html); ACLU.org, “County Officials in IA Agree to Remove Ten Commandments from Courthouse Grounds” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16126prs20010315.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Montana Settles Lawsuit Over Ten Commandments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16298prs20001012.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of GA Sues Local Officials Over Ten Commandments Image in County Seal” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16292prs20000515.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Illinois Lauds Officials’ Decision to Remove Religious Postings in Harrisburg Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16168prs19991207.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Action Prompts School Board to Abandon Posting of Ten Commandments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16109prs19991124.html); ACLU.org, “Commandments Come Down In West Virginia School” (at https://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12801prs19990827.html).

⁴⁷ ACLU-IL.org, “Prominent Chicago Religious Leaders Applaud Court Order Ending Pentagon’s Special Funding for Boy Scout Jamboree” (at https://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/000286.shtml; ACLU.org, “Pentagon Agrees to End Direct Sponsorship of Boy Scout Troops in Response to Religious Discrimination Charge” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16382prs20041115.html); ACLU.org, “In Final Chapter of San Diego Park Lease Case, Court Rules Against Boy Scouts on All Issues” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12115prs20040414.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of San Diego Secures Landmark Settlement in Boy Scout Lease Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/11950prs20040108.html).

⁴⁸ ACLU.org, “San Diego Ends Nine-Year Effort To Keep Christian Cross in a Public Park” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16058prs19990903.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Appeals Court Upholds ACLU Charge That Cross in Mojave Federal Preserve Violates Constitution” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16225prs20040607.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues Federal Government Over Christian Cross in Mojave National Preserve” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16319prs20010322.html).

⁴⁹ ACLU.org, “School-Sponsored Prayers at VA Military Institute Wrongly Entangle Government and Religion, Court Declares” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16120prs20020124.html); ACLU.org, “Supreme Court Lets Ban on Coerced Prayer at Virginia Military Institute Stand” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2003/13910prs20040426.html).

⁵⁰ ACLU.org, “ACLU Praises Appeals Court Decision Striking Down Pennsylvania’s Mandatory Pledge of Allegiance Law” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16350prs20040819.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Ruling Removing the Phrase “Under God” From Pledge of Allegiance Recited in Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2003/13914prs20040324.html).

⁵¹ AFA.net, “Judge OKs Controversial “‘In God We Trust’ Poster” (at https://www.afa.net/journal/february/religiona.asp); see also https://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0104a/12/a2.html)

⁵² “ACLU Calls On Providence Police Department To Halt Faith-Based “Prayer” Program” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16310prs20001128.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Decries House Legislation that Earmarks $100 Million For Unproven Faith-Based Drug Treatment Programs” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16078prs20030710.html).

⁵³ ACLU.org, “ACLU Files Challenge to Religion-Themed Post Office in Connecticut Town” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16343prs20031003.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues Over Ohio School District’s Policy on Religious Holidays” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16111prs19990825.html).

⁵⁴ ACLU.org, “Ohio Appeals Court Strikes Down Christian State Motto as Unconstitutional” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16291prs20000425.html).

⁵⁵ ACLU.org, “Indiana Court Upholds Challenge to House’s Exclusionary Sectarian Prayers” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22088prs20051130.html).

⁵⁶ ACLU.org, “U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Strike Down Virginia’s “‘Minute of Silence’ Law” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16043prs20010831.html).

⁵⁷ ACLU.org, “High Court Rejects Sales Tax Appeal on Religious Goods” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16165prs19991012.html).

⁵⁸ ACLU.org, “Parents, Educators Denounce Florida Voucher Scheme, Say Program Hurts Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16266prs20050606.html); ACLU.org, “Maine Civil Liberties Union Urges High Court to Keep Government Out of Religion Business” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16255prs20050324.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Appeals Court Decision Striking Down Florida School Voucher Program” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16349prs20040816.html); ACLU.org, “High Court Hears Arguments on Ohio Vouchers” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16124prs20020219.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Denounces Voucher, Block Grant Schemes; Says Congress Should Reject Divisive Amendments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16328prs20010521.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Michigan Celebrates Sound Defeat of Voucher Program” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16309prs20001108.html); ACLU.org, “New ACLU Report Says CA’s Proposed Voucher Program Leaves Neediest Behind” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16297prs20001011.html).

⁵⁹ ACLU.org, “ACLU Lawsuit Seeks to End West Virginia Judge’s Courtroom Prayer Sessions” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16290prs20000511.html).

⁶⁰ ACLU.org, “ACLU Warns Against “Character Cities” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16134prs19990902.html).

⁶¹ ACLU.org, “Five Georgia Residents Sue to Block Extremist City-Sponsored Prayer Breakfast” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16041prs20020103.html).

⁶² ACLU.org, “ACLU of Virginia Defends Fredericksburg’s Decision to Ban Sectarian Prayers at Open City Council Meetings” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/24227prs20060216.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of San Diego Challenges Sectarian Prayers at City Council Meetings on Behalf of Resident” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16234prs20040505.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Sectarian Invocation at San Diego County Board of Supervisors Meetings” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16285prs20000629.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Court Says that Virginia County’s Prayer Policy Violates Religious Freedom Rules” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16100prs20031113.html).

⁶³ ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues PA School District to Stop Official Prayers at Graduation and School Board Meetings” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16269prs20050526.html); ACLU.org, “Louisiana School Board Repeatedly Defied Federal Court Order, Charges ACLU” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16261prs20050405.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Virginia School Boards Not to Open Meetings with Prayer” (at https://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12795prs19991001.html).

⁶⁴ ACLU.org, “ACLU of Rhode Island Sues On Behalf of Town Resident’s Objection to City Hall Religious Display” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16093prs20031222.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Monitoring New Rule Regarding Nativity Scene Display in Iowa Town” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16092prs20031203.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Montana Challenges County Creche Display” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16139prs19991221.html).

⁶⁵ ACLU.org, “The Fish Must Go: Court Rules Missouri Must Remove Religious Symbol from City Logo” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16114prs19990709.html).

⁶⁶ ACLU.org, “Missouri School District Agrees to Stop Distributing Bibles to Students” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16228prs20040603.html).

⁶⁷ ACLU.org, “As Graduation Approaches, Colorado Family Asks Court to End School-Sponsored Religious Exercises” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16048prs20020523.html); ACLU.org, “Louisiana Family Seeks ACLU Help in Ending Sponsored Prayers in Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16159prs20020517.html); ACLU.org, “ICLU Brings Lawsuit On Behalf of Students Required to Sing Lord’s Prayer at Graduation” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16044prs20020401.html; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Nebraska Sues Over Graduation Prayer” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16053prs20011129.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Illinois Hails Judge’s Decision Blocking School-Sanctioned Prayer at Graduation Ceremony” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16327prs20010517.html); ACLU.org, “Supreme Court Sets Aside Appeals Court Ruling in Jacksonville School Prayer Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16300prs20001002.html).

⁶⁸ ACLU.org, “ACLU Supports Parents in Demanding that Coach Stop Leading Prayer Before Football Games” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16307prs20001030.html); ACLU.org, “Warning of Legal Consequences, ACLU Urges South Carolina School to End Prayer Broadcasts” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16301prs20000901.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Hails “‘Total Victory’ for Religious Liberty In High Court’s Rejection of School Stadium Prayers” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/1999/16294prs20000619.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues Ohio School District Over Football Team Prayers” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16123prs19990628.html).

⁶⁹ ACLU.org, “ACLU of Ohio Demands Schools Stop Teaching Intelligent Design as Science” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/24147prs20060214.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Decision in “‘Intelligent Design’ Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/23144prs20051220.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds School Board Vote to Remove Evolution Disclaimers From Science Textbooks” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20126prs20050714.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Judge Orders Georgia School District to Remove Evolution Disclaimers” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16376prs20050113.html); ACLU.org, “Pennsylvania Parents File First-Ever Challenge to “Intelligent Design” Instruction in Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16372prs20041214.html); ACLU.org, “Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html). ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Kansas Public Schools to Reject Religion-Based Evolution Teachings in Science Classes” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16121prs19990813.html ).

⁷⁰ ACLU.org, “In Victory for Religious Liberty, Unanimous Appeals Court Finds LA’s School Prayer Law Unconstitutional” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16155prs20011212.html).

⁷¹ ACLU.org, “ACLU of Nebraska Files Complaint Against School Official Who Lead Prayers at Assembly” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16320prs20010321.html); ACLU.org, “In Long-Awaited Victory, High Court Vacates Alabama Decision Allowing Public School Prayer” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16286prs20000626.html).

⁷² ACLU.org, “ACLU of Ohio Demands Cancellation of Government-Sponsored “‘Faith-Based’ Concert” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16348prs20040816.html).

⁷³ ACLU.org, “Following ACLU Action, Rhode Island Public Libraries Agree to Give Patrons Increased Access to Internet” (at https://www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorship/20153prs20051007.html).

⁷⁴ ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Patriot Act Provision Used to Exclude Prominent Swiss Scholar from the United States” (at https://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23908prs20060125.html); ACLU.org, “U.S. Scholars and Writers Say Government Should End Censorship at the Border” (at https://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23908prs20060125.html).

⁷⁵ ACLU.org, “After Latest Data Release Controversy, ACLU Urges Census Bureau to Create Privacy Advisory Committee” (at https://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15739prs20040805.html); ACLU.org, “Request Follows Report that Bureau Shared Data on People of Arab Descent With Homeland Security Officials” (at https://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15739prs20040805.html).

⁷⁶ USAToday.com, “ACLU: FBI ruse used in Guantanamo abuse (at https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-21-gitmo-probe_x.htm).

⁷⁷ Washingtonpost.com, “ACLU Challenges Ky. Funeral Protest Law” (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006
050101936.html).

⁷⁸ Chicago Tribune, “Sex Offenders Sue Over City’s Ban” (at https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606010152jun01,
1,5132453.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed); ACLU Indiana, “Legal Docket: Doe v. City of Plainfield” (at https://www.iclu.org/subpage.asp?p=32).

⁷⁹ Amarillo Globe-News, “Court of appeals dismisses school prayer case”.

⁸⁰ ABC News, “ACLU wants porn to be allowed for South Carolina inmates” (at https://abc7.com/archive/8162220/).

* This article concerns a historical issue and may not have updated information.

The Bible and Taxes

Capital Gains Taxes

The Capital Gains Tax, which is a tax on profits, actually penalizes a person for success. With this, the more profit you make the more you have to pay. (The more profit a person makes the higher tax rate they pay on that profit/windfall from an investment). However, in the Bible, those who earn more profit are rewarded. The parables of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) and of the minas (Luke 19:12-27) conflict with the notion of a tax on capital gains. “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.” In other words, the Bible implies that those who invest well with what they have will receive more.

Wages

The parable of the landowner and laborers (Matthew 20:1-16) is applicable to the employer/employee relationship and the issue of wages. The landowner hires workers at different times of the day and yet pays each worker the same amount at the end of the day. When the workers hired first complain, the landowner replies, “Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?” (“things” is translated as “money” in some versions) There is an implication that the landowner had the right to determine the wages of his workers, as well as an implication that the workers could accept or reject the landowner’s offer of work. James 5:4 balances this by stating that the Lord hears the cries of the laborers who are cheated out of their due wages.

Income Taxes

The current income tax structure in the United States mandates a higher tax rate or percentage the more a person makes. This tax system is contradicted by scripture, especially Exodus 30:11-15, which provided a “half a shekel” tax for everyone numbered. Verse 15 states: “The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel.” In addition, the Biblical Tithe is not applied progressively, rather it is applied equally to everyone. (“And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s. It is holy to the Lord. . . .And concerning the tithe of the herd or the flock, of whatever passes under the rod, the tenth one shall be holy to the Lord.” Leviticus 27:30,32)

Inheritance Taxes

The Bible speaks to the issue of inheritance numerous times. Proverbs 13:22 states “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” (This is not likely with the Estate Tax which can take up to 55% of an estate. Thus leaving 45% to the children. When the children pass it on to the grandchildren, up to 55% of the remaining 45% can be taken. Thus only 27% of the original is passed on to the “children’s children”). Ezekiel 46:18 states that “the prince shall not take any of the people’s inheritance by evicting them from their property; he shall provide an inheritance for his sons from his own property, so that none of My people may be scattered from his property.” Other scriptures that deal with inheritance are Proverbs 19:14, I Chronicles 28:8, and Ezra 9:12.

Benjamin Rush Dream about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

The Dream of Dr. Benjamin Rush & God’s Hand in Reconciling John Adams and Thomas JeffersonOne of the more bitter aspects of the retirement of John Adams from the presidency in 1800 was the fact that several of those with whom he had early co-labored during the Revolution had become his fervent adversaries. This was especially true in the case of Thomas Jefferson who, although serving closely with Adams during the Revolution, had become one of his chief enemies during President Washington’s administration. This feud not only deeply embittered Adams emotionally but it also troubled Dr. Rush, who was still a close friend of both Adams and Jefferson. In his concern over the relationship between these two, one night several months after Jefferson’s retirement from the Presidency in 1809, Dr. Rush had a dream about the two which he felt was important. On October 17, 1809, he wrote down an account of that dream and sent it to John Adams. In describing that dream, he related what he had seen:

“What book is that in your hands?” said I to my son Richard [who later became the Secretary of State under President James Monroe] a few nights ago in a dream. “It is the history of the United States,” said he. “Shall I read a page of it to you?” “No, no,” said I. “I believe in the truth of no history but in that which is contained in the Old and New Testaments.” “But, sir,” said my son, “this page relates to your friend Mr. Adams.” “Let me see it then,” said I. I read it with great pleasure and herewith send you a copy of it.
“1809. Among the most extraordinary events of this year was the renewal of the friendship and intercourse between Mr. John Adams and Mr. Jefferson, the two ex-Presidents of the United States. They met for the first time in the Congress of 1775. Their principles of liberty, their ardent attachment to their country. . . being exactly the same, they were strongly attracted to each other and became personal as well as political friends. . . . A difference of opinion upon the objects and issue of the French Revolution separated them during the years in which that great event interested and divided the American people. The predominance of the party which favored the French cause threw Mr. Adams out of the Chair of the United States in the year 1800 and placed Mr. Jefferson there in his stead. The former retired with resignation and dignity to his seat at Quincy, where he spent the evening of his life in literary and philosophical pursuits, surrounded by an amiable family and a few old and affectionate friends. The latter resigned the Chair of the United States in the year 1808, sick of the cares and disgusted with the intrigues of public life, and retired to his seat at Monticello, in Virginia, where he spent the remainder of his days in the cultivation of a large farm agreeably to the new system of husbandry. In the month of November 1809, Mr. Adams addressed a short letter to his friend Mr. Jefferson in which he congratulated him upon his escape to the shades of retirement and domestic happiness, and concluded it with assurances of his regard and good wishes for his welfare. This letter did great honor to Mr. Adams. It discovered a magnanimity known only to great minds. Mr. Jefferson replied to this letter and reciprocated expressions of regard and esteem. These letters were followed by a correspondence of several years in which they mutually reviewed the scenes of business in which they had been engaged, and candidly acknowledged to each other all the errors of opinion and conduct into which they had fallen during the time they filled the same station in the service of their country. Many precious aphorisms [truths], the result of observation, experience, and profound reflection, it is said, are contained in these letters. It is to be hoped the world will be favored with a sight of them. . . . These gentlemen sunk into the grave nearly at the same time, full of years and rich in the gratitude and praises of their country.”¹

At the time this letter was written, Jefferson and Adams were still vehement opponents. None of what was described in this letter had begun to come to pass, nor did it seem likely that it ever would. Nevertheless, Adams received the dream from his dear friend with an open heart and candidly responded:

Your prophecy, my dear friend, has not become history as yet. I have no resentment of animosity against the gentleman [Jefferson] and abhor the idea of blackening his character or transmitting him in odious colors to posterity. But I write with difficulty and am afraid of diffusing myself in too many correspondences. If I should receive a letter from him, however, I should not fail to acknowledge and answer it.² [To see the entire John Adams to Benjamin Rush letter click here.]

Shortly after this letter, Rush, who was also a dear friend of Jefferson, initiated a correspondence with Jefferson on the same topic, attempting to reconcile the two. Jefferson, too, listened to Rush with an open heart, and tentatively reached out to Adams with a gracious letter. Adams, as he had promised, did “not fail to acknowledge and answer the letter,” and thus began a cordial renewing of a warm and sincere friendship between the two.

In retrospect, the amazing accuracy and future fulfillment of several parts of Dr. Rush’s dream are absolutely astounding. As accurately described in his dream, Adams and Jefferson did again become close friends, and there did indeed follow the “correspondence of several years” described in the dream. Furthermore, the “world was favored with a sight of the letters” as entire volumes were eventually published which contained the letters written between those two in their latter years. Interestingly, seventeen years after his dream, they did “sink into the grave nearly at the same time” as the two men died within three hours of each other on the same day: July 4th, 1826 – the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence! Finally, both expired “full of years and rich in the gratitude of praises of their country.” It would appear that Providence had indeed given this dream to Dr. Rush since, although extremely unlikely at the time, it all eventually came to pass. (For similar Providential involvement in dreams, see Genesis 41:25+ and Daniel 2:28+).

In 1812, some three years after Dr. Rush had related his amazing dream to John Adams, Dr. Rush gratifyingly noted that a reconciliation between the two had begun:

I rejoice in the correspondence which has taken place between you and your old friend, Mr. Jefferson. I consider you and him as the North and South Poles of the American Revolution. Some talked, some wrote, and some fought to promote and establish it, but you and Mr. Jefferson thought for us all. I never take a retrospect of the years 1775 and 1776 without associating your opinions and speeches and conversations with all great political, moral, and intellectual achievements of the Congresses of those memorable years. ³

Shortly after this letter, Dr. Rush wrote with similar excitement to Jefferson, also expressing to him his pleasure over the rekindled friendship:

In a letter which I received a few days ago from Mr. Adams, he informs me, with a kind of exultation, that after a correspondence of five or six and thirty years had been interrupted by various causes, it had been renewed, and that four letters had passed between you and him. In speaking of your letters, he says, “They are written with all the elegance, purity, and sweetness of style of his youth and middle age, and with (what I envy more) a firmness of finger and steadiness of chirography [handwriting] that to me are lost forever.” It will give me pleasure as long as I live to reflect that I [Dr. Rush] have been in any degree instrumental in effecting this reunion of two souls destined to be dear to each other and animated with the same dispositions to serve their country (though in different ways) at the expense of innumerable sacrifices of domestic ease, personal interest, and private friendships. Posterity will do you both justice for this act. If Mr. Adams’ letters to you are written in the same elevated and nervous style [at that time, the word “nervous” was defined as “possessing or manifesting vigor of mind; characterized by strength in sentiment or style”], both as to matter and language, that his letters are which he now and then addresses to me, I am sure you will be delighted with his correspondence. Some of his thoughts electrify me. I view him as a mountain with its head clear and reflecting the beams of the sun, while all below it is frost and snow. ⁴

On the death of Adams and Jefferson on the very same day, some 17 years after Benjamin Rush has seen that event in his dream, the Rev. Edward Everett (a U. S. Representative & Senator, Governor, Diplomat, Secretary of State, and President of Harvard) delivered an oration in remembrance of the two in which he noted the great impact on America of their dual influence, both before and after their reconciliation:

Having lived and acted and counseled and dared and risked all, and triumphed and enjoyed together, they have gone together to their great reward. . . . Forgetting the little that had divided them and cherishing the communion of service and peril and success which had united, they walked with honorable friendship the declining pathway of age; and now they have sunk down together in peace into the bosom of a redeemed and grateful country. . . . They were useful, honored, prosperous, and lovely in their lives, and in their deaths they were not divided. ⁵

Endnotes

¹ L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: The American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. II, pp. 1021-1022, to John Adams on October 17, 1809.

² From a handwritten letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush, dated from Quincy [Massachusetts], December 21, 1809, in possession of the author.

³ Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: The American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. II, p. 1127, to John Adams on February 17, 1812.

⁴ Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: The American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. II, pp. 1127-1128, to Thomas Jefferson on February [i.e., March] 3, 1812. Letter was actually received on March 19, 1812.

⁵ Edward Everett, An Address Delivered at Charlestown, August 1, 1826, in Commemoration of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (Boston: William L. Lewis, 1826), pp. 8-9.

A Christian Voter Intimidation Letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State.Numerous militant secular groups want to see people of faith and churches silenced and kept from exercising any influence in the public sphere, even if that influence is legal and constitutionally permissible. One such group is Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It seems that each election cycle, they send out an ominous letter to pastors and churches, warning them that they can face legal problems for something as innocuous as providing a non-partisan voters guide to their parishioners.

People of faith should not rely on such agenda-driven adversarial secularist groups for advice on what they can do in relation to elections; they should instead rely on neutral and even supportive groups to help navigate these relatively simple waters. For example, the IRS has issued a very easy-to-understand letter of guidance (link to this letter provided here) explaining what churches and non-profit organizations can do at election time, and a number of national legal groups which specialize in this area have provided even easier-to-understand letters of guidance (link also provided here).

Just to illustrate how straightforward and uncomplicated this issue really is, we have taken the threatening letter sent by Americans United for Separation of Church and State to pastors in 2006 and have crossed out their editorial comments designed to intimidate pastors and churches, leaving intact the actual legal guidance which is confirmed by the IRS and supportive attorneys; as you can see, the difference is stark! Don’t be intimidated! Maximize your constitutional influence by obtaining and following the clear guidelines provided by legal groups that specialize in helping people of faith.

Futile Intimidation Attempts

February 6, 2008

Greetings!

On February 5, 2008, nearly two dozen states made their voice heard in the presidential primaries. To help equip Christian voters to fulfill their role during the election season, WallBuilders produced a Voters’ Guide that was distributed to millions of homes.

That Voters’ Guide proved to be a great threat to anti-Biblical secularists. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State therefore filed an official complaint requesting that the IRS investigate both WallBuilders and the American Family Association (then headed by Don Wildmon) for distributing that Voters’ Guide.

We had absolutely no intention of backing down or altering our message, nor would we allow ourselves to be intimidated. Benjamin Franklin observed, “Make yourself sheep, and the wolves will eat you,” and Thomas Jefferson wisely advised, “In matters of principle, stand like a rock!” WallBuilders is determined to never be intimidated from exercising our constitutional rights and encouraging other Christians to do so.

Because the real intent of the secularists was to keep Christians out of the civil arena, the Rev. Barry Lynn (head of Americans United), warned that “Any church that distributes these biased guides is risking its tax exemption and casting aside its integrity.” He was dead wrong. The Voters’ Guide was reviewed by numerous constitutional attorneys before it was released.

Some often marvel that the head of such a secularist group as AU goes by the title of “Reverend,” yet Barry Lynn is indeed an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ (the same denomination of which Barack Obama is a member) – considered the most liberal (and fastest declining) of all American denominations.

The UCC was the first denomination to ordain an openly gay minister in the early 1970s, and to call for recognition of homosexual marriages; and over 200 of its churches are led by openly homosexual ministers. The UCC is also a strong advocate of abortion and openly endorsed abortion a full two years before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court abortion decision in 1973. They even opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions.

The UCC does not accept fixed absolutes from the Bible, but instead believes that the Bible should be defined by the current culture and context. You can certainly understand why individuals with this worldview would not want Christians to vote Biblically.

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Dante, The Inferno (circa 1315 A.D.)Thank you for being involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution?

God bless!

David Barton

Echoes of 1860: Is “Life” a Question of State’s Rights?

Much like the election of 1860, the 2008 presidential election generated a spirited debate over the correct relationship between the state and federal governments. The 1860 election debated the relationship of “states’ rights” to the issue of liberty; the 2008 election resurrected the issue of “states’ rights” but instead in the areas of life and family. Several of the 2008 presidential candidates declared themselves to be pro-life and pro-marriage but, citing federalism and “states’ rights,” they oppose either a Human Life or Marriage Amendment to the federal Constitution, claiming that such issues are to be decided by the state rather than the federal government. Yet a candidate’s position on such issues actually identifies their understanding of inalienable rights rather than their commitment to federalism.

In the original governing principles set forth in the Declaration (and then subsequently incorporated into the Constitution through Article VII), the right to life is one of three specifically identified inalienable rights; additional inalienable rights were subsequently enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The original documents – both the Declaration and the Constitution – make clear that the primary purpose of government, at all times and in all situations, is to protect those few inalienable rights.

Some candidates believed that the right to life is inalienable only to the degree that a specific state agrees – that if a state does not believe that the right to life is inalienable, then the federal government should not force the state to protect that right. Yet protection for the few specifically enumerated inalienable rights must always surpass what any particular state wishes – and this is the proper constitutional position on all inalienable rights, whether of life, private property, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of religious expression, etc. It is the duty of all government – including state governments – to protect inalienable rights. In fact, if the philosophy originally set forth in the Declaration of Independence and subsequently secured in the Constitution is rejected – the belief that there is a God, that He gives inalienable rights to man, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights at all times (even when the states refuse to do so) – then there is no longer a unique American philosophy of government that will distinguish us from the rest of the world.

Understanding this, voices across the nation therefore asserted that what the state of Connecticut did in weakening property rights vis a vi the Kelo decision was intolerable because our founding documents specifically protected the inalienable right of private property through the Fifth Amendment; and they likewise asserted that what Washington, D. C. was doing with gun bans was wrong because it similarly violated the inalienable right to keep and bear arms secured to the people through the Second Amendment. Why, then, do they now believe that it is improper for the federal government to tell states that they must observe the inalienable right to life and traditional family set forth with equal force in the very same documents?

Some candidates even declared that because they are strict constructionists, they oppose amendments to the Constitution (a strict constructionist is one who supports interpreting the Constitution according to its original intent). Yet, since the Founders specifically included Article V in the Constitution to specify how the Constitution might be amended, then a strict constructionist must also support the part of the Constitution providing for its own amendment. In fact, refusing to consider a constitutional amendment does not reflect strict constructionism but rather a rejection of Article V of the Constitution.

The Founders wisely raised the bar so high as to make it is extremely difficult to pass any amendment, requiring a two-thirds approval of Congress and three-fourths approval of the states before any change could occur. Consequently, while there have been over 10,000 amendments to the Constitution proposed since 1789, only twenty-seven have been able to meet the constitutional standard. Of those twenty-seven, twelve were passed by the Founders themselves (the original “strict constructionists”) in only twenty years; in the subsequent two-hundred years, the nation has made just fifteen changes.

Federal constitutional amendments should be rare, but that does not mean they should be non-existent. States cannot be allowed to pick and choose which inalienable rights they will protect (although under the Constitution they are completely competent to determine virtually all other issues). The Constitution was written to preserve American culture and society, not to cause citizens to stand idly by while the culture is destroyed – especially when they have in their hands the means to preserve it through a constitutional amendment in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.

Some voices naively assert that simply eradicating abortion at the federal level and returning the issue to the states will correct the problem, but they are completely wrong. When the federal courts get out of the abortion issue and return it to the states, 20 states (based on both pro-life and pro-abortion estimates) will continue their current abortion practices, and those states include many with the largest population (e.g., California, New York, Illinois, etc.). Citizens from the other 30 states will therefore travel to one of those 20 states to get an abortion; so while the number of abortions will undoubtedly go down when the issue is returned to the states, it will come nowhere close to ending. Additionally, stopping abortion at the federal level will do nothing to correct the legal rulings generated in the state courts over the past 35 years as those state courts infused federal court positions into their own state case law. State courts will remain hostile to state attempts to restrict abortion because state case law is now as infused with the broad “health” exceptions, etc., as were the federal decisions.

A parallel legal analogy to today’s life and marriage protection concerns is seen in the 1860 slavery issue. At that time, even though the right to liberty was an inalienable right guaranteed in the founding documents, slavery was so deeply imbedded in the nation that the mere federal removal of itself from that issue vis a vi several federal statutes passed from 1861-1865 did little or nothing to change the slave culture in any of the states, either North or South – and those federal statutes certainly did nothing to change the bad court rulings that had occurred at the state level over the previous century.

Historically, the only manner in which bad case law can be completely eradicated from the law books (and thus completely terminate a long-standing harmful national practice that has permeated the states) is through a constitutional amendment – and a number of constitutional amendments have been passed to do just that (13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, etc.). In fact, had there been no constitutional amendments to secure the inalienable right to liberty that had been so egregiously violated by so many states, then there likely would still be slavery in America today as one generation, or family, or judicial system transmitted its errant beliefs to the next. So, too, with abortion.

The federal government should never have intruded itself into the abortion issue through the multiple Supreme Court decisions that opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box; however, the federal government did intrude itself. As a result, the abortion culture is now deeply implanted in America, and there are those who are as committed to that practice today as there were those who were committed to slavery a century-and-a-half ago. And abortion (like slavery before it) has become one of the nation’s biggest economic businesses; it therefore will not be eradicated from the nation by mere statutory action at the state level (or vice versa).

The Founding Fathers established federalism to preserve states’ rights, but they also placed the protection of inalienable rights far above the level of states’ rights. Candidates who desire to lead the nation should follow the Framers’ example and conform to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, protecting life and marriage through the constitutional process those early leaders wisely provided.

* This article concerns a historical issue and may not have updated information.

Tea Parties- Same Song, Second Verse

History of Tea Parties

America’s first Tea Party in 1773 was not an act of wanton lawlessness but rather a deliberate protest against heavy-handed government and excessive taxation.¹ Its leaders took great care to ensure that nothing but tea was thrown overboard – no other items were damaged. The “Indians” even swept the decks of the ships before they left.²

Tea Parties occurred not only in Boston but also in numerous other locales.³ And those who participated were just ordinary citizens expressing their frustration over a government that had refused to listen to them for almost a decade. Their reasonable requests had fallen on deaf ears. Of course, the out-of-touch British claimed that the Tea Parties were lawless and violent,⁴ but such was not the case.

Tea Party Today

Interestingly, in many ways, today’s Tea Parties parallel those of long ago. But rather than protesting a tax on tea, today they are protesting dozens of taxes represented by what they call the Porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009 (officially called the “American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act”). For Tea Party members (and for most Americans), that act and the way it was passed epitomizes a broken system whose arrogant leaders often scorn the concerns of the citizens they purport to represent.

Tea Party folks agree with the economic logic of our Founders.

“To contract new debts is not the way to pay off old ones.”⁵ “Avoid occasions of expense…and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions…to discharge the debts.”⁶ GEORGE WASHINGTON
“Nothing can more [affect] national credit and prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to…extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possible the incurring of any new debt.”⁷ ALEXANDER HAMILTON
“The maxim of buying nothing but what we have money in our pockets to pay for lays the broadest foundation for happiness.”⁸ “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”⁹ THOMAS JEFFERSON

These are not radical positions – nor are the others set forth in the Tea Party platform – that Congress should: (1) provide the constitutional basis for the bills it passes; (2) reduce intrusive government regulations; (3) balance the budget; (4) limit the increase of government spending to the rate of population growth; (5) and eliminate earmarks unless approved by 2/3rds of Congress.¹⁰ Are these positions dangerous or extreme? Certainly not. In fact, polling shows that Americans support these Tea Party goals by a margin of two-to-one.¹¹

Citizens are angry about the current direction of government. As John Zubly, a member of the Continental Congress in 1775, reminded the British: “My Lord, the Americans are no idiots, and they appear determined not to be slaves. Oppression will make wise men mad.”¹² But does that anger automatically equate to violence? Of course not. It does equate to action, however; but instead of throwing tea overboard, modern Tea Parties are throwing out-of-touch politicians from both parties overboard.

The Tea Parties represent much of what is right in America – citizens reacquainting themselves with the Constitution and holding their elected officials accountable to its standards. Two centuries ago, Daniel Webster could have been talking to today’s Tea Party rallies when he said: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution!”¹³

Endnotes

¹ George Bancroft, History of the United States of America (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888), III:443-447.

² Bancroft, History (1888), III:456-457; “Facts You May Not Know about the Tea Party,” Boston Tea Party Historical Society (accessed on July 21, 2010).

³ Bancroft, History (1888), III:457 (Philadelphia, NY, SC).

⁴ Bancroft, History (1888), III:460.

⁵ George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1940), 37:177, letter to James Welch, April 7, 1799.

⁶ Washington, Writings, ed. Fitzpatrick (1939), 35:230, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

⁷ Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), XI:140-141.

⁸ Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), VI:188, letter to Mr. Skipwith, July 28, 1787.

⁹ Jefferson, Writings, ed. Lipscomb (1904), XV:23, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816.

¹⁰ “Contract From America,” TeaParty365.com, April 10, 2010.

¹¹ See, for example, “Tea Party 48%, Obama 44%,” Rasmussen Reports, April 5, 2010 (at: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44); “Most Say Tea Party Has Better Understanding of Issues than Congress,” Rasmussen Reports, March 28, 2010 (at: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2010/most_say_tea_party_has_better_understanding_of_issues_than_congress).

¹² William B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit; or Commemorative Notices of Distinguished American Clergymen or Various Denominations (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1858), 3:221.

¹³ Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 108th Congress, Second Session (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 2004), 150:17247, Representative Franks quoting Daniel Webster, July 22, 2004.

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

Categories: Articles

Private Property Rights Resolution

Resolution Acknowledging the Inalienable Rights of Private Property

Footnotes

Testimony on Global Warming

Endnotes

Why Christians Must Vote in This Election

Meet The ACLU

Criminal Justice Issues

Illegal Drug Issues

Abortion Issues

Immigration & Illegal Alien Issues

Homosexual Issues

Religious Expression Issues

Miscellaneous Issues

Endnotes

The Bible and Taxes

Capital Gains Taxes

Wages

Income Taxes

Inheritance Taxes

Benjamin Rush Dream about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

Endnotes

A Christian Voter Intimidation Letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Futile Intimidation Attempts

Echoes of 1860: Is “Life” a Question of State’s Rights?

Tea Parties- Same Song, Second Verse

History of Tea Parties

Tea Party Today

Endnotes

QUICK LINKS

OTHER LINKS

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

Resolution Acknowledging the Inalienable Rights of Private Property

Footnotes

Endnotes

Criminal Justice Issues

Illegal Drug Issues

Abortion Issues

Immigration & Illegal Alien Issues

Homosexual Issues

Religious Expression Issues

Miscellaneous Issues

Endnotes

Capital Gains Taxes

Wages

Income Taxes

Inheritance Taxes

Endnotes

History of Tea Parties

Tea Party Today

Endnotes

QUICK LINKS

OTHER LINKS

SOCIAL LINKS

Explore

Engage

Initiatives