1950s-Now: Modern Archives - Page 11 of 63

Congress, the Culture, and Christian Voting

(1992-2006)On many current cultural and pro-family issues, polling numbers show that public support is high, but voting numbers show that the support in Congress is much lower. For example:

Prohibiting federal courts from removing “Under God” in the Pledge

Public support: 91%,¹ thereby giving it public bi-partisan support (approximately 28% of the nation identifies as Republican, 33% as Democrat, and 38% as third-party or independent²)
In the vote on HR 2389 (Pledge Protection Act of 2006, introduced by Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri), only 60% of House Members voted for it³– certainly much lower than the 91% of the nation that supports it
In that vote, 96% of Republicans voted to preserve “under God” from the hands of activist judges, but only 19% of Democrats did so⁴
The measure passed the House but was not taken up by Senate⁵

Permitting public displays of the Ten Commandments

Public support is at 76%,⁶ thereby giving it public bi-partisan support
In the vote on The Aderholt Amendment in which Rep. Robert Aderholt’s (of Alabama) bill, HR 1501, “The Ten Commandments Defense Act,” was inserted as language within another bill, only 57% of House Members voted for it⁷
93% of Republicans voted for the Ten Commandments amendment but only 27% of Democrats⁸
That measure passed the House but was not taken up by Senate⁹

Authorizing faith-based programs

Currently, in government-run prisons (state or federal), the average recidivism rate is 68%¹⁰ (meaning that 68% of inmates, within three years of their release from prison, will commit a crime that will place them back in prison); however, in faith-based prisons (currently operating in about a dozen states¹¹) such as the ones in Texas, the recidivism rate is only 8%¹² (a rate that is 88% lower than government-run prisons). Consider the effect of this not only in reduced spending and crime but also in strengthening the family, since an estimated 1.5 million children presently have at least one parent in prison¹³
Currently, in government-run drug rehab programs (state or federal), the average cure rate is under 20%;¹⁴ however, in faith-based drug rehab programs such as Teen Challenge, the cure rate is over 70%¹⁵
Public support for faith-based programs is at 75%,¹⁶ thereby giving it public bi-partisan support
In the vote on HR 7 (Community Solutions Act), only 54% of House Members voted for that measure¹⁷
98% of Republicans voted for it but only 7% of Democrats¹⁸
The measure passed the House but was not taken up by the Senate¹⁹

Permitting voluntary school prayer

Public support is at 76%,²⁰ thereby giving it public bi-partisan support
The vote on HJ Res 78 (Community Life Amendment): only 52% of House Members voted for it²¹
87% of Republicans voted for it but only 13% of Democrats²²

Defining marriage as being one man and one woman

Opposition to same sex marriage is at 66%,²³ thereby giving public bi-partisan support in support of traditional marriage
In the Senate, on the vote to address The Federal Marriage Amendment (SJ Res 1) to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, only 49% of Senators voted in support of that definition²⁴
85% of Republican Senators voted for it but only 5% of Democratic Senators²⁵
In the House vote on HJ Res 88 (The Federal Marriage Amendment), only 55% of House Members voted for it²⁶
87% of House Republicans voted for it but only 16% of Democrats²⁷

Repealing the anti-family Death Tax (also called the Estate Tax, or Inheritance Tax) (see Proverbs 13:22, Ezekiel 46:18, Proverbs 19:14, I Chronicles 28:8, Ezra 9:12, etc.)

Public opposition to the tax is 68%, thereby giving public bi-partisan support for its repeal
In the vote on HR 8 (Estate Tax Repeal Act), only 57% of voted for its repeal²⁸
96% of Republicans voted to repeal it but only 9% of Democrats²⁹
The measure passed the House but³⁰ failed in the Senate³¹

Repealing the Marriage Penalty Tax

Public support to repeal that anti-family policy is 80%,³² thereby giving public bi-partisan support to rid the nation of this onerous measure
In the vote on HR 4810 (Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act), 87% of Republicans voted for it but only 16% of Democrats voted to stop penalizing marriage³³

Controlling the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court and the federal courts in general are the primary cause for the culture war. Consider: while no legislature has passed a law permitting abortion-on-demand, it has become national policy via a Supreme Court decision;³⁴ similarly, no legislature has prohibited voluntary school prayer but that prohibition has become national policy via Supreme Court decisions;³⁵ the same is true on numerous other cultural issues.
The Supreme Court’s own Justices have described the Court as “a super board of education for every school district in the nation,”³⁶ “a national theology board,”³⁷ and amateur psychologists on a “psycho-journey.”³⁸ Far too many of the nation’s current policies on criminal justice, education, morality, etc., are not the result of legislative action but rather of judicial decrees.
77% of the nation thinks that courts have overreached in driving religion out of public life, and 59% believe that they have singled out Christianity for attack,³⁹ thereby giving public bi-partisan support to efforts to restrain judicial activism
Two strict-constructionists, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, were nominated to the Supreme Court as part of the effort to restrain judicial activism
Public support for Alito’s confirmation was 54%⁴⁰ and for Roberts’ was 60%,⁴¹ thereby giving them public bi-partisan support
The vote on Alito’s confirmation was 98% of Republicans, 9% of Democrats;⁴² and the vote on the Roberts confirmation was 100% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats⁴³
Why is Congress so far out of step with the people on so many cultural issues, frequently demonstrating a level for those issues that is 20 to 30% lower than the public support?

President James A. Garfield (the 20th President, and a minister of the Gospel during the Second Great Awakening) answered this question in 1876:

“Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”⁴⁴

The Church probably better represents the “enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation” than any other group, but it has not “aided in controlling the political forces”

Christian voting

There are three types of Christian voters in polling
Christian voters – largest group; this is the group that simply self-identifies as (i.e., calls themselves) Christians
Born-again voters – a Christian voter who says he has had a life-changing experience with Jesus Christ;⁴⁵ a smaller group than that of Christian voters
Evangelical voters – a born-again voter who also believes the Bible is important and who attends church, prays, and reads the Bible at least once a week;⁴⁶ this is the group of Christians that take their faith most seriously

Christian voting patterns

1992-1996: a 17% decrease in Christians who voted
1996-2000: an additional 23% decrease in Christians who voted
1992-2000: a 40% total decrease in Christians who voted
There are 60 million evangelicals in America⁴⁷
Only 15 million evangelicals voted in 2000⁴⁸
Some 24 million (40%) evangelicals are not even registered to vote⁴⁹

2002 efforts

In the 2002 election, following the dramatic drop in 1992-2000, national evangelical leaders widely urged Christians to register, vote, and vote their values
The national efforts resulted in 2% increase in Christian voter turnout
Even that percentage resulted in dramatic improvements, which were visible in exit polling on the abortion issue
41% of all voters said the abortion issue impacted their vote
23% said they voted a straight pro-life ticket
16% said they voted a straight pro-abortion ticket
This resulted in a 7% advantage for a pro-life candidate (it had been some years since most federal candidates had an advantage by being openly pro-life⁵⁰)
The results were visible in those elected to Congress
Of the 54 Freshmen elected to the U. S. House, 36 were pro-life – a 67% pro-life class⁵¹ (anything over 50.1% is moving forward)
Of 10 Freshmen elected to the U. S. Senate, 8 were pro-life – an 80% pro-life class⁵² (the Senate is where the help is most needed)

Legislative impact

Based on the logic of President Garfield (as well as that of Proverbs 29:2), if pro-life voters elect pro-life legislators, the logical result would be that they would begin to get pro-life legislation
Since the Roe v. Wade Court decision in 1973, Congress had not reduced the scope of abortions or the type of abortions performed but instead restricted only money
Congress regularly defeats the Sanchez Amendment that would fund abortions on military bases⁵³
Congress regularly enacts the Hyde Amendment that prohibits federal funds from being used for abortions⁵⁴
Congress regularly enacts the Mexico City policy that prohibits foreign aid monies from going to groups that perform abortions overseas⁵⁵
The 2002 Congress became the first to pass not just one but three bills that protected unborn human life; all three were signed by President Bush
Infant Born-Alive Protection Act⁵⁶
Unborn Victims of Violence Act⁵⁷
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban⁵⁸

2004 efforts

National evangelical leaders continued to widely urge voter registration, voter turnout, and Christians voting their values⁵⁹
Those efforts resulted in a 93% increase in Christian voter turnout (28.9 million evangelicals voted,⁶⁰ up 93% from the 15 million that voted in 2000; of course, 28.9 million of the 60 million still means that under half of evangelicals are voting, but this still is a dramatic increase over 2000)
The effect was reflected in exit polling on the abortion issue
42% of all voters said the abortion issue impacted their vote⁶¹
25% said they voted a straight pro-life ticket⁶²
13% said they voted a straight pro-abortion ticket⁶³
This resulted in a 12% advantage for pro-life candidates
The results were visible in those elected to Congress
Of 40 Freshmen elected to the U. S. House, 25 were pro-life⁶⁴ (a 63% pro-life class)
Of 9 Freshmen elected to the U. S. Senate, 7 were pro-life⁶⁵ (a 77% pro-life class)

Overall effects of these two elections

Not only have a number of pro-life, pro-faith, and pro-family legislators been elected to Congress, but the change has been especially visible in the Senate
Over these two elections, of the 19 Freshman Senators elected, 15 have been pro-life – a 79% pro-life group
It has been the addition of these new pro-life Senators that has allowed the confirmation of two new pro-life Justices to the U. S. Supreme Court – something that likely would not have happened had not Christians showed up in the past two election cycles and voted their values
Those two new Justices have already had a significant impact on a number of Biblical and pro-family issues, including a pro-life Court ruling that ended a 1981 policy wrongly used to prosecute pro-life protestors,⁶⁶ upholding the ban on partial-birth abortions,⁶⁷ a refusal to hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (a federal law defining marriage as being the union of a man and a woman for federal purpose),⁶⁸ and a decision to uphold a public display of the Ten Commandments⁶⁹– the Court’s first favorable ruling on such displays in 27 years
Only one more such Justice is needed to place five solid votes on the Court, thus potentially ending the federal control of the culture war and returning it back to the people, where they can direct it through their elected officials

2006 voting efforts

There was a 30% decrease in Christian voter turnout, falling from 28.9 million evangelicals down to 20.5 million⁷⁰
The result was clearly visible in the philosophy of those elected to Congress
Of 54 Freshmen elected to the U. S. House, only 17 were pro-life⁷¹ (a 31% pro-life class)
Of 10 Freshmen elected to the U. S. Senate,⁷² only 1 was pro-life (a 10% pro-life class), and one of those two will not vote for marriage as being only between a man and a woman
The Baltimore Sun described this Congress as “the most pro-choice Congress in the history of the Republic”⁷³
Just as Christian voter turnout directly affects policies on life issues, so, too, on issues related to slowing the promotion of the homosexual agenda
The 2006 Congress has been active in promoting the homosexual agenda through its onerous homosexual hate-crimes bill as well as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would force employers, including churches, to hire homosexuals
While Evangelical voting turnout reaches only at 50% when at its highest, homosexual men vote at a rate of 92.5% and lesbian women at a rate of 91%⁷⁴
Clearly, there is a direct correlation between Christian voter turnout and the percentage of elected leaders who embrace and reflect basic Biblical values

Challenges for Christian voter involvement

The Rev. Matthias Burnet (1803)
Finally, ye . . . whose high prerogative it is to . . . invest with office an authority or to withhold them and in whose power it is to save or destroy your country, consider well the important trust . . . which God . . . [has] put into your hands. To God and posterity you are accountable for them. . . . Let not your children have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions which your fathers delivered to you.⁷⁵
The Rev. Charles Finney (1830s)
The Church must take right ground in regard to politics. . . . [T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics. . . . Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time has come when they must act differently. . . . God cannot sustain this free and blessed country which we love and pray for unless the Church will take right ground. . . . It seems sometimes as if the foundations of the nation are becoming rotten, and Christians seem to act as if they think God does not see what they do in politics. But I tell you He does see it, and He will bless or curse this nation according to the course [Christians] take [in politics].⁷⁶
The Rev. Frederick Douglass (1852)
[I] have one great political idea. . . . That idea is an old one. It is widely and generally assented to; nevertheless, it is very generally trampled upon and disregarded. The best expression of it, I have found in the Bible. It is in substance, “Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]. . . This constitutes my politics – the negative and positive of my politics, and the whole of my politics. . . . I feel it my duty to do all in my power to infuse this idea into the public mind, that it may speedily be recognized and practiced upon by our people.⁷⁷
The Rev. Francis Grimke (1909)
The Stars and Stripes – the old flag – will float . . . over all these States. . . If the time ever comes when we shall go to pieces, it will . . . be . . . from inward corruption – from the disregard of right principles . . . from losing sight of the fact that “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but that sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]. . . . [T]he secession of the Southern States in 1860 was a small matter compared with the secession of the Union itself from the great principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, in the Golden Rule, in the Ten Commandments, in the Sermon on the Mount. Unless we hold, and hold firmly to these great fundamental principles of righteousness, . . . our Union . . . will be “only a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.” If it continues to exist, it will be a curse and not a blessing.⁷⁸

– – – ◊ ◊ ◊ – – –Many of the above statistics (and their documentation) as well as the historical quotations can be found in several articles on the WallBuilders website (www.wallbuilders.com) as well as in WallBuilders resources available from the store on our website.

WallBuilders Resources

Original Intent: The Court, The Constitution, and Religion
The Role of Pastors and Christians in Civil Government
The WallBuilder Report, Winter 2005, “Inside Election 2004: A Moral Mandate?”

Endnotes

¹ Gallup, “Americans Indivisible on Pledge of Allegiance” (at: https://www.gallup.com/poll/11551/Americans-Indivisible-Pledge-Allegiance.aspx).

² Gallup, “Party Affiliation” (at https://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx).

³ Library of Congress, “Final Vote Results for Roll Call 385” (at: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll385.xml), GovTrack.us, “H.R. 2389 [109th]: Pledge Protection Act of 2005” (at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-385).

⁴ Library of Congress, “Final Vote Results for Roll Call 385” (at: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll385.xml), GovTrack.us, “H.R. 2389 [109th]: Pledge Protection Act of 2005” (at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-385).

⁵ Library of Congress, “H.R. 2389” (at: https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR02389:@@@L&summ2=m&), GovTrack.us, “H.R. 2389 [109th]: Pledge Protection Act of 2005” (at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-2389).

⁶ See for example: Gallup, “Americans: Thou Shalt Not Remove the Ten Commandments” (at: https://www.gallup.com/poll/15817/Americans-Thou-Shalt-Remove-Ten-Commandments.aspx).

⁷ Library of Congress, “Final Vote Results for Roll Call 221: Aderholt of Alabama Amendment” (at: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll221.xml).

⁸ Library of Congress, “Final Vote Results for Roll Call 221: Aderholt of Alabama Amendment” (at: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll221.xml).

⁹ Library of Congress, “H.R. 1501: H.AMDT.200” (at: https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR01501:@@@S).

¹⁰ U.S. Department of Justice, “Criminal Offenders Statistics” (at: https://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism).

¹¹ FoxNews.com, “Faith-Based Prisons Multiply Across U.S.” (at: https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301600,00.html).

¹² The Roundtable on Religion & Social Welfare Policy, “Unresolved Problem- Interview with Rob Boston, Mark Earley” (at: https://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=423).

¹³ University of Pennsylvania, “Fathers in Prison: A Review of the Data” (at: https://www.ncoff.gse.upenn.edu/briefs/brennerbrief.pdf), California State Library, “Children of Incarcerated Parents” (at: https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/00/notes/V7N2.pdf).

¹⁴ Mackinac Center for Public Policy, “Teen Challenge: Kicking Two Bad Habits” (at: https://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=56).

¹⁵ “Statement of the Dave Batty, Executive Director, Teen Challenge, Inc., Brooklyn, New York. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Ways and Means,” 3.

¹⁶ PewForum, “Report: Faith-Based Funding Backed, but Church-State Doubt Abound” (at: https://pewforum.org/events/0410/report/).

¹⁷ Library of Congress, “Final Vote Results for Roll Call 254: HR 7” (at: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll254.xml).

¹⁸ Library of Congress, “Final Vote Results for Roll Call 254: HR 7” (at: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll254.xml).

¹⁹ Library of Congress, “HR 7: All Actions” (at: https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR00007:@@@X).

²⁰ Gallup, “Public Favors Voluntary Prayer for Schools” (at: https://www.gallup.com/poll/18136/Public-Favors-Voluntary-Prayer-Public-Schools.aspx), August 26, 2005; Gallup, “Education: Topics A to Z” (at: https://www.gallup.com/poll/1612/Education.aspx).

²¹ Library of Congress, “HJ Res 78” (at: https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HJ00078:@@@X), Library of Congress, “Final Results for Roll Call 201: HJ Res 78” (at: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll201.xml).

²² Library of Congress, “Final Vote Results for Roll Call 201: HJ Res 78” (at: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll201.xml).

²³ Fox News Poll, June 18, 2004 (at: https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103756,00.html).

²⁴ Library of Congress, “S.J. Res. 1” (at: https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SJ00001:@@@X), GovTrack.us, “S.J. Res. 1 [109th]: Marriage Protection Amendment” (at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sj109-1).

²⁵ Library of Congress, “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress- 2nd Session” (at: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00163), GovTrack.us, “Senate Vote #163 (Jun 7, 2006)” (at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2006-163).

²⁶ Library of Congress, “H.J. Res. 88” (at: https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HJ00088:@@@X), GovTrack.us, “H.J. Res. 88 [109th]: Marriage Protection Amendment” (at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj109-88).

²⁷ Library of Congress, “Final Vote Results for Roll Call 378” (at: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll378.xml), GovTrack.us, “H.J. Res. 88 [109th]: Marriage Protection Amendment (Vote on Passage)” (at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-378).

²⁸ Library of Congress, “H.R. 8” (at https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00008:@@@X), Library of Congress, “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress-2nd Session: H.R. 8” (at: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00164).

²⁹ Library of Congress, “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress-2nd Session: H.R. 8” (at: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00164).

³⁰ Library of Congress, “H.R. 8” (at: https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00008:@@@X).

³¹ Library of Congress, “H.R. 8” (at: https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00008:@@@X), Library of Congress, “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress-2nd Session: H.R. 8” (at: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00164).

³² Gallup, “Broad Public Support for Variety of Economic Stimulus Proposals” (at: https://www.gallup.com/poll/7549/Broad-Public-Support-Variety-Economic-Stimulus-Proposals.aspx), January 8, 2003; see also Pew Research Center, “Public Votes for Continuity and Change in 2000” (at: https://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=330), February 25, 1999.

³³ Library of Congress, “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress- 2nd Session” (at: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00226).

³⁴ Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

³⁵ See for example Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

³⁶ McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, 237 (1948).

³⁷ County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 106 L. Ed. 2d 472, 550 (1989), Kennedy, J. (concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).

³⁸ Lee et al. v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 643 (1992).

³⁹ Foxnews.com, “Courts Driving Religion Out of Public Life; Christianity Under Attack” (at: https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177355,00.html); see also CNSNews.com, “Most Americans Feel Religion Is ‘Under Attack,’ Poll Shows” (at: https://www.csnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=Culturearchive200511CUL20051121a.html).

⁴⁰ CNN-USA Today-Gallup Poll reported on January 23, 2006 (at: https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-23-alito-senate_x.htm).

⁴¹ CNN-USA Today-Gallup Poll reported on January 19, 2005 (at: https://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/bush.poll/index.html).

⁴² United States Senate, “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress-2nd Session” (at: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002).

⁴³ United States Senate, “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress-1st Session” (at: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245).

⁴⁴ John M. Taylor, Garfield of Ohio: The Available Man (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1970), p. 180, quoted from “A Century of Congress,” by James A. Garfield, Atlantic, July 1877.

⁴⁵ Barna Group, “Born Again Christians” (at: https://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=8).

⁴⁶ Wheaton College, “Defining Evangelicalism” (at: https://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html).

⁴⁷ The Boston Globe, “Apocalyptic President?” (at: https://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/04/04/apocalyptic_president/?page=3); Reuters, “U.S. Evangelicals Eye Renewed Domestic Drive” (at: https://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0741145420070207);

⁴⁸ Focus on the Family, Citizen Magazine, September 2003, “Believers at the ballot box: Election 2000 by the numbers.”

⁴⁹ Operation Vote.com, “More Ways Churches Can Get Involved” (at: www.kintera.org/atf/cf/%7BBA59548B-F8D6-416E-86A7-3BF0226F8467%7D/AF104-%20Planning%20Points.pdf); Summit Ministries, “Why Christians Should Vote” (at: https://summit.org/resource/tc/archive/1004/).

⁵⁰ National Right to Life, “The Pro-Life Advantage for Candidates” (at: https://www.nrlc.org/EandP/profileadvantage.html).

⁵¹ Numbers provided by the House Pro-Life Caucus.

⁵² Statement of Carol Tobias, National Right to Life PAC Director, Post Election Press Conference, November 13, 2002, (at: http//www.nrlc.org/Election2002/tobiaspressconference111302.html).

⁵³ American Family Association, “Loretta Sanchez of California Amendment; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004,” (at: ); University of Maryland, “CRS Report for Congress: Abortion Services and Military Medical Facilities” (at: https:// www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/95-387_F.pdf), 17-18.

⁵⁴ National Women’s Health Network, “The Women’s Health Activist: The Hyde Amendment’s Prohibition of Federal Funding for Abortion- 30 Years is Enough!”; National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, “The Hyde Amendment: Fact Sheet” (at: www.nchla.org/datasource/ifactsheets/hyde8b.00.PDF).

⁵⁵ Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, “US ‘Mexico’ policy: Abortion funding in foreign countries,” last updated April 27, 2007 (at: https://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_wrld.htm).

⁵⁶ National Right to Life, “President Bush Signs Born Alive Infants Protection Act in Pittsburgh Ceremony Attended by NRLC Officials,” (at: https://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/BAIPAsigned.html).

⁵⁷ National Right to Life, “ President Bush Signs Unborn Victims of Violence Act into Law, After Dramatic One-vote Win in Senate,” April 6, 2004 (at: https://ww.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/BshsignsUVVA.html).

⁵⁸ Office of the Press Secretary, “President Signs Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003,” November 5, 2003 (at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031105-1.html).

⁵⁹ Washington Post, “Evangelical Leaders Appeal to Followers to Go to Polls,” October 15, 2004, p. A06; see also Washington Post, “Evangelicals Say They Led Charge for the GOP” (at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32793-2004Nov7.html).

⁶⁰ In the 2004 elections, a total of 125,736,000 votes were cast; twenty-three percent of voters were “Evangelicals,” thus translating into 28.9 million votes. See sources at New York Times, “Religious Voting Data Show Some Shift, Observers Say,” (at: https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F17F7355B0C7A8CDDA80994DE404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fE%2fEvangelical%20Movement); and U. S. Census Bureau, “Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2004” (at: https://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf).

⁶¹ National Right to Life, “Statement by Carol Tobias: National Right to Life Political Director, November 4, 2004” (at: https://www.nrlc.org/Post/Tobias110404.html).

⁶² National Right to Life, “Statement by Carol Tobias: National Right to Life Political Director, November 4, 2004” (at: https://www.nrlc.org/Post/Tobias110404.html).

⁶³ National Right to Life, “Statement by Carol Tobias: National Right to Life Political Director, November 4, 2004” (at: https://www.nrlc.org/Post/Tobias110404.html).

⁶⁴ Numbers provided by the House Pro-Life Caucus.

⁶⁵ National Right to Life, “Statement by Carol Tobias: National Right to Life Political Director, November 4, 2004” (at: https://www.nrlc.org/Post/Tobias110404.html), Library of Congress, “CRS Report for Congress: Freshmen in the House of Representatives and Senate by Political Party: 1913-2005” (at: www.llsdc.org/sourcebook/docs/CRS-RS20723.pdf).

⁶⁶ NOW v. Scheidler, 547 U.S. ___ (2006).

⁶⁷ Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. ___ (2007).

⁶⁸ Smelt v. County of Orange, 374 F. Supp. 2d 861 (C.D. Cal., 2005), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 396 (2006).

⁶⁹ Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).

⁷⁰ In the 2006 elections, a total of 85,251,089 votes were cast; twenty-four percent of voters were “Evangelicals,” thus translating into 20.5 million votes. See sources at George Mason University, “United States Elections Project: 2006 Voting-Age and Voting-Eligible Population Estimates” (at: https://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2006.htm); New York Times, “Religious Voting Data Show Some Shift, Observers Say” (at: https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F17F7355B0C7A8CDDA80994DE404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fE%2fEvangelical%20Movement).

⁷¹ Numbers provided by the House Pro-Life Caucus.

⁷² See for example: Wikipedia.com, “List of Freshmen Class Members of the 110th United States Congress” (at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freshman_class_members_of_the_110th_United_States_Congress).

⁷³ Thomas F. Shaller, Baltimore Sun, February 28, 2007 (at: https://www.sba-list.org/newsitems.aspx).

⁷⁴ Numbers from a study by San Francisco-based Community Marketing, Inc. reported in the Los Angeles Times online blog on August 8, 2007 (at: https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/08/gay-power.html).

⁷⁵ Matthias Burnet, An Election Sermon, Preached at Hartford, on the Day of the Anniversary Election, May 12, 1803 (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1803), 26-27.

⁷⁶ Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1868, first published in 1835), Lecture XV, 281-282.

⁷⁷ Douglass, The Frederick Douglass Papers, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 2:397, from a speech delivered at Ithaca, New York, October 14, 1852.

⁷⁸ Francis J. Grimke, from “Equality of Right for All Citizens, Black and White, Alike,” March 7, 1909, published in Masterpieces of Negro Eloquence, Alice Moore Dunbar, editor (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2000), 246-247.

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

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.

Religious Acknowledgments in the Capitol Visitor Center

Religious Acknowledgments
in the Capitol Visitor Centerby David Barton in the 1990s, the construction of a U. S. Capitol Visitor Center (a structure separate from but attached to the U. S. Capitol) was proposed to better control the flow of tourists throughout the Capitol building. The official ground-breaking ceremony occurred in June 2000, but following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there was a renewed emphasis on building the Center as a means to provide better security at the Capitol and protect Members of Congress. (Prior to 9/11, the Capitol was open day or night to any citizen who wanted to enter.)

In August 2002, construction began on the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), and in 2004, we were asked by leading Members of Congress to help them monitor the content of the hundreds of displays and exhibits in the proposed CVC. Those leaders understood the importance of presenting accurate information throughout the CVC, for 15,000 people go through the Capitol each day, including thousands of school children.

We were given full access to the proposed content for the CVC and we closely monitored those materials, filing regular reports with congressional leadership. We found much objectionable content including not only inaccurate historical facts but especially a deliberate omission and even censoring of the rich religious history of the Capitol. An astute government researcher accurately noted that historical omission is one of the most effective means of producing a slanted bias:

[L]iberal and secular bias is primarily accomplished by exclusion. . . . Such a bias is much harder to observe than a positive vilification or direct criticism, but it is the essence of censorship. It is effective not only because it is hard to observe (it isn’t there) and therefore hard to counteract, but also because it makes only the liberal, secular positions familiar and plausible.

We detailed for the congressional leaders the many omissions and the liberal left secular bias evident across the hundreds of displays in the CVC. Much of the objectionable content was changed and the inaccurate material corrected – until congressional leadership changed following the 2006 elections. Since that time, there has been a full reversion to the liberal bias and historically inaccurate content originally evident in the displays.

Several House Members intervened with specific attempts to correct some of those problems – including former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), who in October 2007 introduced HR 3908:

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to ensure that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the national motto “In God We Trust” are each displayed prominently in the Capitol Visitor Center on a permanent basis and to prohibit the Architect from removing or refusing to include language or other content from exhibits and materials relating to the Capitol Visitor Center on the grounds that the language or content includes a religious reference or Judeo-Christian content.

The new congressional leadership refused to act on her bill – or to act on additional recommendations offered by other Members.

Those Members therefore concluded that the general public needed to be made aware of the situation within the CVC so that they could apply pressure to Congress. To that end, in early July 2008, we began work on an 8-minute video to highlight some of the many problems with the CVC. (That short video – “The War on God in America” – can be viewed on YouTube.)

While working on that DVD, on July 23, 2008, we were asked to give a formal briefing about the problems within the CVC to a group of several dozen House Members. Eight days later on July 31, 2008, 108 House Members sent a letter to the Architect of the Capitol (responsible for the construction of the CVC), expressing their deep concern over what they saw (or rather, what they did not see) in the CVC, explaining:

We have been troubled to learn in recent weeks that some aspects of the new CVC – including displays, videos, and historic interpretations – may be historically incomplete and reflect an apathetic disposition toward our nation’s religious history. . . . It is clear that those who designed and developed the displays produced products excluding any significant references to God or faith. . . . In fact, not only is our national motto, “In God We Trust,” not a central theme of the CVC, it has been totally excluded from any effective presentation. . . . Some omitted facts are so glaringly obvious that to exclude them offers a distorted view of American history that is not acceptable to us and that we believe will ultimately not be acceptable to the American taxpayers. None of us should want to construct a $621 million shrine to political correctness that does not accurately reflect a significant part of American history.

Under this growing pressure, the Architect promised to make changes – including the addition of the National Motto. Amazingly, the part of the Visitor Center designed to replicate the actual House Chamber omitted its prominent phrase “In God We Trust,” even though it’s boldly displayed in the actual House Chamber (and it is also displayed in the actual Senate Chamber). However, despite the promises, no changes were made by the Architect. (The Architect had previously been a central figure in the national controversy about prohibiting the word “God” from the personal flag certificates that Members of Congress award to individuals to commemorate notable achievements and events.)

Shortly after that letter was sent to the Architect, our “War on God in America” video was released. Many Members posted it on their own websites and even showed it at town hall meetings to urge citizens to put pressure on congressional leadership. Media stories and viral marketing also spread the word, thus further increasing the public pressure. In September 2008, an opportunity finally arose in Congress to make positive changes.

When the CVC was originally proposed in the 1990s, it was projected to be a $71 million structure. By 2000, the proposed price had risen to $265 million, and when construction finally began in 2002, the predicted price tag had soared to $368 million, with construction to be finished in 2004. However, construction was not finished until late 2008, and the price tag was $621 million – four years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. Because of the numerous cost overruns, the CVC repeatedly returned to Congress seeking more money, and in September 2008 they sought the final monies necessary to finish the facility and open it to the public in December 2008. Additionally, HR 5159 was introduced to transfer the permanent administrative authority over the CVC from the congressional oversight committees and move it to the Architect of the Capitol. This situation offered Members an opportunity to leverage positive changes in the CVC.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), supported by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), placed a hold (that is, a complete stop) on the CVC transfer bill unless specific positive additions regarding religious content were made. Although Senate leadership warned DeMint that “Delaying the opening of the CVC has serious security implications . . . [and] significant financial consequences,” Sen. DeMint held firm.

On September 25, 2008, DeMint agreed to release the measure if (1) the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance were engraved in stone in the CVC, and (2) the errant declaration was removed that E Pluribus Unum was the national motto. On September 26, Senate leadership agreed to his terms (although complaining that adding the National Motto and the Pledge would cost an additional $150,000). Having achieved this victory, on September 27, Sen. DeMint took to the Senate floor to announce the agreement and highlight some of the problems within the CVC:

In touring the CVC, I found the exhibits to be politically incorrect, left leaning, and secular in nature. The secular aspects were especially surprising because of the deep connection between faith and the Capitol and our Judeo Christian traditions. . . . The first thing you are confronted with once you have entered the CVC is the phrase “E. Pluribus Unum” engraved in stone above a mockup of the Capitol dome. A panel next to the dome describes E. Pluribus Unum as our Nations’ motto. This is not only completely false but also offensive to the 90 percent of Americans who approve of our Nation’s actual motto “In God We trust,” signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. Unfortunately, nowhere in the CVC will you find the words “In God We Trust” engraved in stone. The acknowledgment of God and our Nation’s motto has been left out of the CVC. In fact, the massive replica of the House Chamber omits the “In God We Trust” from above the Speaker’s chair. We are now told they are planning to fix this “mistake,” but on my tour 2 days ago, it was still missing. Also missing are the words to our Pledge of Allegiance – the only words spoken each morning by both Chambers of Congress.

The Architect of the Capitol, under increasing pressure and media attention, finally relented and placed “In God We Trust” in pinned bronze letters above the section in the Visitor Center designed to replicate the actual House Chamber.

Over on the House side, Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) declared that the CVC was a “$600 million dollar godless pit,” and the108 Members of the House who had earlier written the Architect of the Capitol authorized Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) – head of the Congressional Prayer Caucus – to negotiate on their behalf with House leadership. On September 26, 2008, Randy laid out their demands for the CVC, explaining:

As Chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, I am writing on behalf of over 100 Members of Congress who recently contacted the Acting Architect of the Capitol sharing our concerns about the historical inaccuracies in the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). Specifically, we are concerned about the lack of content that accurately represents our nation’s religious history and the principles on which our nation was founded. . . . We are requesting that the following changes be made to the new CVC before it opens on December 2, 2008:
That the phrase “Our Nation’s Motto” be removed from the plaque describing the engraving of E. Pluribus Unum;
That “In God We Trust” be engraved in stone in a prominent location within the CVC and that the panel describing the engraving include the proper recognition of this phrase as our national motto;
That the Pledge of Allegiance be engraved in stone in a prominent location within the CVC;
That there be a significant permanent display of religious history in the U. S. Capitol, reflecting the rich tradition that prayer, acknowledgment of God, and Judeo-Christian traditions have played throughout the history of the Capitol, and comparable in size relative to other themed displays; and
That there be an ongoing effort to investigate and correct historical inaccuracies throughout the Center.

On October 1, 2008, Randy submitted eight essential items to be included in the permanent display on the Judeo-Christian religious history in the Capitol, including:

1. History of the Chaplaincy of the House and Senate, to include a list of the chaplains who have served and the different faith backgrounds of each.

2. History of the Capitol as a Church, including the fact that (1) religious services took place in the Capitol when Congress was in session and was an official function of Congress, and (2) that in 1867 the Capitol was the largest church in Washington with 2000 people attending weekly.

3. A list of the “firsts” who preached or prayed at the Capitol and excerpts of their text, such as: Dorothy Ripley – first woman to preach in the Capitol (1806) [President Jefferson was in attendance]; Bishop John England – first Catholic to preach in Capitol (President John Quincy Adams present, 1826); Morris Raphall – first Jewish Rabbi to open the House in prayer (1860); Henry Highland Garnet – first African American to speak in Congress, and he preached a sermon…just two weeks after the 13th Amendment passed (February 12, 1865);

4. “God Bless America” sung in unison by the Members of Congress on the steps of the Capitol on 9-11 after the terrorist attacks.

5. Photos/reference to Members reading during the Annual Bible Reading/National Day of Prayer events;

6. Congressional Resolutions Requesting Presidential Proclamations for days of Thanksgiving and Prayer (Washington and Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamations);

7. The Aitken Bible of 1782 – “Bible of the Revolution” (with an informational placard explaining that it is the first English Bible printed in America and the first Bible ever to be printed as an Act of Congress);

8. Lincoln’s Bible and his 2nd Inaugural address next to the table at his side during the speech.

On October 2, 2008, House leadership agreed to Randy’s demands (just as the Senate had agreed to Sen. DeMint’s demands), but when the CVC opened two months later on December 2, 2008, still nothing had been done – the engravings had not been added, nor was there a permanent display of Judeo-Christian influence in the history of the Capitol.

National media outlets (such as The Washington Post, The Hill, National Review, The Washington Times, the Seattle Times, and many others) covered the CVC opening and talked candidly about its anti-religious bias and historical content problems. Senator DeMint also issued a press release that strongly criticized the CVC for ignoring its agreement to include the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. He noted that the new structure “fails to appropriately honor our religious heritage that has been critical to America’s success. . . . You cannot accurately tell the history of America or its Capitol by ignoring the religious heritage of our Founders and the generations since who relied on their faith for strength and guidance. . . . The CVC’s most prominent display proclaims faith not in God, but in government.” Many pro-family groups (including the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and others) also spread the word; citizens responded and called congressional leaders, but still nothing happened.

On May 20, 2009, Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA)
quietly introduced a measure (very similar to Marilyn Musgrave’s original 2007 proposal) that would embody the agreements reached by the Senate and the House regarding the engravings in the CVC (at least 160 other Members of the House co-signed his measure). Working diligently with leaders of a few specific committees, but in a low-key unpublicized manner, Dan was able to garner agreement in both the House and Senate to pass H.Con.Res.131: “Directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the National Motto of `In God we trust’ in the Capitol Visitor Center.” That measure was approved by the House on July 9, 2009, and by the Senate on July 10, 2009. (Because it was not a public law but only a decision by Congress of the policy to be followed within its own building, the measure did not require the president’s signature.)

As soon as the measure passed, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (located in Madison, Wisconsin) promptly filed suit in federal court to prevent the phrases from being inscribed inside the CVC. However, on September 21, 2009, the day that the Architect of the Capitol was officially served with the lawsuit, the phrase “One Nation Under God” had already been finished. And before the lawsuit was scheduled for trial before a federal judge, by November 25, the Pledge of Allegiance had also been engraved inside the CVC.

Consequently, if any federal judge orders those phrases to be removed, they will literally have to tear down part of the CVC in order to remove the acknowledgments of God from the building! Many have joked about how Washington, D. C. would have to be sandblasted if the acknowledgment of God were ever ordered removed from public buildings, and the CVC is now another in the already long list of such structures (e.g., the Library of Congress, the Jefferson Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Memorial, the White House, the federal courts building, the U. S. Supreme Court, Union Station, etc.).

The Capitol Visitor Center is the latest in a lengthy tradition of federal buildings in Washington, D., C., including public acknowledgments of God. The fact that this tradition has continued is due to the hard work and committed leadership of several Members of Congress in both the House and Senate, including Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Randy Forbes, Rep. Dan Lungren, and others.

Calling Muslims to the Capitol?

As nations such as Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands (and many others in Europe) have become more secular, they have demonstrated a willingness to embrace virtually anything – anything except their traditional Christian foundations. In fact, they now regularly repudiate those foundations, promoting abortion, legalizing homosexual marriage, and changing their traditional legal codes. And accepting the falsehood that all beliefs are equal and that truth is relative, they have even been willing to incorporate Islamic Sharia law into their legal codes in order to protect the special practices of some Muslims living among them. This has energized many Muslims in those countries and they are displaying a new boldness that is vocal, visible, and demonstrably assertive.

Each year, nearly 5,000 Muslim “honor killings” occur across the world (a practice whereby parents kill children who allegedly bring “dishonor” on Islam by dating non-Muslims, wearing western garb, converting to another religion, etc.).

Dozens of those murders are committed in Europe, but in many of these formerly Christian nations, those who commit the “honor killings” (i.e., the murder of their own children) often go unpunished since the death of their child was “required” by Islamic law (now included in the legal law of the land). Additionally, many public personalities across Europe who criticized Islam have been murdered, causing Parliaments in the Netherlands and other European countries to forbid criticism of Islam in an effort to prevent further murders. These nations, having given up precious ground, are now having difficulty retaking it.

Historically, on this continent Christian America adopted an open free-market approach to all religions from the beginning. American Christians then (and now) were not fearful of other religions. They were confident that Christianity would prevail on its own merits and they therefore followed the Biblical precedent set forth in both the Old and New Testaments of simply presenting God’s word in a straightforward manner, expecting that the Holy Spirit will confirm His word in the hearts of hearers. Christians believe that on a level playing field, Christianity will always prevail through the voluntary choice of the people.

As a result, Christian America welcomed all religions, with Muslims arriving here by 1619, Jews establishing their first synagogue in 1654, and Buddhists, Hindus, and others also being present from the early days. Significantly, only America extended (and continues to extend) a free-market religious tolerance to others while still preserving the core societal values of our Christian heritage. But the culture has begun to shift. The level playing field is being eroded. As in Europe, Christianity is being knocked down and Islam elevated.

For example, a federal court of appeals ruled that public schools in nine western states can require a three week indoctrination to the Islamic faith
in which all junior high students must pretend they are Muslims and offer prayers to Allah (students are further encouraged to take Islamic names, call each other by those names, wear Islamic garb, participate in Jihad games, and read the Koran during those three weeks). Yet that very court also ruled that it was unconstitutional for those same students to voluntarily mention “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Likewise, a federal court on the east coast ruled that public schools may display Islamic holiday symbols but not Christian ones. And the University of Michigan recently spent $25,000 of taxpayer money to install foot-washing facilities to accommodate the religious practices of Muslim students but made no similar expenditure on behalf of students from any other religion.

As a result of such actions, many Muslims are exercising a new boldness in America. In fact, Muslim “honor killings” have now arrived in the United States (most recently in Texas); and just a few weeks ago, direct action was taken to prevent the honor-killing of a 17-year old Muslim girl in Ohio who converted to Christianity and, in fear of her life, fled from her parents to Florida.

American Muslims have also enjoyed the direct support of President Obama. In April of 2010, he traveled to Egypt where he told the Muslim world that America no longer considers itself a Christian nation. He later traveled to Turkey and announced that America was one of the largest Muslim nations in the world (despite the fact that 78% of Americans claim to be Christians but only 1% claim to be Muslims). Then in May 2010, President Obama refused to invite Christian and Jewish leaders to the White House to participate in the National Day of Prayer (as former presidents have done), but in September, he did invite Muslim leaders to the White House for a special Muslim Ramadan celebration to commemorate Allah delivering the Koran to his prophet Mohammed.

Heartened by this new encouragement, Muslim leaders called 50,000 observant Muslims to come to the Capitol on Friday, September 25, 2010 for a day of Jummah (Friday congregational prayer). The sponsors promised that from 4 a.m. to 7 p.m., “the Athan [the call given five times each day for Muslims to participate in mandatory prayer] would be chanted on Capitol Hill, echoing off of the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and other great edifices that surround Capitol Hill.” The goal of this event was that “the peace, beauty and solidarity of Islam will shine through America’s capitol.” In fact, the website for this unprecedented event proudly and unabashedly declared, “Our Time Has Come!”

As Bible-believing people, let’s pray – and please encourage others to participate with you, that America’s heart will turn back to God. We know that our contest is with spiritual forces (Ephesians 6:12), and we firmly believe that He Who is within us is greater than any other god or force (1 John 4:4), so I encourage you to fill America with prayer to the True God this coming Friday.

God Bless!

David Barton

P. S. This call for Christians to pray this Friday is not a prayer “competition” between Christianity and Islam, nor is it a spiritual Christian “jihad” or “holy war” (what an oxymoronic term – a holy war!). After all, in I Kings 18, Elijah encouraged the prophets of the god Baal to take more time in their praying; he didn’t object to their prayers, he just wanted to make sure that he was able to make his own prayers to the True God. This Friday offers a similar opportunity for those who fear God and believe His Scriptures to offer up their own prayers to Him.

Christmas With the Presidents

The White House observance of Christmas before the twentieth century was not an official event. First families decorated the house modestly with greens and privately celebrated the Yuletide with family and friends.

Christmas in Early America: the Pilgrims and Puritans of New England found no Biblical precedent for a public celebration of Christmas (recall that the goal of these groups was to simplify religious worship and to cut away all religious rituals and celebrations not specifically cited in the Bible); nothing in the Bible established any date for the birth of Christ; the holiday was instead established by Roman tradition, thus making it – in their view – one of the many “pagan” holidays that had been inculcated into the corrupt church that had persecuted them, and which they and other religious leaders wished to reform. Consequently, Christmas in New England remained a regular working day. In fact, Massachusetts passed an anti-Christmas law in 1659 declaring: “Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas . . . shall pay for each offense five shillings as a fine to the country.” The law was repealed in 1681, but the holiday still was not celebrated by religious non-conformists or dissenters (i.e., the Puritans and Pilgrims); it usually was celebrated only by a few Anglicans (later Episcopalians), Catholics, and other more formal or high-church-tradition New England families. It was not until the 1830s and 1840s that Christmas celebrations were just beginning to be accepted in New England (primarily due to the influence of large-scale Christmas celebrations in cities such as New York) – although as late as 1870 in Boston public schools, a student missing school on Christmas Day could be punished or expelled. By the 1880s, however, Christmas celebrations had finally become as accepted in New England as they were in other parts of the country. ²

White House Tree History Christmas Tree Trivia

In 1889, the tradition of a placing an indoor decorated tree in the White House began on Christmas morning during the Presidency of Benjamin Harrison.
In 1895, First Lady Frances Cleveland created a “technology savvy” tree when she hung electric lights on the White House tree (electricity was introduced into the White House in 1891).
1901-1909, Teddy Roosevelt banned the Christmas tree from the White House for environmental reasons.
In 1923, President Calvin Coolidge started the National Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony now held every year on the White House lawn.
In 1929, First Lady Lou Henry Hoover established the custom of decorating an official (and not just a personal) tree in the White House – a tradition that has remained with the First Ladies.
In 1953, the Eisenhowers sought out Hallmark Cards to assist them in creating a presidential Christmas card – the beginning of the official White House Christmas card.
In 1954, the annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony is named the Pageant of Peace. It is held each year in early December to light the National Christmas Tree and includes performances by popular entertainers before the lighting of the National Christmas Tree by the President. The National Christmas Tree remains lit through January 1.
In 1961, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy began the tradition of Christmas Tree themes when she decorated the Christmas tree in toy trimmings from the Nutcracker Suite ballet by Tchaikovsky.
In 1963, the first Christmas card to include an explicitly religious element was the Kennedy card featuring a photo of a Nativity Scene set up in the East Room of the White House. Jack and Jacqueline had signed 30 cards before their final trip to Dallas. None was ever mailed. The National Christmas Tree that year was not lit until December 22nd because of a national 30-day period of mourning following President Kennedy’s assassination.
In 1969, the Pageant of Peace was embroiled in legal controversy over the use of religious symbols, and in 1973, the nativity scene that had always been part of the pageant was no longer allowed.
In 1979, the National Christmas Tree was not lighted except for the top ornament. This was done in honor of the American hostages in Iran….
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan authorized the first official White House ornament, copies of which were made available for purchase.
In 1981, Barbara Bush took the first of twelve rides in a cherry-picker to hang the star at the top of the National Christmas Tree.
In 1984, the Nativity Scene was allowed to return to the Pageant of Peace, and when the National Christmas Tree was lit on December 13th, temperatures were in the 70s, making it one of the warmest tree lightings in history.
In 2001, the first White House Christmas card to contain a Scripture was chosen by Laura Bush. Quoting from Psalm 27, it said “Thy face, Lord, do I seek. I believe that I shall see the goodness of the Lord in the Land of the Living,” which is what Laura Bush believed would happen after the tragedy of September 11. She chose that Scripture on September 16 (only 5 days after 9/11) based on a sermon the chaplain had preached at Camp David. The Bushes regularly used Scriptures on their Christmas cards.

George & Martha Washington (1789-1797)

At a time when Christmas was still quite controversial in a new nation, Martha Washington’s holiday receptions were stiff and regal affairs, quite befitting the dignity of the office of President of the United States and invitations were much desired by the local gentry. A Christmas party was given by the Washington’s for members of Congress on Christmas Day, 1795, at which a bountiful feast was served to the guests – all men with the exception of the First Lady!

The festivities at the Mount Vernon plantation in Virginia would start at daybreak with a Christmas fox hunt. It was followed by a hearty mid-day feast that included “Christmas pie,” dancing, music, and visiting that sometimes did not end for a solid week.

Andrew & Rachel Jackson (1829-1837)

From the earliest times memorable parties have been held for the president’s children or grand-children. One of the most elaborate was President Andrew Jackson’s “frolic” for the children of his household in 1834. This party included games, dancing, a grand dinner, and ended with an indoor “snowball fight” with specially made cotton balls.

Abraham & Mary Todd Lincoln (1861-1865)

During the first Christmas of the war (1861), Mrs. Lincoln arranged flowers, read books, helped serve meals, talked with the staff, and cared for the wounded at Campbell’s and Douglas hospitals. She personally raised a thousand dollars for Christmas dinners and donated a similar amount for oranges and lemons when she heard that there was a threat of scurvy.

During the Christmas season of 1863, the Lincolns’ son, Tad, had accompanied his father on hospital visits and noticed the loneliness of the wounded soldiers. Deeply moved, the boy asked his father if he could send books and clothing to these men. The President agreed and packages signed “From Tad Lincoln” were sent to area hospitals that Christmas.

One Christmas Tad Lincoln befriended the turkey that was to become Christmas dinner. He interrupted a cabinet meeting to plead with his father to spare the bird. The President obliged by writing a formal pardon for the turkey named Jack.

Benjamin & Caroline Harrison (1889-1893)

In 1889, President Benjamin Harrison, his grandchildren, and extended family gathered around the first indoor White House Christmas tree.

Grover & Francis Cleveland (1885-1889; 1893-1897)

When Grover Cleveland first became President in 1885, there was no Christmas tree during the first Cleveland administration, but when daughters Ruth, Esther, and Marion were born, this changed in the second administration. In 1894, three years after electricity was introduced in the White House, the first electric lights on a family tree delighted the young daughters of President Grover Cleveland.

Mrs. Cleveland’s main Christmas activity, rather than entertaining and decorating, was her work with the Christmas Club of Washington to provide food, clothing, and toys to poor children in the D.C. area. She took the time to wrap and distribute gifts to the children and sat with them for a Punch and Judy show. Although Christmas Club charities in Washington date back to the 1820’s, no previous first lady had taken as prominent a role in these activities as Frances Cleveland, who helped set a tradition of good works carried on by many other First Ladies.

Theodore & Edith Roosevelt (1901-1909)

President Theodore Roosevelt, an avowed conservationist, did not approve of cutting trees for Christmas decorations. However, his son Archie smuggled in a small tree that was decorated and hidden in a closet in the upstairs sewing room.

The Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt family Christmas traditions were quite simple. On Christmas Eve, they would pile into the family sleigh (later the motor car) and travel to Christ Church in Oyster Bay, New York. Following the pastor’s sermon, TR would deliver one of his famous “sermonettes” on the meaning of the holiday. The service would close with one of his favorite hymns “Christmas By the Sea.” On Christmas morning, gifts would be opened and then the family would spend the day hiking, playing games, and going for sleigh rides.

For many years TR played Santa Claus at a school in Oyster Bay, New York, listening to the children and then giving them Christmas presents that he had selected himself.

Calvin & Grace Coolidge (1923-1929)

In 1923, President Calvin Coolidge touches a button and lights up the first national Christmas tree to grace the White House grounds. (Until 1923, holiday celebrations were local in nature.) It was the first to be decorated with electric lights – a strand of 2,500 red, white and green bulbs. While radio station WCAP broadcast the event to possibly a million Americans, the President gave no speech. The evening centered, instead, on Christmas carols and other festive music performed at the tree-lighting ceremony, including by the Epiphany Church choir and the U.S. Marine Band. Later that evening, President Coolidge and first lady Grace were treated to carols sung by members of Washington D.C.’s First Congregational Church.

That year, the erection of a National Christmas Tree was the first of several holiday practices instituted during the Coolidge Presidency that are still with us today. It was 1927 when President Coolidge issued a holiday message to the nation – and then only a brief one written by his own hand on White House stationery. Its text was carried in newspapers across the land on Christmas Day. Finally, in 1928, on his last Christmas Eve in office, the President delivered to the nation via radio the first tree-lighting speech. It was 49 words in length.

Herbert & Lou Hoover (1929-1933)

First Lady Lou Henry Hoover established the custom of decorating an official (and not just a personal) tree in the White House in 1929. Since that time, the honor of trimming a principal White House Christmas tree on the state floor has belonged to our first ladies.

Christmas 1929 was memorable for the Hoovers because an electrical fire broke out in the West Wing of the White House during a children’s party. The Oval Office was gutted, but Mrs. Hoover kept the party going. The Marine Band, meanwhile, played Christmas carols at a volume calculated to drown out the sound of the arriving fire engines.

The following year the same children were invited back for another party at which time each child was given a toy fire engine as a memento. The invitations to the 1930 party read as follows: “This is not like the Christmas parties you usually go to…for Santa Claus has sent word that he is not going to be able, by himself, to take care of all the little girls and boys he wants to this year, and he has asked other people to help him as much as possible. So if you bring some presents with you, we will send them all to him to distribute.” The party was an enormous success.

Hoover, December 25th, 1931

Your annual Christmas service . . . is a dramatic and inspiring event of national interest. It symbolizes and vivifies our greatest Christian festival with its eternal message of unselfishness, joy, and peace. ³

Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt (1933-1945)

Eleanor initiated Christmas planning each year. Her gift giving list included over 200 names. She began buying gifts in January and regularly put things away in her special “Christmas Closet.” Throughout the year she added new items – gifts for family, friends, and almost everyone on the White House Staff. Each October, she would take over a storage room on the third floor of the White House to wrap the gifts. On Christmas, Franklin would be so interested in the gifts for others that it might be three or four days after Christmas before he was persuaded to open his own.

For the President, Christmas was a time for family and close friends. The tree was set up on Christmas Eve and the President directed his grandchildren in the placement of every ornament. After the tree was decorated, FDR had the grandchildren gather around while he read Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” or recited it from memory. Following the reading, the children would race upstairs to the President’s bedroom where they would hang their stockings on his mantel.

FDR, December 24th, 1935

Around the Manger of the Babe of Bethlehem “all Nations and kindreds and tongues” [Revelation 7:9] find unity. . . . The spirit of Christmas breathes an eternal message of peace and good-will to all men. We pause, therefore, on this Holy Night and . . . rejoice that nineteen hundred years ago, heralded by angels, there came into the world One whose message was of peace, who gave to all mankind a new commandment of love. In that message of love and of peace we find the true meaning of Christmas. And so I greet you with the greeting of the Angels on that first Christmas at Bethlehem which, resounding through centuries, still rings out with its eternal message: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will to men.” ⁴

FDR, December 24th, 1939

In the happiness of this Eve of the most blessed day in the year, I give to all of my countrymen the old, old greeting – “Merry Christmas – Happy Christmas.” . . . Let us rather pray that we may be given strength to live for others – to live more closely to the words of the Sermon on the Mount and to pray that peoples in the nations which are at war may also read, learn and inwardly digest these deathless words. May their import reach into the hearts of all men and of all nations. I offer them as my Christmas message:
“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
“Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” ⁵

FDR, December 24th, 1941 (Following Pearl Harbor)

There are many men and women in America – sincere and faithful men and women – who are asking themselves this Christmas. . . . How can we meet and worship with love and with uplifted spirit and heart in a world at war, a world of fighting and suffering and death? . . . How can we put the world aside . . . to rejoice in the birth of Christ? . . . And even as we ask these questions, we know the answer. There is another preparation demanded of this Nation beyond and beside the preparation of weapons and materials of war. There is demanded also of us the preparation of our hearts – the arming of our hearts. And when we make ready our hearts for the labor and the suffering and the ultimate victory which lie ahead, then we observe Christmas Day – with all of its memories and all of its meanings – as we should. Looking into the days to come, I have set aside a day of prayer. ⁶

FDR, December 24th, 1944 (Following D-Day)

Here, at home, we will celebrate this Christmas Day in our traditional American way – because of its deep spiritual meaning to us; because the teachings of Christ are fundamental in our lives; and because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing the significance of this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortal Prince of Peace and Good Will. [He then led in a prayer for the troops] We pray that with victory will come a new day of peace on earth in which all the Nations of the earth will join together for all time. That is the spirit of Christmas, the holy day. May that spirit live and grow throughout the world in all the years to come. ⁷

Harry & Bess Truman (1945-1953)

It became a tradition for the First Family to go home to Independence, Missouri, for Christmas. The Chief Executive, however, always remained in Washington until after the staff party on Christmas Eve.

Truman, December 24th, 1945

This is the Christmas that a war-weary world has prayed for through long and awful years. . . . We meet in the spirit of the first Christmas, when the midnight choir sang the hymn of joy: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” Let us not forget that the coming of the Savior brought a time of long peace to the Roman World. . . . From the manger of Bethlehem came a new appeal to the minds and hearts of men: “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another.” . . . Would that the world would accept that message in this time of its greatest need! . . . We must strive without ceasing to make real the prophecy of Isaiah: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” In this day, whether it be far or near, the Kingdoms of this world shall become indeed the Kingdom of God and He will reign forever and ever, Lord of Lords and King of Kings. ⁸

Truman, December 24th, 1949

Since returning home, I have been reading again in our family Bible some of the passages which foretold this night. . . . We miss the spirit of Christmas if we consider the Incarnation as an indistinct and doubtful, far-off event unrelated to our present problems. We miss the purport of Christ’s birth if we do not accept it as a living link which joins us together in spirit as children of the ever-living and true God. In love alone – the love of God and the love of man – will be found the solution of all the ills which afflict the world today. ⁹

Truman, December 24th, 1950 (During the Korean War)

At this Christmastime we should renew our faith in God. We celebrate the hour in which God came to man. It is fitting that we should turn to Him. . . . But all of us – at home, at war, wherever we may be – are within reach of God’s love and power. We all can pray. We all should pray. . . . We should pray for a peace which is the fruit of righteousness. The Nation already is in the midst of a Crusade of Prayer. On the last Sunday of the old year, there will be special services devoted to a revival of faith. I call upon all of you to enlist in this common cause. . . . We are all joined in the fight against the tyranny of communism. Communism is godless. Democracy is the harvest of faith – faith in one’s self, faith in one’s neighbors, faith in God. Democracy’s most powerful weapon is not a gun, tank, or bomb. It is faith. . . . Let us pray at this Christmastime for the wisdom, the humility, and the courage to carry on in this faith. ¹⁰

Truman, December 24th, 1952

Through Jesus Christ the world will yet be a better and a fairer place. This faith sustains us today as it has sustained mankind for centuries past. This is why the Christmas story, with the bright stars shining and the angels singing, moves us to wonder and stirs our hearts to praise. Now, my fellow countrymen, I wish for all of you a Christmas filled with the joy of the Holy Spirit, and many years of future happiness with the peace of God reigning upon this earth. ¹¹

Dwight & Mamie Eisenhower (1953-1961)

Unlike other Presidents who distinguished political from household staff, the Eisenhowers brought both together (more than 500 in all) for a Christmas party each year. For the White House staff, Mamie purchased gifts in area department stores, personally wrapping each one to save money.

President Eisenhower took a personal interest in the gifts and cards that were sent from the White House. Ike was an artist in his own right and allowed six of his own paintings to be used as Christmas gifts and cards during his administration. In eight years, Hallmark produced a prodigious 38 different Christmas cards and gift prints for the President and First Lady. No previous administration, nor any since Eisenhower’s, has sent such a variety of holiday greetings from the White House.

For the Christmas of 1958, Mamie pulled out all the stops in decorating the White House. She had 27 decorated trees, carols were piped into every room and greenery was wrapped around every column.

John & Jacqueline Kennedy (1961-1963)

In 1961, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy began the tradition of selecting a theme for the official White House Christmas tree. She decorated a tree placed in the oval Blue Room with ornamental toys, birds and angels modeled after Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker Suite.

The first card to contain an explicitly religious element was in 1963, which featured a photo of a crèche set up in the East Room of the White House. Kennedy and his wife, Jacqueline, had signed 30 cards before their final trip to Dallas where he was assassinated. None of these cards were ever mailed.

Lyndon & Ladybird Johnson (1963-1969)

Lyndon and Ladybird Johnson spent four of their six presidential Christmases in Texas rather than Washington. The Christmas of 1967 (the 7th) was special for the Johnsons because their daughter, Lynda, was married to Charles Robb in the White House on December 9th with 650 guests in attendance. The celebrating continued during Christmas and they spent that Christmas in Washington, the first in seven years.

The Johnsons final Christmas in the White House in 1968 was a time of reflection for them and the opportunity to say goodbye to their friends. On December 23rd, President Johnson sent Christmas greetings to the American troops in Southeast Asia, which included his two sons-in-law.

The First Lady committed herself to the beautification of America and the planting of trees. Except for their unplanned first Christmas in the Executive Mansion, all the cards and gift prints of later years were to feature trees.

LBJ, December 22nd, 1963

We were taught by Him whose birth we commemorate that after death there is life. . . . In these last 200 years we have guided the building of our Nation and our society by those principles and precepts brought to earth nearly 2,000 years ago on that first Christmas. ¹²

LBJ, December 15th, 1967

In a few days we shall all celebrate the birth of His Holiness on earth. . . . We shall acknowledge the Kingdom of a Child in a world of men. That Child – we should remember – grew into manhood Himself, preached and moved men in many walks of life, and died in agony. But His death – so the Christian faith tells us – was not the end. For Him, and for millions of men and women ever since, it marked a time of triumph – when the spirit of life triumphed over death. ¹³

Richard & Pat Nixon (1969-1974)

The Vietnam War was going strong when the Nixons entered the White House in 1969. Pat Nixon personally supervised an elaborate plan for decorating the White House. For the first time in a quarter century, wreaths were hung in every window. In the Great Hall stood a 19-foot fir tree with ornaments that featured the flowers of the fifty states. In response to the National Christmas Tree, war protestors set up their own tree and decorated it with soda pop cans and tin foil peace symbols.

Christmas celebrations during the following years were often filled with controversy and difficulty. In 1969, the Pageant of Peace was embroiled in legal controversy over the use of religious symbols, and in 1973, the nativity scene that had always been part of the pageant was no longer allowed.

Gerald & Betty Ford (1974-1977)

In 1975, to honor America’s upcoming bicentennial celebration, the National Christmas Tree was decorated with 4,600 red, white, and blue ornaments and 12,000 lights. On the top of the 45-foot blue spruce sat a 4-foot gold and green replica of the Liberty Bell. There were also 13 smaller trees representing the 13 colonies and 44 other trees placed in a row representing states and territories.

Ford, December 18th, 1975

As we gather here before our Nation’s Christmas tree, symbolic of the communion of Americans at Christmastime, we remind ourselves of the eternal truths by which we live. . . . In our 200 years, we Americans have always honored the spiritual testament of 2,000 years ago. We embrace the spirit of the Prince of Peace so that we might find peace in our own hearts and in our own land, and hopefully in the world as well. ¹⁴

Jimmy & Rosayln Carter (1977-1981)

One of the most interesting and controversial aspects of the Carters Presidential Christmases concerned greeting cards. In 1977, the Carters ordered and sent 60,000 Christmas cards, substantially more than any previous administration. In 1978, the number jumped to 100,000 and in 1979 when there were 105,000, President Carter finally established a White House committee to look into the problem of too many Christmas cards!

The hostage crisis in Iran dominated the holiday celebrations of 1979 and 1980. In 1979, the National Christmas Tree and fifty surrounding trees each showed a single light, one for each of the hostages. The President promised to turn on the other lights when the hostages were freed. Because the hostages were still in captivity, the following year the lights on the tree were turned on for 417 seconds on Christmas Eve – one second for each day they had been held.

Carter, December 15th, 1977

Christmas has a special meaning for those of us who are Christians, those of us who believe in Christ, those of us who know that almost 2,000 years ago, the Son of Peace was born to give us a vision of perfection, a vision of humility, a vision of unselfishness, a vision of compassion, a vision of love. ¹⁵

Carter, December 18th, 1980

In the first Christmas, the people who lived in the land of the Jews were hoping for a Messiah. They prayed God to send them that savior, and when the shepherds arrived at the place to see their prayers answered they didn’t find a king, they found a little baby. And I’m sure they were very disappointed to see that God had not answered their prayers properly, but we Christians know that the prayers had been answered in a very wonderful way. God knew how to answer prayer. ¹⁶

Ronald & Nancy Reagan (1981-1989)

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan began another custom by authorizing the first official White House ornament, copies of which were made available for purchase.

In 1984, the Nativity Scene was allowed to return to the Pageant of Peace.

Christmas in Illinois, where both Ronald and Nancy Reagan grew up, was a sharp contrast to their Christmases in Washington. The President has recalled that his family never had a really fancy Christmas. During the Depression, when they couldn’t afford a Christmas tree, his mother would decorate a table or make a cardboard fireplace out of a packing box.

Reagan, December 23rd, 1981 (click here to listen to this)

At this special time of year, we all renew our sense of wonder in recalling the story of the first Christmas in Bethlehem, nearly 2,000 year ago. Some celebrate Christmas as the birthday of a great and good philosopher and teacher. Others of us believe in the Divinity of the child born in Bethlehem, that He was and is the promised Prince of Peace. . . . Tonight, in millions of American homes, the glow of the Christmas tree is a reflection of the love Jesus taught us. . . . Christmas means so much because of one special child. ¹⁷

Reagan, December 16th, 1982

In this holiday season, we celebrate the birthday of One Who, for almost 2,000 years, has been a greater influence on humankind than all the rulers, all the scholars, all the armies and all the navies that ever marched or sailed, all put together. He brought to the world the simple message of peace on Earth, good will to all mankind. Some celebrate the day as marking the birth of a great and good man, a wise teacher and prophet, and they do so sincerely. But for many of us it’s also a holy day, the birthday of the Prince of Peace, a day when “God so loved the world” that He sent us His only begotten Son to assure forgiveness of our sins. ¹⁸

Reagan, December 15th, 1983

Many stories have been written about Christmas. Charles Dickens’ “Carol” is probably the most famous. Well, I’d like to read some lines from a favorite of mine called, “One Solitary Life,” which describes for me the meaning of Christmas. [He then read the full story.] . . . I have always believed that the message of Jesus is one of hope and joy. I know there are those who recognize Christmas Day as the birthday of a great and good man, a wise teacher who gave us principles to live by. And then there are others of us who believe that He was the Son of God, that He was Divine. If we live our lives for truth, for love, and for God, we never need be afraid. ¹⁹

Reagan, December 12th, 1985

We do not know the exact moment the Christ Child was born, only what we would have seen if we’d been standing there as we stand here now: Suddenly, a star from heaven shining in our eyes, shining with brilliant beauty across the skies, a star pointing toward eternity in the night, like a great ring of pure and endless light, and then all was calm, and all was bright. Such was the beginning of one solitary life that would shake the world as never before or since. When we speak of Jesus and of His life, we speak of a man revered as a prophet and teacher by people of all religions, and Christians speak of someone greater – a man Who was and is Divine. He brought forth a power that is infinite and a promise that is eternal, a power greater than all mankind’s military might, for His power is Godly love, love that can lift our hearts and soothe our sorrows and heal our wounds and drive away our fears. . . . If each of us could give but a fraction to one another of what He gave to the whole human family, how many hearts could heal, how much sorrow and pain could be driven away. ²⁰

George & Barbara Bush (1989-1993)

Mrs. Bush took particular pleasure in hosting a special party for homeless children from the Central Union Mission in Washington, DC. She distributed special Christmas bags filled with gifts and then read them Christmas stories. She sometimes would tell the stories in her own words, giving it her own personal touch.

The First Lady added her own special touches to the holiday with her annual cherry picker ride to hang the star at the top of the National Christmas Tree, a trip she took 12 times beginning in the Reagan Administration as the wife of the Vice President.

Bush, December 18th, 1989

During the beautiful and holy season of Christmas, our hearts are filled with the same wonder, gratitude, and joy that led the psalmist of old to ask, “When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained, What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that Thou visitest him?” At Christmas, we, too, rejoice in the mystery of God’s love for us – love revealed through the gift of Christ’s birth. Born into a family of a young carpenter and his wife, in a stable shared by beasts of the field, our Savior came to live among ordinary men. Yet, in time, the miraculous nature of this simple event became clear. Christ’s birth changed the course of history, bringing the light of hope to a world dwelling in the darkness of sin and death. Today, nearly 2,000 years later, the shining promise of that first Christmas continues to give our lives a sense of peace and purpose. Our words and deeds, when guided by the example of Christ’s life, can help others share in the joy of man’s Redemption. ²¹

Bill & Hillary Clinton (1993-2001)

Clinton, December 22nd, 1997

The beloved Christmas story itself is a story of light, for, as the Gospel of John tells us, Jesus came into the world as “the true Light” [John 1:9] that illumines all humankind. Almost 2,000 years later, that Light still shines amid the dark places of our world. ²²

Clinton, December 21st, 1999

Saint Matthew’s Gospel tells us that on the first Christmas 2000 years ago, a bright star shone vividly in the eastern sky, heralding the birth of Jesus and the beginning of His hallowed mission as teacher, healer, servant, and savior. . . . His luminous teachings have brought hope and joy to generations of believers. . . . His timeless message of God’s enduring and unconditional love for each and every person continues to strengthen and inspire us. . . . Love, peace, joy, hope – so many beautiful words are woven through our Christmas songs and prayers and traditions. ²³

George & Laura Bush (2001-2009)

George W. Bush is the first president to choose a Yule card with a Scripture. First lady Laura Bush supervises the card selection. She picked cards with Bible verses when her husband was governor and has continued to do so in the White House.

In 2001 George and Laura incorporated a scripture depicting their faith in post 9/11 times. It said “Thy face, Lord do I seek. I believe that I shall see the goodness of the Lord in the Land of the Living.” Psalm 27. Laura Bush believed that this is what really happened after the tragedy of September 11.

In 2004 George and Laura sent holiday cards with a Bible verse from Psalms (95:2): “Let us come before him with Thanksgiving and extol him with music and song.”

Bush, December 6th, 2001

Now once again, we celebrate Christmas in a time of testing, with American troops far from home. . . . It is worth recalling the words from a beautiful Christmas hymn. In the third verse of “Oh Holy Night” we sing, “His law is love, and His gospel is peace. Chains ye shall break, for the slave is our brother. And in His name all oppression shall cease. . . . We fight so that oppression may cease, and even in the midst of war, we pray for peace on Earth and good will to men. ²⁴

Bush, December 4th, 2003

Throughout the Christmas season our thoughts turn to a star in the east, seen 20 centuries ago, and to a light that can guide us still. . . . The story of Christmas is familiar to us all, and it still holds a sense of wonder and surprise. When the good news came first to a young woman from Nazareth, her response was understandable. She asked, “How can this be?” The news would bring difficulty to her family and suspicion upon herself. Yet, Mary gave her reply, “Be it unto me according to Thy word.” The wait for a new king had been long, and the manner of his arrival was not as many had expected. The king’s first cries were heard by shepherds and cattle. He was raised by a carpenter’s son. Yet this one humble life lifted the sights of humanity forever. And in His words we hear a voice like no other. . . . We don’t know all of God’s ways, yet the Christmas story promises that God’s purpose is justice and His plan is peace. At times this belief is tested. During the Civil War, Longfellow wrote a poem that later became a part of a Christmas carol, “Hate is strong and mocks the song of peace on Earth, good will to men.” That poem also reminds us that hate is not the final word: “Then pealed the bells more loud and deep, `God is not dead, nor doth He sleep, the wrong shall fail, the right prevail, with peace on Earth, good will to men.”‘ ²⁵

Endnotes

¹. Much of the general information in this piece concerning the Christmas practices of the presidents is directly excerpted from the primary sources: “Background Info: Christmas at the White House,” White House Historical Association; “Christmas at the White House,” Herbert Hoover Presidential Library-Museum (at: https://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/WHChristmas/index.html); and from the White House (at: https://www.whitehousechristmas.com/WHC/default.ASPX). The direct presidential quotes related to Christmas are each individually footnoted.

². The information on historic Christmas in early America is taken from Celebrate Liberty (2003), David Barton, editor, pp. 192-193, n, available at https://wallbuilders.com/store/product170.html.

³.Herbert Hoover, “Message to the Nation’s Christmas Trees Association,” The American Presidency Project, December 25, 1931, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=22957).

⁴. Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Christmas Greeting to the Nation,” The American Presidency Project, December 24, 1935, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15005).

⁵. Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Radio Christmas Greeting to the Nation,” The American Presidency Project, December 24, 1939, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15854).

⁶. Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Christmas Eve Message to the Nation,” The American Presidency Project, December 24, 1941, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16073).

⁷. Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Address to the Nation,” The American Presidency Project, December 24, 1944, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16485).

⁸. Harry S. Truman, “Address at the Lighting of the National Community Christmas Tree on the White House Grounds,” The American Presidency Project, December 24, 1945, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=12250).

⁹. Harry S. Truman, “Address in Connection With Lighting of the National Community Christmas Tree on the White House Grounds,” The American Presidency Project, December 24, 1949, Harry S. Truman’s Christmas Eve Broadcast, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13373).

¹⁰. Harry S. Truman, “Address Recorded for Broadcast on the Occasion of the Lighting of the National Community Christmas Tree on the White House Grounds,” The American Presidency Project, December 24, 1950, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13698).

¹¹. Harry S. Truman, “Remarks Upon Lighting the National Community Christmas Tree,” The American Presidency Project, December 24, 1952, Harry S. Truman’s Christmas Eve Broadcast, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14368).

¹². Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks at the Lighting of the Nation’s Christmas Tree,” The American Presidency Project, December 22, 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson’s Christmas Eve Radio and T.V. Broadcast, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26587).

¹³. Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks at the Lighting of the Nation’s Christmas Tree,” The American Presidency Project, December 15, 1967, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=28610).

¹⁴. Gerald R. Ford, “Remarks at the Lighting of the National Community Christmas Tree,” The American Presidency Project, December 18, 1975, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=5445).

¹⁵. Jimmy Carter, “Christmas Pageant of Peace Remarks on Lighting the National Community Christmas Tree,” The American Presidency Project, December 15, 1977, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7019).

¹⁶.Jimmy Carter, “Christmas Pageant of Peace Remarks on Lighting the National Community Christmas Tree,” The American Presidency Project, December 18, 1980, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44421).

¹⁷. Ronald Reagan, “Address to the Nation About Christmas and the Situation in Poland,” The American Presidency Project, December 23, 1981, Reagan’s Christmas Address from the Oval Office, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=43384).

¹⁸. Ronald Reagan, “Remarks on Lighting the National Community Christmas Tree,” The American Presidency Project, December 16, 1982, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=42123).

¹⁹. Ronald Reagan, “Remarks on Lighting the National Community Christmas Tree,” The American Presidency Project, December 15, 1983, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=40873).

²⁰. Ronald Reagan, “Remarks on Lighting the National Christmas Tree,” The American Presidency Project, December 12, 1985, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=38161).

²¹ George H. Bush, “Message on the Observance of Christmas,” The American Presidency Project, December 18. 1989, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=17953).

²². William J. Clinton, “Message on the Observance of Christmas,” The American Presidency Project, December 22, 1997, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=53733).

²³. William J. Clinton, “Message on the Observance of Christmas,” The American Presidency Project, December 21, 1999, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=57106).

²⁴. George W. Bush, “Remarks on Lighting the National Christmas Tree,” The American Presidency Project, December 6, 2001, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=73502).

²⁵. George W. Bush, “Remarks on Lighting the National Christmas Tree,” The American Presidency Project, December 4, 2003, (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=63610).

Christmas-As Celebrated by the Presidents

Even though Christmas did not become a national holiday until 1870, it has a centuries old history in America. Interestingly, in colonial America, the southern regions that were more directly linked to High-Church traditions (e.g., Anglicans, Catholics, Episcopalians) celebrated Christmas; but the northern regions especially linked to Low-Church traditions (e.g., Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers) did not. Those Low-Church colonists associated the pomp and grandeur of Christmas celebrations directly with the autocratic leaders and monarchs in Europe that they so opposed.

Massachusetts therefore passed an anti-Christmas law in 1659, and it was not until the 1830s and 1840s that Christmas celebrations became accepted in New England (although as late as 1870, a student missing school on Christmas Day in Boston public schools could be punished or expelled). But by the 1880s, Christmas celebrations were finally accepted across the country and began to appear at the White House. For example:

In 1889, the first indoor decorated tree was placed in the White House, and in 1895, electric lights were added.
In 1923, the first National Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony was held. In 1954 it was named the Pageant of Peace but in 1969 it became embroiled in a legal controversy over the use of religious symbols. In 1973, the nativity scene that had always been part of the Pageant was no longer allowed, but in 1984, it returned.
In 1953, the first White House Christmas card was created by President Dwight Eisenhower. (Ike was an artist in his own right and allowed six of his own paintings to be used as Christmas gifts and cards.) President Kennedy’s 1963 Christmas card was the first to include an explicitly religious element, featuring a photo of a nativity scene. And in 2001, the first White House Christmas card to contain a Scripture was chosen by Laura Bush. It quoted Psalm 27: “Thy face, Lord, do I seek. I believe that I shall see the goodness of the Lord in the Land of the Living” – a Scripture she had chosen on September 16 (only 5 days after 9/11), based on a special sermon preached at Camp David.

Christmas was celebrated by our national leaders as a religious holiday, not the secular holiday it has become.

For example, every Christmas Eve, President Teddy Roosevelt and his family would pile into the family sleigh (later the motor car) and travel to a Christmas service at Christ Church in Oyster Bay, New York. Following the pastor’s sermon, Teddy would deliver one of his famous “sermonettes” on the true meaning of Christmas and then close the service with one of his favorite hymns, “Christmas By the Sea.”

President Franklin Roosevelt would set up and decorate a tree on Christmas Eve, gather the family round him, and either read Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” or recite it from memory. (The original story is quite different from the modern movies by that name and is well worth the read.) He would also deliver explicitly religious Christmas Eve messages to the nation. For example, in 1944 following D-Day, he said:

Here, at home, we will celebrate this Christmas Day in our traditional American way – because of its deep spiritual meaning to us; because the teachings of Christ are fundamental in our lives; and because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing the significance of this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortal Prince of Peace and good will. . . . [FDR then prayed a prayer for the troops, and closed with:] We pray that with victory will come a new day of peace on earth in which all the Nations of the earth will join together for all time. That is the spirit of Christmas, the holy day. May that spirit live and grow throughout the world in all the years to come.

(I recommend you go online to the American Presidency Project and look up and especially read some Christ-centered Christmas messages from Presidents, such as that of Franklin Roosevelt in 1935, Harry Truman in 1949 or 1952, Ronald Reagan in 1982 or 1985, George W. Bush in 2003, and there are many additional examples. You should also watch President Reagan deliver one of his Christmas addresses.)

In recent years, there has been a relentless push from secularists and progressives to transform Christmas. Schools, government offices, and many commercial stores have replaced Merry Christmas with Happy Holidays to appease critics, not realizing that 93% of Americans celebrate Christmas, and 97% are not bothered by the use of the phrase “Merry Christmas.” Yet far too often, the 3% seems to drive public policy; Americans need to push back.

Gratefully, religious Jews have been some of the strongest advocates for keeping Christmas a religious celebration. For example, Burt Prelutsky, a Jewish columnist for a number of national publications, declares:

I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. . . . How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? . . . Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends!

Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Daniel Lapin agrees:

Secular fundamentalism has successfully injected into American culture the notion that the word “Christmas” is deeply offensive. . . . Anti-Christianism is unhealthy for all Americans; but I warn my brethren that it will prove particularly destructive for Jews. . . . Let us all go out of our way to wish our many wonderful Christian friends – a very merry Christmas. Just remember, America’s Bible belt is our safety belt.

So . . . Merry Christmas!!!

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

Prohibiting federal courts from removing “Under God” in the Pledge

Permitting public displays of the Ten Commandments

Authorizing faith-based programs

Permitting voluntary school prayer

Defining marriage as being one man and one woman

Repealing the anti-family Death Tax (also called the Estate Tax, or Inheritance Tax) (see Proverbs 13:22, Ezekiel 46:18, Proverbs 19:14, I Chronicles 28:8, Ezra 9:12, etc.)

Repealing the Marriage Penalty Tax

Controlling the Supreme Court

Christian voting

Christian voting patterns

2002 efforts

Legislative impact

2004 efforts

Overall effects of these two elections

2006 voting efforts

Challenges for Christian voter involvement

WallBuilders Resources

Endnotes

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

American History

Biographies

Christianity & Worldview

White House Tree History Christmas Tree Trivia

George & Martha Washington (1789-1797)

Andrew & Rachel Jackson (1829-1837)

Abraham & Mary Todd Lincoln (1861-1865)

Benjamin & Caroline Harrison (1889-1893)

Grover & Francis Cleveland (1885-1889; 1893-1897)

Theodore & Edith Roosevelt (1901-1909)

Calvin & Grace Coolidge (1923-1929)

Herbert & Lou Hoover (1929-1933)

Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt (1933-1945)

Harry & Bess Truman (1945-1953)

Dwight & Mamie Eisenhower (1953-1961)

John & Jacqueline Kennedy (1961-1963)

Lyndon & Ladybird Johnson (1963-1969)

Richard & Pat Nixon (1969-1974)

Gerald & Betty Ford (1974-1977)

Jimmy & Rosayln Carter (1977-1981)

Ronald & Nancy Reagan (1981-1989)

George & Barbara Bush (1989-1993)

Bill & Hillary Clinton (1993-2001)

George & Laura Bush (2001-2009)

Endnotes

QUICK LINKS

OTHER LINKS

SOCIAL LINKS

Explore

Engage

Initiatives