H.RES. 888

110th
CONGRESS

1st
Session

H.
RES. 888

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation’s founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week’ for the appreciation of and education on America’s history of religious faith.

IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

December 18, 2007

Mr. FORBES (for himself, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. AKIN, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. HAYES, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. HERGER, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. MCHENRY, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WOLF, and Mr. YOUNG of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

RESOLUTION

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation’s founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week’ for the appreciation of and education on America’s history of religious faith.

Whereas religious faith was not only important in official American life during the periods of discovery, exploration, colonization, and growth but has also been acknowledged and incorporated into all 3 branches of American Federal government from their very
beginning;

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed this self-evident fact in a unanimous ruling declaring `This is a religious people … From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation’;

Whereas political scientists have documented that the most frequently-cited source in the political period known as The Founding Era was the Bible;

Whereas the first act of America’s first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible;

Whereas Congress regularly attended church and Divine service together en masse;

Whereas throughout the American Founding, Congress frequently appropriated money for missionaries and for religious instruction, a practice that Congress repeated for decades after the passage of the Constitution and the First Amendment;

Whereas in 1776, Congress approved the Declaration of Independence with its 4 direct religious acknowledgments referring to God as the Creator (`All people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’), the Lawgiver (`the laws of nature and nature’s God’), the Judge (`appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world’), and the Protector (`with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence’);

Whereas upon approving the Declaration of Independence, John Adams declared that the Fourth of July `ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty’;

Whereas 4 days after approving the Declaration, the Liberty Bell was rung;

Whereas the Liberty Bell was named for the Biblical inscription from Leviticus 25:10 emblazoned around it: `Proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof’;

Whereas in 1777, Congress, facing a National shortage of `Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches,’ announced that they `desired to have a Bible printed under their care & by their encouragement’ and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported `into the different ports of the States of the Union’;

Whereas in 1782, Congress pursued a plan to print a Bible that would be `a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools’ and therefore approved the production of the first English language Bible printed in America that contained the congressional endorsement that `the United States in Congress assembled … recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States’;

Whereas in 1782, Congress adopted (and has reaffirmed on numerous subsequent occasions) the National Seal with its Latin motto `Annuit Coeptis,’ meaning `God has favored our undertakings,’ along with the eye of Providence in a triangle over a pyramid, the eye and the motto `allude to the many signal interpositions of Providence in favor of the American cause’;

Whereas the 1783 Treaty of Paris that officially ended the Revolution and established America as an independent begins with the appellation `In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity’;

Whereas in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin declared, `God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? … Without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel’;

Whereas the delegates to the Constitutional Convention concluded their work by in effect placing a religious punctuation mark at the end of the Constitution in the Attestation Clause, noting not only that they had completed the work with `the unanimous consent of the States present’ but they had done so `in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven’;

Whereas James Madison declared that he saw the finished Constitution as a product of `the finger of that Almighty Hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the Revolution,’ and George Washington viewed it as `little short of a miracle,’ and Benjamin Franklin believed that its writing had been `influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler, in Whom all inferior spirits live, and move, and have their being’;

Whereas from 1787 to 1788, State conventions to ratify the United States Constitution not only began with prayer but even met in church buildings;

Whereas in 1795 during construction of the Capitol, a practice was instituted whereby `public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o’clock’;

Whereas in 1789, the first Federal Congress, the Congress that framed the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, appropriated Federal funds to pay chaplains to pray at the opening of all sessions, a practice that has continued to this day, with Congress not only funding its congressional chaplains but also the salaries and operations of more than 4,500 military chaplains;

Whereas in 1789, Congress, in the midst of framing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, passed the first Federal law touching education, declaring that `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged’;

Whereas in 1789, on the same day that Congress finished drafting the First Amendment, it requested President Washington to declare a National day of prayer and thanksgiving, resulting in the first Federal official Thanksgiving proclamation that declared `it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor’;

Whereas in 1800, Congress enacted naval regulations requiring that Divine service be performed twice every day aboard `all ships and vessels in the navy,’ with a sermon preached each Sunday;

Whereas in 1800, Congress approved the use of the just-completed Capitol structure as a church building, with Divine services to be held each Sunday in the Hall of the House, alternately administered by the House and Senate chaplains;

Whereas in 1853 Congress declared that congressional chaplains have a `duty … to conduct religious services weekly in the Hall of the House of Representatives’;

Whereas by 1867, the church at the Capitol was the largest church in Washington, DC, with up to 2,000 people a week attending Sunday service in the Hall of the House;

Whereas by 1815, over 2,000 official governmental calls to prayer had been issued at both the State and the Federal levels, with thousands more issued since 1815;

Whereas in 1853 the United States Senate declared that the Founding Fathers `had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people … they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy’;

Whereas in 1854 the United States House of Representatives declared `It [religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests … Christianity; in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions’;

Whereas, in 1864, by law Congress added `In God We Trust’ to American coinage;

Whereas in 1864, Congress passed an act authorizing each State to display statues of 2 of its heroes in the United States Capitol, resulting in numerous statues of noted Christian clergymen and leaders at the Capitol, including Gospel ministers such as the Revs. James A. Garfield, John Peter Muhlenberg, Jonathan Trumbull, Roger Williams, Jason Lee, Marcus Whitman, and Martin Luther King Jr.; Gospel theologians such as Roger Sherman; Catholic priests such as Father Damien, Jacques Marquette, Eusebio Kino, and Junipero Serra; Catholic nuns such as Mother Joseph; and numerous other religious leaders;

Whereas in 1870, the Federal government made Christmas (a recognition of the birth of Christ, an event described by the U.S. Supreme Court as `acknowledged in the Western World for 20 centuries, and in this country by the people, the Executive Branch, Congress, and the courts for 2 centuries’) and Thanksgiving as official holidays;

Whereas beginning in 1904 and continuing for the next half-century, the Federal government printed and distributed The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth for the use of Members of Congress because of the important teachings it contained;

Whereas in 1931, Congress by law adopted the Star-Spangled Banner as theofficial National Anthem, with its phrases such as `may the Heav’n-rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation,’ and `this be our motto, `In God is our trust!’;

Whereas in 1954, Congress by law added the phrase `one nation under God’ to the Pledge of Allegiance;

Whereas in 1954 a special Congressional Prayer Room was added to the Capitol with a kneeling bench, an altar, an open Bible, an inspiring stained-glass window with George Washington kneeling in prayer, the declaration of Psalm 16:1: `Preserve me, O God, for in Thee do I put my trust,’ and the phrase `This Nation Under God’ displayed above the kneeling, prayerful Washington;

Whereas in 1956, Congress by law made `In God We Trust’ the National Motto, and added the phrase to American currency;

Whereas the constitutions of each of the 50 states, either in the preamble or body, explicitly recognize or express gratitude to God;

Whereas America’s first Presidential Inauguration incorporated 7 specific religious activities, including–

(1) the use of the Bible to administer the oath;

(2) affirming the religious nature of the oath by the adding the prayer `So help me God!’ to the oath;

(3) inaugural prayers offered by the President;

(4) religious content in the inaugural address;

(5) civil leaders calling the people to prayer or acknowledgement of God;

(6) inaugural worship services attended en masse by Congress as an official part of congressional activities; and

(7) clergy-led inaugural prayers, activities which have been replicated in whole or part by every subsequent President;

Whereas President George Washington declared `Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports’;

Whereas President John Adams, one of only 2 signers of the Bill of Rights and First Amendment, declared `As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him’;

Whereas President Jefferson not only attended Divine services at the Capitol throughout his presidency and had the Marine Band play at the services, but during his administration church services were also begun in the War Department and the Treasury Department, thus allowing worshippers on any given Sunday the choice to attend church at either the United States Capitol, the War Department, or the Treasury Department if they so desired;

Whereas Thomas Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, provided Federal funding for missionary work among Indian tribes, and declared that religious schools would receive `the patronage of the government’;

Whereas President Andrew Jackson declared that the Bible `is the rock on which our Republic rests’;

Whereas President Abraham Lincoln declared that the Bible `is the best gift God has given to men … But for it, we could not know right from wrong’

Whereas President William McKinley declared that `Our faith teaches us that there is no safer reliance than upon the God of our fathers, Who has so singularly favored the American people in every national trial and Who will not forsake us so long as we obey His commandments and walk humbly in His footsteps’;

Whereas President Teddy Roosevelt declared `The Decalogue and the Golden Rule must stand as the foundation of every successful effort to better either our social or our political life’;

Whereas President Woodrow Wilson declared that `America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture’;

Whereas President Herbert Hoover declared that `American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon … [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago’;

Whereas President Franklin D. Roosevelt not only led the Nation in a 6 minute prayer during D-Day on June 6, 1944, but he also declared that `If we will not prepare to give all that we have and all that we are to preserve Christian civilization in our land, we shall go to destruction’;

Whereas President Harry S. Truman declared that `The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul’;

Whereas President Harry S. Truman told a group touring Washington, DC, that `You will see, as you make your rounds, that this Nation was established by men who believed in God. … You will see the evidence of this deep religious faith on every hand’;

Whereas President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared that `Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, the most basic, expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God’s help, it will continue to be’ in a declaration later repeated with approval by President Gerald Ford;

Whereas President John F. Kennedy declared that `The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God’;

Whereas President Ronald Reagan, after noting `The Congress of the United States, in recognition of the unique contribution of the Bible in shaping the history and character of this Nation and so many of its citizens, has … requested the President to designate the year 1983 as the `Year of the Bible’,’ officially declared 1983 as `The Year of the Bible’;

Whereas every other President has similarly recognized the role of God and religious faith in the public life of America;

Whereas all sessions of the United States Supreme Court begin with the Court’s Marshal announcing, `God save the United States and this honorable court’;

Whereas a regular and integral part of official activities in the Federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, was the inclusion of prayer by a minister of the Gospel;

Whereas the United States Supreme Court has declared throughout the course of our Nation’s history that the United States is `a Christian country’, `a Christian nation’, `a Christian people’, `a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being’, and that `we cannot read into the Bill of Rights a philosophy of hostility to religion’;

Whereas Justice John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and original Justice of the United States Supreme Court, urged `The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the Source from which they flow’;

Whereas Justice James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution, declared that `Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine … Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants’;

Whereas Justice William Paterson, a signer of the Constitution, declared that `Religion and morality … [are] necessary to good government, good order, and good laws’;

Whereas President George Washington, who passed into law the first legal acts organizing the Federal judiciary, asked, `where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths in the courts of justice?’;

Whereas some of the most important monuments, buildings, and landmarks in Washington, DC, include religious words, symbols, and imagery;

Whereas in the United States Capitol the declaration `In God We Trust’ is prominently displayed in both the United States House and Senate Chambers;

Whereas around the top of the walls in the House Chamber appear images of 23 great lawgivers from across the centuries, but Moses (the lawgiver, who–according to the Bible–originally received the law from God,) is the only lawgiver honored with a full face view, looking down on the proceedings of the House;

Whereas religious artwork is found throughout the United States Capitol, including in the Rotunda where the prayer service of Christopher Columbus, the Baptism of Pocahontas, and the prayer and Bible study of the Pilgrims are all prominently displayed; in the Cox Corridor of the Capitol where the words `America! God shed His grace on thee’ are inscribed; at the east Senate entrance with the words `Annuit Coeptis’ which is Latin for `God has favored our undertakings’; and in numerous other locations;

Whereas images of the Ten Commandments are found in many Federal buildings across Washington, DC, including in bronze in the floor of the National Archives; in a bronze statue of Moses in the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress; in numerous locations at the U.S. Supreme Court, including in the frieze above the Justices, the oak door at the rear of the Chamber, the gable apex, and in dozens of locations on the bronze latticework surrounding the Supreme Court Bar seating;

Whereas in the Washington Monument not only are numerous Bible verses and religious acknowledgements carved on memorial blocks in the walls, including the phrases: `Holiness to the Lord’ (Exodus 28:26, 30:30, Isaiah 23:18, Zechariah 14:20), `Search the Scriptures’ (John 5:39), `The memory of the just is blessed’ (Proverbs 10:7), `May Heaven to this Union continue its beneficence’, and `In God We Trust’, but the Latin inscription Laus Deo meaning `Praise be to God’ is engraved on the monument’s capstone;

Whereas of the 5 areas inside the Jefferson Memorial into which Jefferson’s words have been carved, 4 are God-centered, including Jefferson’s declaration that `God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever’;

Whereas the Lincoln Memorial contains numerous acknowledgments of God and citations of Bible verses, including the declarations that `we here highly resolve that … this nation under God … shall not perish from the earth’; `The Almighty has His own purposes. `Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh’ (Matthew 18:7); `as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said `the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether’ (Psalms 19:9); `one day every valley shall be exalted and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh see it together (Dr. Martin Luther KingÌs speech, based on Isaiah 40:4-5);

Whereas in the Library of Congress, The Giant Bible of Mainz, and The Gutenberg Bible are on prominent permanent display and etched on the walls are Bible verses, including: `The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not’ (John 1:5); `Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore, get wisdom and with all thy getting, get understanding’ (Proverbs 4:7); `What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God’ (Micah 6:8); and `The heavens declare the Glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork’ (Psalm 19:1);

Whereas numerous other of the most important American government leaders, institutions, monuments, buildings, and landmarks both openly acknowledge and incorporate religious words, symbols, and imagery into official venues;

Whereas such acknowledgments are even more frequent at the State and local level than at the Federal level, where thousands of such acknowledgments exist; and

Whereas the first week in May each year would be an appropriate week to designate as `American Religious History Week’: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That
the United States House of Representatives—-

(1) affirms the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation’s founding and subsequent history, including up to the current day;

(2) recognizes that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation’s most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America’s representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;

(3) rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation’s public buildings and educational resources; and

(4) expresses support for designation of a `American Religious History Week’ every year for the appreciation of and education on America’s history of religious faith.

 

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

American Voters and the Abortion Issue

Some may be surprised to learn that a 2008 Fox News poll found that abortion was an important issue to 45 percent of voters,1 yet, that number is consistent with what other polls have been documenting since 2002. And statistics further affirm that when voters not only identify abortion as an important issue but when those voters — especially Christian voters — actually vote accordingly, there is a direct impact on election results. (Although many pro-life voters are not Christians, and many Christians who are not pro-life, Christians nevertheless tend to be more pro-life in percentage than any other group, therefore, for the sake of simplifying the correlation and the statistics in the following summary, “Christian voters” will be considered likely pro-life voters.)

Significantly, in the four elections from 1992-2002, Christian voter turnout steadily declined. In 2002, however, that trend reversed and there was actually a 2 percent increase over the 2000 numbers (which is actually fairly sizable since 2002 was a non-presidential year, when voter turnout is traditionally much smaller). Exit polling in 2002 demonstrated that 41 percent of those who voted said that abortion was an important issue affecting their vote.2 The total effect was that 23 percent of all voters said they voted a pro-life ticket, and 16 percent said they voted a pro-abortion ticket,3 thus giving a 7 percent generic advantage to those running as a pro-life candidate. The result was evident: of the 54 freshmen elected to the U. S. House in 2002, 36 were pro-life4 (67 percent), and of the 10 freshmen elected to the U. S. Senate, 8 were pro-life5 (80 percent).

In 2004, Christian voter turnout increased 93 percent over the 2002 numbers6 (part of this surge was due to the fact that it was a presidential year, when turnout typically rises, and part to the fact that the percentage of Christian voters actually increased). In that election, 42 percent of voters identified abortion as an important issue,7 with the total effect being that 25 percent of voters said they voted pro-life, and 13 percent said they voted pro-abortion,8 resulting in a 12 percent generic advantage for pro-life candidates. The 2004 elections sent 40 new freshmen to the U. S. House, of whom 25 were pro-life9 (63 percent), and 9 new freshmen to the U. S. Senate, of whom 7 were pro-life10 (77 percent).

In those two elections in which Christian voter turnout rose, a total of 94 freshmen were sent to the House, of whom 61 were pro-life (65 percent), and 19 freshmen were sent to the Senate, of whom 15 were pro-life (79 percent). The result was the congressional enactment of the first four major stand-alone pro-life laws since Roe v. Wade: the Infants Born Alive Protection Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, and the Fetal Farming Ban.11 (Prior pro-life congressional activity typically addressed funding measures, such as the Hyde, Kemp-Casten, Dickey, etc. amendments, and the Mexico City policy.12 Furthermore, the addition of so many new pro-life Senators resulted in the confirmation of two new pro-life Supreme Court Justices13 and dozens of pro-life court of appeals and federal district court judges.14

In 2006, however, the trend reversed: Christian voter turnout fell by 30 percent.15 Of the 54 new freshmen sent to the U. S. House in the last election, only 17 were pro-life16 (31 percent), and of the ten freshmen elected to the U. S. Senate,17 only 1 was pro-life (10 percent). The Baltimore Sun identified this as “the most pro-choice Congress in the history of the Republic.”18

Not surprisingly, given the 30 percent drop in Christian voter turnout, the exit polling indicating the percentage of voters who considered abortion as an important issue showed a commensurate drop, plummeting from 42 percent in 2004 to only about 30 percent in 2006. (In the last election, most exit polling did not separate out abortion as a single issue but instead combined it with marriage and other issues to call it “values”; in that exit polling, the “values” numbers ranged from 27 to 36 percent.19 For polls that did break abortion out as a single issue, it was the driving issue for only 6 to 12 percent of voters.20

Significantly, polling reveals that liberals are much more focused on abortion as a single issue than are Christians. A 2005 survey affirmed that among liberals, “no other issue rivals abortion in importance,” but that 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%).”21 Therefore, while the 45 percent identified by a Fox News poll is a significant number, that high number really has no meaning unless those who hold pro-life values vote in high percentages .

By the way, for those who wonder why the 2008 Congress was so aggressively pro-homosexual, actually pushing through two stand-alone pro-homosexual bills,22> it might be instructive to note that at the same time that Christian voters experienced a 30 percent decline in the last election, 92.5 percent of homosexual men and 91 percent of lesbian women voted in that same election.23 As President James A. Garfield so accurately pointed out a century ago:

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.24

In short, Congress never reflects the values of the nation; rather, it only reflects the values of those who voted in the last election.


Endnotes

1 FoxNews.com, “FOX News Poll: Half of Voters Eye Candidates Abortion Stance”, October 26, 2007.

2 National Right to Life, “The Pro-Life Advantage for Candidates”.

3 National Right to Life, “The Pro-Life Advantage for Candidates”.

4 Numbers provided by the House Pro-Life Caucus.

5 National Right to Life, “Senate Results Cause for Rejoicing,” November 2002.

6 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,”; and U. S. Census Bureau, “Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2004”.

7 National Right to Life, “Statement by Carol Tobias: National Right to Life Political Director, November 4, 2004.”

8 National Right to Life, “Statement by Carol Tobias: National Right to Life Political Director, November 4, 2004.”

9 Numbers provided by the House Pro-Life Caucus.

10 National Right to Life, “Statement by Carol Tobias: National Right to Life Political Director, November 4, 2004;” Library of Congress, “CRS Report for
Congress: Freshmen in the House of Representatives and Senate by Political Party: 1913-2005”.

11 National Right to Life, “President Bush Signs Born Alive Infants Protection Act in Pittsburgh Ceremony Attended by NRLC Officials”; National Right to Life, “President Bush Signs Unborn Victims of Violence Act into Law, After Dramatic One-vote Win in Senate,” April 6, 2004; Office of the Press Secretary, “President Signs Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003,” November 5, 2003; GovTrack.us, “S. 3504: Fetal Farming Prohibition Act of 2006” (at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-3504).

12 American Family Association, “Loretta Sanchez of California Amendment; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004”; University of Maryland, “CRS
Report for Congress: Abortion Services and Military Medical Facilities”, pp. 17-18; 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”; Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, “US ‘Mexico City’ Policy: Abortion funding in foreign countries,” last updated April 27, 2007 .

13 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); 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
).

14 See for example: Christian Life Resources, “President Bush Will Nominate 20 Pro-Life Judges, Democrat Fight Looms”; Lifenews.com, “President Bush Renominates Pro-Life Judges, Senate Abortion Battle Begins”, etc.

15 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”; New York Times, “Religious Voting Data Show Some Shift, Observers Say”.

16 Numbers provided by the House Pro-Life Caucus.

17 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
).

18 Thomas F. Shaller, Baltimore Sun, February 28, 2007.

19 See for example: The Pew Forum, “Religion and the 2006 Elections: Exit Poll Results — The ‘God Gap’ Widens”; FoxNews.com, “National Exit Poll: Midterms Come Down to Iraq, Bush”, November 8, 2006.

20 See for example: Faith in Public Life, “Exit Poll Shows Shift in Religious Vote Driven By ‘Kitchen Table’ Moral Issues”, November 15, 2006; People for the American Way, “The American Values Survey”, August 2006.

21 The Pew Research Center, “Abortion and Rights of Terror Suspects Top Court Issues” (at https://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=253), August 3, 2005.

22 GovTrack.us, “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007” (at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1592); Library of Congress, “S. 1284: Summary”.

23 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
).

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

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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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


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.

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.

15Environmental 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

why-christians-must-vote-in-this-electionDespite 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/).

 

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.

Recommended Reading List

There is no substitute for immersing oneself in original, primary source material if one hopes to understand American history. However, it is also useful (and enjoyable) to read books about great American leaders and events. The following list is far from comprehensive, but it includes works that we have found to be helpful. We hope it is a valuable starting place for those interested in learning more about America’s Godly heritage.

WallBuilders has provided the following list of books to provide helpful information and sources for people who want to dig deeper and research on their own. We do not endorse every aspect of every book, but we believe that each provides a good, balanced, and reliable overview its subject. Some of these books are available as ebooks, while some may be found at libraries or can be purchased through online booksellers.

American History

  • Gary Amos, Defending the Declaration (Providence Foundation: 1996)
  • Taylor Branch, Parting The Waters: America in the King Years, 1954-1963 (Simon & Schuster, 1988)
  • Derek H. Davis, Religion and the Continental Congress, 1774-1789: Contributions to Original Intent (Oxford University Press, 2000)
  • Daniel L. Dreisbach, Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers (Oxford University Press, 2016)
  • Daniel L. Dreisbach and Mark David Hall, The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations in the American Founding (Liberty Fund Press, 2009)
  • Daniel L. Dreisbach, Mark D. Hall, and Jeffry H. Morrison, The Forgotten Founders on Religion and Public Life (Notre Dame University Press, 2009)
  • Daniel L. Dreisbach, Mark D. Hall, and Jeffry H. Morrison, The Founders on God and Government (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004)
  • Dinesh D’Souza,What’s So Great About America? (Regnery Publishing, 2015)
  • John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of our Founding Fathers (Baker Academic, 1995)
  • David D. Hall, A Reforming People: Puritanism and the Transformation of Public Life in New England (Alfred A. Knopf, 2011)
  • Philip Hamburger, The Separation of Church and State (Harvard University Press 2004)
  • Benjamin Hart, Faith and Freedom: The Christian Roots of American Liberty (Lewis & Stanley, 1988)
  • James H. Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1998)
  • Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (HarperCollins, 1997)
  • Thomas R. Kidd, God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution (Basic Books, 2010)
  • Barry Loudermilk, And Then They Prayed. Moments in American History Impacted by Prayer (Campbell: CA: FastPencil, 2011)
  • Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988)
  • Peter Marshall & David Manuel, The Light and the Glory: 1492-1793 (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1977, reprint 2009)
  • Peter Marshall & David Manuel, From Sea to Shining Sea: 1787-1837 (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1985, reprint 2009)
  • Peter Marshall & David Manuel, Sounding Forth The Trumpet: 1837-1860 (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1998, reprint 2001)
  • Stephen McDowell, America’s Providential History (Providence Foundation, 1991)
  • Stephen McDowell, Liberating the Nations (Providence Foundation, 1995)
  • William H. McGuffey, McGuffey’s Eclectic Reader (Various publishers: various editions between 1836-1901). These books covered grades 1 through 5.
  • James McPherson, Battle Cry Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford University Press, 1988)
  • Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution: 1763-1789 (Oxford University Press, 2005)
  • Clinton Rossiter, 1787 The Grand Convention (WW Norton, 1966)
  • Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints: The Puritans As They Really Were (Zondervan, 1990)
  • Barry Alan Shain, The Myth of American Individualism: The Protestant Origins of American Political Thought (Princeton University Press, 1994)
  • Harry Stout, The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England 2nd (Oxford University Press, 2011)
  • Thomas G. West, Vindicating the Founders (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997, reprint 2001)

Biographies

  • Andrew Allison, The Real Thomas Jefferson (Washington, D. C.: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1983)
  • Glenn Beck, Being George Washington: The Indispensable Man, as You’ve Never Seen Him (New York: Threshold Editions, 2011)
  • E. Bradford, Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution
(Plymouth Rock Foundation: 1982)
  • Richard Carwardine, Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power (Knopf, 2003)
  • Ron Charnow, Alexander Hamilton (Penguin Press, 2004)
  • Allen Guelzo, Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President (Eerdmans, 2002)
  • Mark David Hall, Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic (Oxford University Press, 2012)
  • Charles E. Hambrick-Stowe, Charles G. Finney and the spirit of American Evangelicalism (Eerdmans, 1996)
  • Bill Kauffman, Forgotten Founder, Drunken Prophet: The Life of Luther Martin (ISI Books, 2008)
  • Michael Kazin, A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan (Anchor, 2007)
  • Thomas Kidd, Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots (Basic Books, 2011)
  • Peter Lillback, with Jerry Newcombe, George Washington’s Sacred Fire (Providence Forum Press, 2006)
  • George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (Yale University Press, 2004)
  • David McCullough, John Adams (Simon & Schuster, 2008)
  • Stephen McDowell, Apostle of Liberty: The World-Changing Leadership of George Washington (Cumberland Publishing, 2007)
  • Robert Middlekauff, The Mathers: Three Generations of Puritan Intellectuals, 1596-1728 (University of California Press, 1999)
  • Edmund Morgan, Roger Williams: The Church and the State (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1967)
  • Edmund Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop (Scott, Foresman, and Company, 1958)
  • Jeffry H. Morrison, John Witherspoon and the Founding of the American Republic (University of Notre Dame Press, 2005)
  • Michal Novak and Jana Novak, Washington’s God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country (Perseus Books, 2006)
  • Charles Page Smith, James Wilson: Founding Father, 1742-1798 (1956; reprint, University of North Carolina Press, 2011)
  • PragerU, Trailblazers of America (PragerU, 2025): biographical resource for middle school ages
  • Ira Stoll, Samuel Adams: A Life (Free Press, 2009)
  • Harry Stout, The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism (Eerdmans, 1991)
  • Michael Toth, Founding Federalist: The Life of Oliver Ellsworth (ISI Books, 2011)
  • Harlow Giles Unger, John Quincy Adams (Da Capo, 2012)
  • Gordon S. Wood, The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin (Penguin Press, 2004)

Christianity & Worldview

  • Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity? (Regnery Publishing, 2008)
  • John Eidsmoe, Columbus & Cortez, Conquerors for Christ (New Leaf Press, 1992)
  • James Garlow, Well Versed: Biblical Answers to Today’s Tough Issues (Regnery Faith, 2016)
  • Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture (Zondervan, 2010)
  • Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (Yale University Press, 1991)
  • Martin Marty, A Short History of Christianity ed. (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1987)
  • Eric Nelson, The Hebrew Republic: Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought (Harvard University Press, 2010)
  • Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: The Renaissance (Cambridge University Press, 1978)
  • Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: The Age of Reformation (Cambridge University Press, 1978)
  • Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (Random House, 2005)
  • John Witte Jr., The Reformation of Rights: Law, Religion, and Human Rights in Early Modern Calvinism (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

 

Religious Acknowledgments in the Capitol Visitor Center

Religious Acknowledgments
in the Capitol Visitor Center
by 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.