Bibles & Religion Archives - Page 11 of 19

A Constitutional Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom

H. J. Res. 46 — a constitutional amendment restoring religious freedom— was introduced in the 108th Congress. That Amendment declares:

To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience:
The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools.
The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity.

If you do not know your U. S. Congressman, go to https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative if you want to see this protection for voluntary school prayer and public religious expressions such as displays of the Ten Commandments, you need to contact your Congressmen — even if he or she already supports this issue.

Type in your zip code to learn the name of your Representative.
Call your Representative at (202) 224-3121. When the Capitol switchboard operator answers, ask for your Senator or Representative by name. When that office answers, ask to speak to your Congressman. If they are available, they will speak with you; if unavailable, simply tell the staff that you want the Congressman (A) to co-sponsor H. J. Res. 46, (B) to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, and (C) to vote for the Religious Freedom Amendment.
If you wish to write your Congressman to communicate the same message, the address is:
Name of your Representative
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC, 20515

Name of your Senator
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC, 20510

The “Religious Freedom Amendment” is far too important to die a slow and obscure political death. Therefore, for the sake of this generation — as well as future ones — we should heed the advice of John Hancock:

I [urge] you by all that is dear, by all that is honorable, by all that is sacred, not only that ye pray but that ye act.

(To access information (sponsors, status, etc.) and track the progress of the “Religious Freedom Amendment,” go to https://thomas.loc.gov and type in “HJRes 46.”)

** This is historic information and not applicable to current pieces of legislation. **

Church in the U.S. Capitol

Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol’s use as a church, and some of the prominent individuals who attended services there.

The cornerstone of the Capitol was laid by President George Washington in 1793., but it was not until the end of 1800 that Congress actually moved into the building. According to the congressional records for late November of 1800, Congress spent the first few weeks organizing the Capitol rooms, committees, locations, etc. Then, on December 4, 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building. ¹

The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson’s approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.

Significantly, the Capitol building had been used as a church even for years before it was occupied by Congress. The cornerstone for the Capitol had been laid on September 18, 1793; two years later while still under construction, the July 2, 1795, Federal Orrery newspaper of Boston reported:

City of Washington, June 19. It is with much pleasure that we discover the rising consequence of our infant city. Public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o’clock by the Reverend Mr. Ralph. ²

The reason for the original use of the Capitol as a church might initially be explained by the fact that there were no churches in the city at that time. Even a decade later in 1803, U. S. Senator John Quincy Adams confirmed: “There is no church of any denomination in this city.” ³ The absence of churches in Washington eventually changed, however. As one Washington citizen reported: “For several years after the seat of government was fixed at Washington, there were but two small [wooden] churches. . . . Now, in 1837 there are 22 churches of brick or stone.” ⁴ Yet, even after churches began proliferating across the city, religious services still continued at the Capitol until well after the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President ⁵ and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson’s friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. ⁶ Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.

U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that “He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall.” ⁷ Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: “Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant.” ⁸ She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: “The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary.” ⁹ Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: “It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson’s] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall.” ¹⁰ Other diary entries confirm Jefferson’s attendance in spite of bad weather. ¹¹

In addition to Mary Bayard Smith and Congressman Manasseh Cutler, others kept diaries of the weekly Capitol church services including Congressman Abijah Bigelow and statesman John Quincy Adams. (Adams served in Washington first as a Senator, then a President, and then as a Representative; and his extensive diaries describe the numerous church services he attended at the Capitol across a span of decades.) Typical of Adams’ diary entries while a U. S. Senator under President Jefferson were these :

Attended public service at the Capitol where Mr. Rattoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. ¹²
[R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. ¹³

Jefferson was not the only President to attend church at the Capitol. His successor, James Madison, also attended church at the Capitol. ¹⁴ However, there was a difference in the way the two arrived for services. Observers noted that Jefferson arrived at church on horseback ¹⁵ (it was 1.6 miles from the White House to the Capitol). However, Madison arrived for church in a coach and four. In fact, British diplomat Augustus Foster, who attended services at the Capitol, gave an eloquent description of President Madison arriving at the Capitol for church in a carriage drawn by four white horses.

From Jefferson through Abraham Lincoln, many presidents attended church at the Capitol; and it was common practice for Members of Congress to attend those services. For example, in his diary entry of January 9, 1803, Congressman Cutler noted: “Attended in the morning at the Capitol. . . . Very full assembly. Many of the Members present.” ¹⁶ The church was often full “so crowded, in fact, one attendee reported that since “the floor of the House offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker’s chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in” was filled. ¹⁷ U. S. Representative John Quincy Adams (although noting that occasionally the “House was full, but not crowded” ¹⁸) also commented numerous times on the overly-crowded conditions at the Capitol church. In his diary entry for February 28, 1841, he noted: “I rode with my wife, Elizabeth C. Adams, and Mary, to the Capitol, where the Hall of the House of Representatives was so excessively crowded that it was with extreme difficulty that we were enabled to obtain seats.” ¹⁹ Why did so many Members attend Divine service in the Hall of the House? Adams explained why he attended: “I consider it as one of my public duties- as a representative of the people- to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall.” ²⁰

Interestingly, the Marine Band participated in the early Capitol church services. According to Margaret Bayard Smith, who regularly attended services at the Capitol, the band, clad in their scarlet uniforms, made a “dazzling appearance” as they played from the gallery, providing instrumental accompaniment for the singing. ²¹ The band, however, seemed too ostentatious for the services and “the attendance of the marine-band was soon discontinued.” ²²

From 1800 to 1801, the services were held in the north wing; from 1801 to 1804, they were held in the “oven” in the south wing, and then from 1804 to 1807, they were again held in the north wing. From 1807 to 1857, services were held in what is now Statuary Hall. By 1857 when the House moved into its new home in the extension, some 2,000 persons a week were attending services in the Hall of the House. ²³ Significantly, even though the U. S. Congress began meeting in the extension on Wednesday, December 16, 1857, the first official use of the House Chamber had occurred three days earlier, when “on December 13, 1857, the Rev. Dr. George Cummins preached before a crowd of 2,000 worshipers in the first public use of the chamber. Soon thereafter, the committee recommended that the House convene in the new Hall on Wednesday, December 16, 1857.” ²⁴ However, regardless of the part of the building in which the church met, the rostrum of the Speaker of the House was used as the preacher’s pulpit; and Congress purchased the hymnals used in the service.

The church services in the Hall of the House were interdenominational, overseen by the chaplains appointed by the House and Senate; sermons were preached by the chaplains on a rotating basis, or by visiting ministers approved by the Speaker of the House. As Margaret Bayard Smith, confirmed: “Not only the chaplains, but the most distinguished clergymen who visited the city, preached in the Capitol” ²⁵ and “clergymen, who during the session of Congress visited the city, were invited by the chaplains to preach.” ²⁶

In addition to the non-denominational service held in the Hall of the House, several individual churches (such as Capitol Hill Presbyterian, the Unitarian Church of Washington, First Congregational Church, First Presbyterian Church, etc.) met in the Capitol each week for their own services; there could be up to four different church services at the Capitol each Sunday.

The Library of Congress provides an account of one of those churches that met weekly at the Capitol: “Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 Chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime, the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services- ˜at the Hall of Representatives’ where- ˜the audience is the largest in town. . . . nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath’ for services, making the congregation in the House the ˜largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States.’ The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868.” ²⁷

With so many services occurring, the Hall of the House was not the only location in the Capitol where church services were conducted. John Quincy Adams, in his February 2, 1806, diary entry, describes an overflow service held in the Supreme Court Chamber, ²⁸ and Congressman Manasseh Cutler describes a similar service in 1804. ²⁹ (At that time, the Supreme Court Chamber was located on the first floor of the Capitol.) Services were also held in the Senate Chamber as well as on the first floor of the south wing.

Church In The Capitol Milestones

* 1806. On January 12, 1806, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832) became the first woman to preach before the House. One female attendee had noted: “Preachers of every sect and denomination of Christians were there admitted- Catholics, Unitarians, Quakers, with every intervening diversity of sect. Even women were allowed to display their pulpit eloquence in this national Hall.” ³⁰ In attendance at that service were President Thomas Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr. Ripley conducted the lengthy service in a fervent, evangelical, camp-meeting style.

* 1826. On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina (Bishop over North and South Carolina and Georgia) became the first Catholic to preach in the House of Representatives. Of that service, President John Quincy Adams (a regular attendee of church services in the Capitol) noted: Walked to the Capitol and heard the Bishop of Charleston, [John] England -” an Irishman. He read a few prayers and then delivered an extemporaneous discourse of nearly two hours’ duration. . . . He closed by reading an admirable prayer. He came and spoke to me after the service and said he would call and take leave of me tomorrow. The house was overflowing, and it was with great difficulty that I obtained a seat. ³¹

* 1827. In January 1827, Harriet Livermore (1788-1868) became the second woman to preach in the House of Representatives. (Three of her immediate family members: ” her father, grandfather, and uncle” had been Members of Congress. Her grandfather, Samuel Livermore, was a Member of the first federal Congress and a framer of the Bill of Rights; her uncle was a Member under Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; her father was a Member under President James Monroe.) The service in which she preached was not only attended by President John Quincy Adams but was also filled with Members of Congress as well as the inquisitive from the city. As Margaret Bayard Smith noted, “curiosity rather than piety attracted throngs on such occasions.” ³² Livermore spoke for an hour and a half, resulting in mixed reactions; some praised her and were even moved to tears by her preaching, some dismissed her. Harriet Livermore preached in the Capitol on four different occasions, each attended by a different President.

* 1865. On February 12, 1865, Henry Highland Garnet (1815- 1882) became the first African American to speak in Congress. Two weeks earlier, on January 31, 1865, Congress had passed the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, and Garnet was invited to preach a sermon in Congress to commemorate that event. In his sermon, Garnet described his beginnings: ‘I was born among the cherished institutions of slavery. My earliest recollections of parents, friends, and the home of my childhood are clouded with its wrongs. The first sight that met my eyes was my Christian mother enslaved.” ³³ His family escaped to the North; he became a minister, abolitionist, temperance leader, and political activist. He recruited black regiments during the Civil War and served as chaplain to the black troops of New York. In 1864, he became the pastor of the Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church in Washington, D. C. (where he served at the time of this sermon). He later became president of Avery College and was made Minister to Liberia by President Ulysses S. Grant.

(For more information on this topic please see “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic: Religion and the Federal Government (Part 2)” on the Library of Congress website.)

Endnotes

¹ Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.

² Federal Orrery, Boston, July 2, 1795, 2.

³ John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Company, 1874), I:268, October 30, 1803.

⁴ Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith (Margaret Bayard), The First Forty Years of Washington Society, Galliard Hunt, editor (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), 16.

⁵ Bishop Claggett’s (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, reveals that, as vice- President, Jefferson went to church services in the House. Available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives.

⁶ William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), II:66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.

⁷ Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, II:119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 12, 1802 (II:113).

⁸ Smith, The First Forty Years, 13.

⁹ Smith, The First Forty Years, 13.

¹⁰ Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, II:119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (II:114).

¹¹ Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, II:114, December 26, 1802.

¹² John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, I:268, October 30, 1803.

¹³ John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, I:265, October 23, 1803.

¹⁴ Abijah Bigelow to Hannah Bigleow, December 28, 1812. “Letters of Abijah Bigleow, Member of Congress, to his Wife,” Proceedings, 1810-1815, American Antiquarian Society (1930), 168.

¹⁵ See, for example, Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, II:119, from a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803.

¹⁶ Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, II:116, January 9, 1803.

¹⁷ Smith, The First Forty Years, 14.

¹⁸ See, for example, John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, VII:437-438, February 17, 1828; XI:160-161, May 22, 1842; and others.

¹⁹ John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, X:434, February 28, 1841.

²⁰ John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, XI:169, June 5, 1842.

²¹ Smith, The First Forty Years, 14.

²² Smith, The First Forty Years, 16.

²³ James Hutson (Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress), Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1998), 91.

²⁴ William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), 271.

²⁵ Smith, The First Forty Years, 14.

²⁶ Smith, The First Forty Years, 15.

²⁷ Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.

²⁸ Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, 90.

²⁹ From the Library of Congress, at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.

³⁰ Smith, The First Forty Years, 15.

³¹ John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, VII:102, January 8, 1826.

³² Smith, The First Forty Years, 15.

³³ Henry Highland Garnet, Memorial Discourse (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), 73.

Benjamin Rush Dream about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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.

John Adams: Was He Really an Enemy of Christians? Addressing Modern Academic Shallownes

At WallBuilders, we are truly blessed by God, owning tens of thousands of original documents from the American Founding – documents clearly demonstrating the Christian and Biblical foundations both of America and of so many of her Founding Fathers and early statesmen. We frequently post original documents on our website so that others may enjoy them and learn more about many important aspects of America’s rich moral, religious, and constitutional heritage that are widely unknown or misportrayed today.

Posted in the “Historical Documents” section of our website is a, letter from John Adams to Dr. Benjamin Rush (a close friend of Adams and a co-signer of the Declaration of Independence). That letter was Adams’ reply to a remarkable letter written him by Dr. Rush on October 17, 1809, describing a dream Rush believed God had given him about Adams. WallBuilders providentially obtained this original letter from an amazing presidential collection of a 100+ year old Floridian woman.

We often use quotes from that letter, including Adams’ bold declaration that:

The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but that which is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words, damnation.¹

This letter certainly contains profound Christian content, but that is not particularly surprising, for Adams wrote dozens of letters with similarly powerful Christian declarations. Also not surprising is the fact that liberals and atheists have attacked this letter and its content; they dismiss it with the excuse that Adams didn’t really mean what he said in the letter, or that it was code for something different from what he actually said. But what was surprising and unexpected is that this letter and its remarkable content did not set well with some Christians, especially Chris Pinto. Pinto has produced videos claiming not only that America does not have a Biblical foundation but specifically asserting that the Founding Fathers were largely pagans who represented the spirit of the Anti-Christ. He believes that Christians should not be involved in the political arena or similar areas of culture.²

Pinto seems to have developed a fixation with WallBuilders, joining with liberals and atheists to demean it and the Founding Fathers. For example, in one video he prepared against me and the Founding Fathers, he specifically addressed the John Adams letter we posted, claiming:

Barton makes it appear as if John Adams was speaking favorably about the Holy Ghost in a letter he wrote to Benjamin Rush. In reality, Adams was mocking the idea of “Holy Ghost authority” and called Christians “dupes” for believing in it.³

Pinto concludes:

In truth, the letter Barton is presenting provides some of the most damning evidence found anywhere, and is consistent with many of the writings of the Revolutionaries, proving their contempt for Bible-based Christianity. In this letter, John Adams was not speaking in approval of the Holy Ghost, but was rather mocking the idea of it and of the faith of true Christians. . . . Adams did not believe the Holy Ghost was real, and he spoke about it in what can only be called insulting and irreverent terms.⁴

Normally, we simply ignore these types of absurd claims, for we believe that the truth speaks for itself and that it will always eventually prevail. In fact, this is why we post so many original and hand-written Founding documents and letters online – we want individuals to see and read them for themselves to be personally aware of what is and is not true. It is important to follow the model praised by the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:11: always check original sources to establish truth. This is why we heavily document quotes and facts back to original sources – such as our best-selling book Original Intent: it contains some 1,700 footnotes, the vast majority of which are dated to primary-source documents published while the Founders were still alive.

(By the way, a notable ACLU attorney decided he would disprove our thesis that the Founding Fathers were largely Christian. He therefore took Original Intent and undertook a project to expose what he considered to be its falsehoods; he went back and checked our quotes against the original sources cited in the book. At the end of his research, he concluded that we had understated the faith of the Founders – that there was actually much more evidence to support their Christian faith than even what we had cited. This ACLU attorney was completely converted and went on to become an eminent court of appeals judge – all because he followed Paul’s model of Acts 17:11 and checked the evidence for himself. We have numerous similar testimonials of the dramatic change that has occurred in individuals who investigated the original facts for themselves.)

So although we typically do not respond to critics such as Pinto, in this case, his videos have confused many Christians who have respectfully asked us to help them sort out the facts and discern the truth. Hence we have chosen to address Pinto’s patently false claims about John Adams.

Significantly, Pinto reached his conclusions that John Adams was mocking the Holy Spirit only by ignoring, omitting, or not understanding lengthy and important segments of Adams’ letter (which is why we posted the complete letter online: to make it much harder for individuals to twist and distort its true meaning). When the segments that Pinto ignored or did not understand are returned to the letter, it becomes obvious that his premises have been infected with three of the five historical malpractices that characterize the current study of history: Modernism, Minimalism, and Deconstructionism (the other two of the five are Poststructuralism and Academic Collectivism, which Pinto also uses in other areas of his videos).

Modernism is the practice of analyzing historical incidents and persons as if they lived now rather than in the past. Modernism separates history from its context and setting – a practice that regularly produces flawed conclusions.

An illustration of Modernism is the manner in which today’s textbooks uniformly portray the colonial Puritans as intolerant Christians because of the witch trials in which twenty-seven individuals died.⁵ But universally ignored is the fact that witch trials were occurring across the world at that time, not just in America; and in Europe alone, 500,000 were put to death,⁶ including 30,000 in England, 75,000 in France, and 100,000 in Germany.⁷ Additionally, the American witch trials lasted two months, but the European trials lasted for years.⁸ Furthermore, the Massachusetts witch trials were brought to a close when Christian leaders such as the Rev. John Wise, the Rev. Increase Mather, and Thomas Brattle challenged the trials because Biblical rules of evidence and Due Process were not being followed in the courts.⁹ Consequently:

The trials were stopped by Governor Phipps in October, 1692, and five years later the Massachusetts Court publicly repented and set apart a special day of fasting and prayer, that prayers might be offered, asking for forgiveness for “the late tragedy raised amongst us by Satan,” while the twelve jurors published a declaration of sorrow for accepting insufficient evidence against the accused, and Judge Sewall rose in his pew in the South Church and made public confession of his sense of guilt.¹⁰

This is no attempt to defend the inexcusable twenty-seven deaths, but it is undeniable that the so-called “intolerant” conduct of the Puritans was light-years ahead of their “enlightened” contemporaries throughout the rest of the “civilized” Old World of Europe. As early church historian Charles Galloway affirmed, when the Puritans “are compared to their brothers in England and all Europe, they stand out as reformers of the most advanced and majestic type.”¹¹ To accurately portray historic events and individuals (whether it is the Puritans or John Adams), their words and actions must be measured not by today’s thinking and customs but rather in light of what was occurring in their own times – which is what Pinto does not do.

Let’s begin by looking at the extended portion of the letter that Pinto claims contains Adams’ alleged blasphemy against the Holy Spirit:

The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost, Who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the Bishop on the heads of candidates for the ministry. In the same manner, as the Holy Ghost is transmitted from monarch to monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a dove and by that other phial [vial] which I have seen in the Tower of London. There is no authority civil or religious, there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words, damnation. Although this is all artifice and cunning in the sacred original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lay down their lives under the ax or the fiery fagot [bundle of wood used for burning individuals at the stake] for it. Alas, the poor weak ignorant dupe, human nature. There is so much king craft, priest craft, gentlemens craft, peoples craft, doctors craft, lawyers craft, merchants craft, tradesmens craft, laborers craft, and Devils craft in the world that it seems a desperate [hopeless] and impractical project to undeceive it. Do you wonder that Voltaire and Paine have made proselytes [converts]? Yet there [is] near as much subtlety, craft, and hypocrisy in Voltaire and Paine, and more, too, than in Ignatius Loyola [a Spanish knight who was a founder of the Jesuits].¹²

Recall from above that in Pinto’s analysis of this section he claims that Adams . . .

was mocking the idea of “Holy Ghost authority” and called Christians “dupes” for believing in it. . . . Adams was not speaking in approval of the Holy Ghost, but was rather mocking the idea of it and of the faith of true Christians. . . . Adams did not believe the Holy Ghost was real, and he spoke about it in what can only be called insulting and irreverent terms.¹³

Is Pinto correct? Was Adams mocking Christians and the Holy Ghost? Absolutely not – which will be irrefutably proved below. But the fact that Pinto believes that Adams is insulting Christians and the Holy Spirit demonstrates not only that he employed Modernism but also the second device of historical malpractice: Minimalism.

Minimalism is an unreasonable insistence on over-simplicity – on using simplistic platitudes to reduce everything to monolithic causes and linear effects. As an example, citizens today are regularly taught that America separated from Great Britain because of “taxation without representation,” yet that issue was only one of twenty-seven grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence – and it was actually one of the lesser complaints. While only one grievance in the Declaration addressed taxation without representation, eleven addressed the abuse of representative powers; seven the abuse of military powers; four the abuse of judicial powers; and two the stirring up of domestic insurrection. Taxation without representation was only grievance number seventeen out of the twenty-seven, listed alongside Great Britain’s suppression of immigration and her interference with our foreign trade. While the taxation issue was given little emphasis in the Declaration, Minimalism causes it to virtually be the only issue covered today, thus giving citizens a skewed view of the American Revolution and what caused it.

Minimalism is what Pinto practices in his analysis of Adams’ letter. Rather than delving into the complex areas of church history that Adams directly references several times in the letter, Pinto just dismisses them out of hand, rashly claiming that Adams was being irreverent.

Six key phrases Adams used in the letter unequivocally prove that he was not mocking the Holy Spirit or Christianity:

“monarch to monarch”
“the holy oil in the vial at Rheims”
“brought down from Heaven by a dove”
“that other phial which I have seen in the Tower of London”
“king craft”
“priest craft”

Each of these phrases is a direct reference to a particular period and a definite incident in church history – a history early set forth and ably expounded by the Rev. John Wise (1652-1725) of Massachusetts, considered by prominent historians as one of the six greatest intellectual leaders responsible for shaping American thinking.¹⁴ Wise’s works and sermons were read and widely studied across early America, including by the leading patriots and Founding Fathers. Wise divided the general history of Christianity into three epochs, and all six of Adams’ phrases refer to specific occurrences in one of those periods.

Period I includes the three centuries of Christianity immediately following the life of Christ. According to Wise, this was “the most refined and purest time, both as to faith and manners, that the Christian church has been honored with.”¹⁵ Period I is the “Period of Purity,” and Jesus’ followers throughout that time largely did just what He had taught them to do.

Period II spans the next twelve centuries, and according to Wise, it was a period that “openly proclaimed itself to the scandal of the Christian religion.”¹⁶ The State took control of the Church, with the State decreeing Christianity to be the official religion of the State and all other religions illegal.¹⁷ This was a time of “the secularization of the Church and the depravation of Christianity”¹⁸– a time when the State seized and corrupted the Church and its doctrines, wrongly asserting “that one of the chief duties of an imperial ruler was to place his sword at the service of the Church and orthodoxy.”¹⁹ Christianity became coercive through brutal civil laws attempting to enforce theological orthodoxy.

This age was characterized by autocratic leaders in both State and Church, with monarchies and theocracies (usually oppressive ones) as the primary forms of governance. The Founders frequently described Period II as a time of “kingcraft” and “priestcraft” – a time when kings and priests joined together against the people, using selfish ambition to gain personal wealth and power.²⁰

Period II is called the “Period of Apostasy” or “Period of Corruption,” and during this time, the Church was no longer a collection of individuals joined together in a voluntary association; instead it became a civil hierarchy overseeing a massive organization and numerous facilities. The individual follower of Christ was no longer of consequence; the common man was forbidden access to the Scriptures and education; tyrannical leaders became the pinnacle of consideration. The emphasis shifted from the personal to the structural, from the individual to the institutional – an anti-Biblical paradigm that prevailed for the next twelve centuries. Nearly all the negative incidents in world history associated with Christianity (e.g., the Inquisition, wholesale murder of Jews, tortures, etc.) are almost exclusively from this period of Christian corruption.

Period III, according to Wise, is that which “began a glorious reformation.” Wise explains: “Many famous persons, memorable in ecclesiastical history, being moved by the Spirit of God and according to Holy Writ, led the way in the face of all danger . . . for the good of Christendom.”²¹ Early seeds of this change began with the efforts of numerous Christian leaders, including John Wycliffe (1320-1384), called the “Morning Star of the Reformation.” Nearly two dozen other Christian leaders also worked to spread Bible teachings across their respective countries, including Englishmen such as Thomas Cranmer, William Tyndale, John Rogers, and Miles Coverdale; Czechs such as John Huss and Jerome of Prague; Germans Martin Luther, Thomas Münzer, Andreas Carlstadt, and Kaspar von Schwenkfeld; Swiss Ulrich Zwingli; Frenchmen William Farel and John Calvin; Scotsmen John Knox and George Wishart; Dutchmen Jacobus Arminius, Desiderius Erasmus, and Menno Simons; and others.

This third era, called the “Period of Reformation,” emphasized a return to the Bible as the guidebook for all aspects of life and living. It therefore rekindled many of Christianity’s original teachings, including the Priesthood of the Believer (emphasizing that the individual had direct access to God without need of assistance from any official in Church or State) and Justification by Faith (emphasizing the importance of personal faith and an individual’s personal relationship with the Savior). The renewed Period III Biblical emphasis on the individual altered the way that both Church and State were viewed, thus resulting in new demands and expectations being placed upon each. Self-government and freedom of conscience were advocated for both institutions.

But such Bible teachings were not embraced by all, for they threatened the previously uncontested power of tyrants. Consequently, ruthless leaders in both State and Church initiated bloody purges, utilizing the most cruel tortures and barbaric persecutions to suppress the followers of the renewed Biblical teachings. For example, French leaders conducted the famous St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of September 17, 1585, eventually killing 110,000 French Reformation followers (i.e., Huguenots). Some 400,000 others fled France to avoid death and persecution, with many coming to America, especially South Carolina and New York.

Similarly, English leaders such as King Henry VIII attempted to suppress the Reformation’s individualistic teachings by public executions and burnings at the stake; and Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth I, and subsequent monarchs continued those efforts. In fact, King James I even concocted two revolutionary new government-church “doctrines” to help him suppress the growing influence of Reformation teachings in England: the Divine Right of Kings, and Complete Submission and Non-Resistance to Authority.

Not surprisingly, Reformation followers (often known as “Dissenters” for opposing, or dissenting against, the autocratic and tyrannical practices of both State and Church) openly opposed James’ “irrational and unscriptural doctrines,”²² thus prompting him to level additional brutal persecutions against them, including mutilation, hanging, and disemboweling. The Pilgrims came to Massachusetts in 1620 to escape the hounding persecution of King James, and a decade later, 20,000 Puritans also fled England after many received life sentences (or had their noses slit, ears cut off, or a brand placed on their foreheads) for adhering to Reformation teachings.

Despite the brutal worldwide persecution, the Reformation eventually prevailed, resulting in massive changes in both State and Church, finally bringing to an end the corrupt practices of Period II Christianity. The impact of Reformation Christianity upon nations during this period was almost exclusively positive, especially in America, where Reformation teachings took root and grew more quickly than in the rest of the world, having been planted in virgin soil completely uncontaminated by the apostasy of the previous twelve centuries.

American Founding Fathers and leaders (including John Adams) made a clear distinction between America’s Period III Christianity and Europe’s Period II Christianity. For example, Noah Webster emphatically declared:

The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion, but abuses and corruptions of it.²³

Daniel Webster agreed, rejoicing that American Christianity was . . .

Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [bundles of wood for burning individuals at the stake] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!²⁴

Other Founding Fathers made similar distinctions, including John Jay (the original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court and a co-author of the Federalist Papers), who declared that the Period III Christianity practiced in America was “wise and virtuous,”²⁵ and John Quincy Adams described it as “civilized”²⁶– terms certainly not associated with Period II Christianity.

Significantly, the six phrases identified above from Adams’ letter all refer to specific Period II perversions of orthodox Biblical teachings regarding the Holy Spirit; but Pinto, in his practice of Modernism and Minimalism, ignored all of Adams’ references to this. Consider what Pinto missed by disregarding Adams’ first three aforementioned phrases: “monarch to monarch,” “the holy oil in the vial at Rheims,” and “brought down from Heaven by a dove.”

In 496 AD in the city of Reims, Clovis was converted to Christianity and anointed King of France. Four centuries later, the Archbishop of Reims, attempting to convince the people that kings were the sovereign choice of God to rule the nation, claimed that when Clovis was about to be made king, the anointing oil could not be found. Perplexed as to what to do, the Archbishop claimed that God Himself miraculously sent from Heaven a dove (which church leaders believed to be the Holy Spirit) that carried down to earth a vial of special anointing oil.

This oil was kept in the Cathedral of Reims, and over the next millennia was used to anoint every French king (except one). Whenever the oil was moved or utilized in a coronation, it was accompanied by fifty guards, led by a high priest adorned in golden garb and jewels – reminiscent of the high priest in the Bible moving the Ark of the Covenant.

French tyrants in Church and State used this so-called “doctrine” that holy oil was carried from Heaven by the Holy Spirit to keep the people subjugated to the deplorable heresy of the Divine Right of Kings – a doctrine hated by every Reformation follower and student of the Bible. Thus Adams’ statement that “the Holy Ghost is transmitted from monarch to monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a dove” is a direct reference to very specific and corrupt church doctrines of Period II.

Given the power that the oil of Reims exercised over the minds of the people, it is not surprising that monarchs in other nations, including England, wanted something similar for their own use. English king Edward II (1284-1327 AD) therefore claimed that the anointing oil he used for his coronation was given by the Virgin Mary directly to St. Thomas of Canterbury, who performed the ceremony. This vial of oil was kept safely sequestered under lock and key, to be used only for anointing new kings. This is what Adams described as “that other phial [vial] which I have seen in the Tower of London.” Adams had been America’s diplomat to France and to England, and he had first-hand knowledge of how their “holy” oil and its accompanying doctrine was used in both countries to subjugate the people under the influence of “kingcraft” and “priestcraft” – two more key phrases that Pinto also disregarded.

Adams despised the claim that either the French and British vials of oil had been brought from Heaven by the Holy Spirit. He believed that this false doctrine had caused incomparable suffering in the world. The French people finally came to the same conclusion, for following the French Revolution, they entered the Cathedral at Reims and broke the vial of oil so that it could never again be used to anoint another French tyrant to rule their nation.

Now having a general grasp of this period of both church and world history to which Adams specifically refers in his letter, reexamine his words with this background in mind.

Adams begins by first establishing the accepted doctrine of the Holy Spirit according to Period III Reformation Christianity, telling Rush:

But my friend there is something very serious in this business. The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost, Who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the bishop on the heads of candidates for the ministry.²⁷

This statement is sound, solid, orthodox Christian doctrine. But Adams then contrasts that positive statement about the Holy Spirit with the perverted doctrine from Period II:

In the same manner, as the Holy Ghost is transmitted from monarch to monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a dove and by that other phial [vial] which I have seen in the Tower of London.²⁸

Notice his use of the very important phrase: “In the same manner, as . . .” That is, having stated the right doctrine of the Holy Ghost, he now looks at the distortion of it – at how it was presented falsely “in the same manner,” but this time not in regards to “candidates for the ministry” (i.e., the Church, which is the proper use), but rather by wrongly teaching that the Holy Ghost is transferred from king to king (i.e., the State, which is not the proper use) by way of the oil brought from Heaven. Concerning this perverted view of the Holy Spirit from Period II, Adams laments:

Although this is all artifice and cunning in the sacred original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lay down their lives under the ax or the fiery fagot [bundle of wood used for burning individuals at the stake] for it. Alas, the poor weak ignorant dupe, human nature. There is so much king craft, priest craft, gentlemens craft, peoples craft, doctors craft, lawyers craft, merchants craft, tradesmens craft, laborers craft, and Devils craft in the world that it seems a desperate [hopeless] and impractical project to undeceive it.²⁹

Adams clearly is not condemning Christianity or Biblical doctrine regarding the Holy Ghost, but is rather reproaching its twisting during Period II, noting that those who follow the Divine Right of Kings maldoctrine are willing to die for their belief “under the ax or the fiery fagots,” and thus suffer from that “poor weak ignorant dupe, human nature” – that is, human depravity is on full display, and so thoroughly convinced of the truth of this maldoctrine were its followers that it even seemed a waste of time to Adams to try to convince them otherwise.

By the way, many today do not understand the historical use of the term “priestcraft”; it is not a derogatory term used against ministers of the Gospel. As explained by one of the most famous evangelical Christian preachers of the Founding Era, Baptist minister John Leland:

By Priest-Craft, no contempt is designed to be cast upon any of the Lord’s priest’s, from Melchizedeck to Zecharias, nor upon any of the ministers of Christ, either those who have been remarkably endowed with power from on high to work miracles, &c. or those of ordinary endowments, who have been governed by supreme love to the Savior and benevolence to mankind. These, to the world, have been like the stars of night. But by priest-craft is intended the rushing into the sacred work for the sake of ease, wealth, honor, and ecclesiastical dignity. Whether they plead lineal succession or Divine impulse, their course is directed for self-advantage. By good words and fair speeches, they deceive the simple; and [use] solemn threatening of fines, gibbets [the gallows], or the flames of hell to those who do not adhere to their institutes.³⁰

But to Americans such as John Leland and John Adams, the possibility of government officials placing church officials over America (i.e., “kingcraft” and “priestcraft”) was not something of the ancient past – it was still a potential imminent danger to be feared and fiercely repelled. In fact, John Adams repeatedly avowed that one of the principal causes behind the American Revolution had been the possibility of having the king appoint a bishop over America.³¹

Adams letter to Rush merely reinforces the contempt that he and most Americans had for the autocratic Divine Right of Kings doctrine – a doctrine still believed by many at that time to have been delivered directly from Heaven by the Holy Spirit Himself. Adams saw this as a complete perversion of true Bible teachings regarding the role of the Holy Spirit. He therefore queried of Rush:

Do you wonder that Voltaire and Paine have made proselytes [converts]? Yet there [is] near as much subtlety, craft, and hypocrisy in Voltaire and Paine, and more, too, than in Ignatious Loyola [a Spanish knight who was a founder of the Jesuits].³²

That is, given the bad “Christian” teachings that caused so much misery and suffering across Europe, it was not surprising that atheists and anti-religionists such as Voltaire and Paine had such a strong following. It remains an unfortunate fact to this day that non-Biblical Christianity and non-Biblical Christians still drive people away from the Christian faith rather than to it. As affirmed by the Apostle Paul in Romans 2:24, “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” – that is, it is God’s people who often give God a bad name among non-believers. (The prophet Nathan stated the same message in 2 Samuel 12:24 when he said to David, “By this deed, you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.”)

The final evidence that Adams was not being disrespectful to the Holy Ghost or Christians in his letter is seen in his closing statement to Rush that:
Your prophecy, my dear friend, has not become history as yet.³³

This is a very respectful reference to the dream Rush believed that God had given him. There is nothing derogatory or scornful in Adams’ reference to “prophecy” – a direct and positive product of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21).

Chris Pinto, in his analysis of Adams letter, has managed to ignore more than a millennia of church and world history in his unreasonable attempt to brand John Adams a heretic and blasphemer of the Holy Spirit. And adding insult to his malpractice injury, he also ignored more than thirty volumes of Adams’ published writings, containing hundreds of positive letters and repeated favorable references to religion and Christianity. Thus, Pinto’s claim about Adams’ irreligion is directly refuted not only by the context of the letter itself but also by the powerful evidence of the lifelong proven faith and character of John Adams.

In fact, in the very next letter Adams wrote Rush following letter that Pinto attacks, Adams vigorously defended Christianity against the attack made upon it by Thomas Paine, telling Rush:

He [Thomas Paine] understood neither government nor religion. . . . His billingsgate [vile and vulgar attack] . . . will never discredit Christianity, which will hold its ground in some degree as long as human nature shall have anything moral or intellectual left in it. The Christian religion. . . . will last as long as the world. Neither savage nor civilized man without a revelation could ever have discovered or invented it. Ask me not, then, whether I am a Catholic or Protestant, Calvinist or Arminian. As far as they are Christians, I wish to be a fellow-disciple with them all.³⁴

This letter certainly does not reflect either the tone or the attitude of an heretic who would attack and blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Consider some of the scores of other quotes by John Adams, and contrast them with the anti-religious image that Pinto wrongly attempts to draw of Adams:

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!³⁵ 1756
I sat next to John Adams in Congress, and upon my whispering to him and asking him if he thought we should succeed in our struggle with Great Britain, he answered me, “Yes – if we fear God and repent of our sins.” This anecdote will, I hope, teach my boys that it is not necessary to disbelieve Christianity or to renounce morality in order to arrive at the highest political usefulness or fame.³⁶ 1777, Benjamin Rush, Reporting His Conversation with Adams
The idea of infidelity [a disbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures or the Divine origin of Christianity³⁷] cannot be treated with too much resentment or too much horror. The man who can think of it with patience is a traitor in his heart and ought to be execrated [denounced] as one who adds the deepest hypocrisy to the blackest treason.³⁸ 1778
[All persons elected must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I do declare that I believe the Christian religion and have firm persuasion of its truth.”³⁹ 1780, Constitution of Massachusetts (Adams wan an Author of this Clause)
On motion of the Hon. Mr. [John] Adams, Voted, That the Convention will attend morning prayers daily, and that the gentlemen of the clergy of every denomination be requested to officiate in turn.⁴⁰ 1788, Massachusetts Convention to Ratify the U. S. Constitution
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.⁴¹ 1796
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. . . . I have therefore thought fit to recommend . . . a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer that the citizens of these States . . . offer their devout addresses to the Father of Mercies.⁴² 1798
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.⁴³ 1798
The Bible contains the most profound philosophy, the most perfect morality, and the most refined policy that ever was conceived upon earth. . . .The curses against fornication and adultery, and the prohibition of every wanton glance or libidinous ogle at a woman, I believe to be the only system that ever did or ever will preserve a republic in the world. . . . I say then that national morality never was and never can be preserved without the utmost purity and chastity in women; and without national morality a republican government cannot be maintained.⁴⁴ 1807
I think there is nothing upon this earth more sublime and affecting than the idea of a great nation all on their knees at once before their God, acknowledging their faults and imploring His blessing and protection.⁴⁵ 1809
[I]t is notorious enough that I have been a church-going animal for seventy-six years from the cradle.⁴⁶ 1811
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were . . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed (and now believe) that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.⁴⁷ 1813
I have examined all [religions], . . . and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.⁴⁸ 1813
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.⁴⁹ 1817

There are numerous similar quotes by Adams. This certainly is not the profile of an individual who would blaspheme the Holy Spirit, Christianity, or religion.

One other point that illustrates the absurd results which occur under Modernism is John Adams’ request that Rush burn the letter after he reads it:

This letter is so much in the tone of my friend the Abbe Raynal [a French writer] and the grumblers of the last age, that I pray you to burn it.⁵⁰

Critics also point to this phrase as yet another proof that Adams was blaspheming Christians – that he did not want his true sacrilegious opinions to be known, so he asked Rush to burn the letter. But just as Pinto apparently had no idea what Adams meant when he referenced the oil at Reims or in the Tower of London, apparently critics did not know that a request to burn letters was a common practice in that era (especially for former presidents), regardless of the topic covered in the letter.

For example, after the death of George Washington in 1799, Martha burned all of the letters that had passed between them (only three remain today).⁵¹ George also asked friends to burn letters he sent them.⁵²

It was the same with Thomas Jefferson. Even with individuals whom he completely trusted, he would often ask his friends to return the letter after they read it,⁵³ or else burn, destroy, or keep its contents private.⁵⁴

James Madison also destroyed much of his correspondence, and Dolly Madison did the same with hers. In fact, in much of her correspondence that did survive, she often asked her recipients to burn her letter after reading it.⁵⁵ Even individuals who wrote to Madison asked that he burn their letter.⁵⁶

John Adams had the same practice.⁵⁷

Pinto’s preposterous analysis of Adams’ letter is based on the flawed practices of Modernism and Minimalism. Unfortunately, he repeats these same practices throughout his other videos, frequently taking deep multi-faceted issues, failing to recognize or acknowledge crucial references to historical events or practices, and presenting an especially negative view of history. It is for this reason that Pinto is also a Deconstructionist.

Deconstructionism (another of the five malpractices in the modern study of history) is an approach that “tends to deemphasize or even efface the subject” – that is, to malign or smear the subject by posing “a continuous critique” to “lay low what was once high.”⁵⁸ It is a steady flow of belittling and malicious portrayals of traditional heroes, beliefs, values, and institutions. Deconstructionists happily point out everything that can possibly be portrayed as a flaw, even if they have to distort information to do it; yet they remain ominously silent about the multitude of reasons to be proud of America, her many heroes, and her many successes. As a result of the work of Deconstructionists, most Americans today can recite more of what’s wrong with America and the Founding Fathers than what’s right.

It is time for Americans, and especially Christians, to become better informed about America’s remarkable moral, religious, and constitutional foundations and to reject the efforts of Deconstructionists who attempt to undermine so many positive aspects of America’s extraordinary heritage – a heritage that has provided unprecedented blessings, and a heritage for which we should be humbly grateful to Almighty God.

Endnotes

¹ John Adams letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush on December 21, 1809, from an original in WallBuilders’ Collection.

² See, for example, a series of podcasts “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers,” Waking Jonah, accessed June 13, 2011.

³ Chris Pinto, “David Barton Approves of Sharia Law in America and Misleads Jon Stewart?,” Worldview Times, April 10, 2011.

⁴ Chris Pinto, “David Barton Approves of Sharia Law in America and Misleads Jon Stewart?,” Worldview Times, April 10, 2011.

⁵ Of the 27, 14 women and 5 men were tried, found guilty and hung; 1 man was tortured to death by crushing because he refused to cooperate with the court and answer their questions. To persuade him to talk they took him to a field and put a board on him with rocks, they increased the number of rocks until he would cooperate but he continued to refuse and was crushed to death. He was therefore never convicted but he is considered the 20th victim as he was on trial for being a wizard. And 7 individuals died in prison awaiting trial; one was a baby in prison with her mother, who was awaiting trial as a witch. Salem Witch Museum, January 13, 2011, per the museum’s Department of Education.

⁶ William Warren Sweet, The Story of Religion in America (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950), 61.

⁷ Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth (Nashville: Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), 110.

⁸ Galloway, Christianity and American (1898), 110.

⁹ Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mather, Increase” and “Brattle, Thomas.” See also “The Salem Witch Trials: Reason Returns,” Court TV: Crime Library, accessed February 3, 2011.

¹⁰ Sweet, Story of Religion (1950), 62.

¹¹ Galloway, Christianity and American (1898), 90.

¹² John Adams letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush on December 21, 1809, from an original in WallBuilders’ Collection.

¹³ Chris Pinto, “David Barton Approves of Sharia Law in America and Misleads Jon Stewart?,” Worldview Times, April 10, 2011.

¹⁴ Clinton Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic: Origin of the American Tradition of Political Liberty (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1953), 2.

¹⁵ John Wise, A Vindication of the Government of New-England Churches (Boston: John Boyles, 1772), 3.

¹⁶ Wise, Vindication of the Government (1772), 5.

¹⁷ “Medieval Sourcebook: Banning of Other Religions, Theodosian Code XVI.1.2,” Fordham University.

¹⁸ Samuel Smith Harris, The Relation of Christianity to Civil Society (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1883), 62.

¹⁹ Joseph Blötzer, transcribed by Matt Dean, “Inquisition,” The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910), VIII, Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

²⁰ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New Haven, 1828), s.v., “kingcraft” and “priestcraft.”

²¹ Wise, Vindication of the Government (1772), 6.

²² J. M. Mathews, The Bible and Civil Government, in a Course of Lectures (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851), 231.

²³ Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), 339.

²⁴ Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defense of the Christian Ministry and In favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1844), 52.

²⁵ John Jay, “Charge to the Grand Jury of Ulster County,” September 9,1777, William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York:J. &J. Harper, 1833), 80.

²⁶ John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), 17.

²⁷ John Adams letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush on December 21, 1809, from an original in WallBuilders’ Collection.

²⁸ John Adams letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush on December 21, 1809, from an original in WallBuilders’ Collection.

²⁹ John Adams letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush on December 21, 1809, from an original in WallBuilders’ Collection.

³⁰ John Leland, The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland, Including Some Events in His Life (New York: G. W. Wood, 1845), 484.

³¹ John Adams to Dr. Jedediah Morse, December 2, 1815, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), X:185. See also letter from John Adams to Jonathan Mason, August 31, 1820, National Archives.

³² John Adams letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush on December 21, 1809, from an original in WallBuilders’ Collection.

³³ John Adams letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush on December 21, 1809, from an original in WallBuilders’ Collection.

³⁴ Adams to Benjamin Rush, January 21,1810, Works of John Adams, ed. Adams (1854), IX:626- 267.

³⁵ Adams, diary entry for February 22, 1756, Works of John Adams, ed. Adams (1850), II:6-7.

³⁶ Benjamin Rush to John Adams on February 24, 1790, Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L. H. Butterfield (NJ: American Philosophical Society, 1951), I:534.

³⁷ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), s.v. “infidelity.”

³⁸ John Adams to James Warren, August 4, 1778, Papers of John Adams, ed. Robert J. Taylor (Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 1983), 6:348.

³⁹ A Constitution or Frame of Government Agreed Upon by the Delegates of the People of the State of Massachusetts-Bay (Boston: Benjamin Edes & Sons, 1780), 44, Chapter VI, Article I.

⁴⁰ The Debates in the Several Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, ed. Jonathan Elliot (Washington: Printed for the Editor, 1836), II:2, Massachusetts Convention, January 9, 1788.

⁴¹ John Adams diary entry for July 26, 1796, Works of John Adams, ed. Adams (1856), III:421.

⁴² Adams, “Proclamation for a National Fast on March 23, 1798,” Works of John Adams, ed. Adams (1854), IX:169.

⁴³ Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798, Works of John Adams, ed. Adams (1854), IX:229.

⁴⁴ John Adams to Benjamin Rush, February 2, 1807, Old Family Letters, ed. Alexander Biddle (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1892), 127-128.

⁴⁵ John Adams, Works of John Adams, ed. Adams (1854), IX:291, originally published in the Boston Patriot, 1809, Letter XIII.

⁴⁶ Adams to Benjamin Rush, August 28, 1811, Works of John Adams, ed. Adams, editor (1854), IX:637.

⁴⁷ John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), XIII:293.

⁴⁸ John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813, Works of John Adams, ed. Adams (1856), X:85.

⁴⁹ Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817, Works of John Adams, ed. Adams (1856), X:254.

⁵⁰ John Adams letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush on December 21, 1809, from an original in WallBuilders’ Collection.

⁵¹ “Slide Four—A Family Man: A Letter to Martha,” The University of Virginia, accessed June 6, 2011.

⁵² See, for example, George Washington to Arthur Young, December 12, 1793, Letters from His Excellency General Washington to Arthur Young (London: B. McMillan, 1801), 159; George Washington to Clement Biddle, July 20, 1790, The Writings of George Washington, ed. Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891), XI:490; George Washington to George William Fairfax, June 25, 1786, The Writings of George Washington, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston: Russell, Odiorne, and Metcalf, and Hilliard, Gray, and Co., 1835), IX:175.

⁵³ Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, August 22, 1813, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, ed. Thomas Jefferson Randolph (Charlottesville: F. Carr, and Co., 1829), IV:206; Jefferson to F. A. Van Der Kemp, April 25, 1816, Writings of Jefferson, ed. Lipscomb (1903), XV:1.

⁵⁴ See, for example, Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), IX:459, note. See also Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820, Memoir, ed. Randolph (1830), IV:320; Benjamin Rush to Thomas Jefferson, May 5, 1803, Letters, ed. Butterfield (1951), II:863-864; Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, May 11, 1785, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), IV:413; Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799, Works of Jefferson, ed. Ford (1905), IX; Jefferson to Horatio Gates Spafford, January 10, 1816, Works of Jefferson, ed. Ford (1905), Vol. XI; Jefferson to James Cheetham, January 17, 1802, Works of Jefferson, ed. Ford (1905), IX.

⁵⁵ “James Madison’s Nieces and Nephews,” University of Virginia Press, accessed June 8, 2011.

⁵⁶ See, for example, James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell, September 7, 1829, The Writings of James Madison, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900), IX.

⁵⁷ See, for example, John Adams to John Tudor, July 23, 1774, Works of John Adams, ed. Adams (856), IX.

⁵⁸ Jack M. Balkin, “Tradition, Betrayal, and the Politics of Deconstruction – Part II,” Yale University, 1998.

Christmas-As Celebrated by the Presidents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Daniel Lapin agrees:

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

So . . . Merry Christmas!!!

David Barton & the ADL

On June 9th, 1994 the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) published unsubstantiated and scurrilous slanders against more than a dozen major Christian leaders including Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Donald Wildmon, Phyllis Schlafly, Jay Sekulow, and David Barton.

The title of the now thoroughly discredited publication was “The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America.” Its contention, expressed in incendiary and intemperate language, was that adherence to Christian faith represented an “assault on tolerance and pluralism in America.”

David Cantor, the ADL researcher who wrote the report, and soon thereafter sought employment elsewhere, admitted to the New York Times that he never contacted any of the individuals or groups he slandered for their statements or reactions. Furthermore, he confessed that his report comprised almost entirely statements about the selected Christian leaders that had been written by their opponents. In a flagrant violation of journalistic ethics, he conducted no direct interviews of his subjects.

The abhorrence felt toward this baseless attack upon some of Judaism and Israel’s staunchest friends provoked a firestorm of criticism against the ADL in the mainstream Jewish community. A number of ADL leaders and board members made their objections widely known or resigned their positions in protest. This included well-respected leaders like Carl Pearlston, Phillip Aronoff, Fred Zeidman, and Houston attorney Gary Polland who later told New York magazine that “the liberal Jewish community is the enemy” and “the intellectual backbone of everything that’s wrong in this country.”

On August 2nd, responding to the ADL, the organization I had established and was privileged to lead, Toward Tradition, placed a large paid advertisement on a page of the New York Times. The headline read “Should Jews Fear The Religious Right?” and continued, “We are a group of Jews who wish to make it known that we reject the implications of this report and deplore its publication.” This national indictment of the ADL was signed by eighty-nine prominent Jewish leaders and made clear that most American Jews condemned the Anti-Defamation League for engaging in defamation of its own in its attack on leaders of the religious right.

In response to a vigorous protest by Pat Robertson, on August 3rd, the ADL’s National Director, Abraham Foxman wrote a letter to the evangelical leader in which he admitted to major inaccuracies and slanders in the report. Foxman’s letter also retracted the accusation found in the ADL report that in a 1980 staff meeting Robertson had referred to Jews as “spiritually deaf” and “spiritually blind.”

Syndicated columnist, Mona Charen, wrote, “The ADL has committed defamation. There is no other conclusion to be reached after reading its new report, The Religious Right: the Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America. It is sad that an organization with a proud history of fairness should have descended to this kind of character assassination and name calling.”

During the summer of 1994, Minnesota Senator, Rudy Boschwitz, who had been an honorary vice-chairman of the ADL wrote: “I always believed that the ADL considered diverse opinions permissible …. Indeed, they have just produced a scathing report about a group they maintain doesn’t allow such diversity. Could it be that our own ADL is itself assaulting pluralism and tolerance in America?”

The Jewish newspaper, The Forward, reported that William Kristol, son of Jewish intellectual Irving Kristol, and who was Vice President Dan Quayle’s chief of staff, said, “It is so shortsighted and self-destructive for a Jewish organization like the ADL to unjustly and gratuitously alienate Christian conservatives.” Kristol also said that the ADL is part of the Democratic Party’s strategy to “demonize religious conservatives.”

Herb Zweibon, head of Americans for a Safe Israel said the ADL report is a “slap in the face” to friends of Israel and indicated “that the ADL has veered off course and adopted a new ultra-liberal agenda that has nothing to do with ADL’s stated purposes.” He praised the Christian right for standing by Israel when others turned out to be “fair-weather friends.”

The September 1994 issue of Commentary magazine published by the American Jewish Committee carried a stinging denunciation of the ADL and its, by then, notorious report. It was written by Midge Decter the distinguished fellow at the Institute on Religion and Public Life.

A son-in-law of Midge Decter, Elliot Abrams who had served in both the Reagan and Bush administrations termed the ADL report “despicable.”

By the end of 1994, virtually the entire Jewish community had rejected the report as not only false and evil but also as stupid and a self-serving act of unconscionable ingratitude to some of the Jewish community’s greatest friends.

Originally created to combat the extensive anti-Semitism prevalent in the early twentieth century, ninety years later the ADL had become enormously successful with an annual budget of about fifty million dollars. Many have asked how the ADL could possibly have embarked upon this ill-advised adventure, defaming the friends and allies of the Jewish community and bringing embarrassment to itself. The answer offered by most Jewish commentators and by former members of the ADL is that by the 1990s, active anti-Semitism in America was largely extinct and the organization was becoming irrelevant.

In order to redesign its purpose and rediscover relevance, it repackaged itself as a national advocate of secular liberalism. It was chiefly responsible for popularizing the equation that Judaism equals liberalism, thus allowing the demonization of all anti-liberals (conservatives) as anti-Semites.

For this reason, the ADL declined to support then Jewish Dr. Laura Schlesinger in the attempts by the homosexual community to destroy her broadcasting career. The ADL also flouted Jewish tradition and values by taking public positions in favor of homosexual marriage and in favor of aggressive gun control, arguing against the conventional understanding of the 2nd Amendment. In the attack against the Boy Scouts of America mounted by the homosexual community, the ADL backed the homosexual plaintiffs all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its nationwide partnership with Barnes and Noble in the program Hate Hurts the ADL endorsed the books Heather Has Two Mommies and Steve Has Two Daddies as suitable tools for teaching tolerance to young children. In short, as anti-Semitism declined in America, the ADL found a new reason to exist and a new reason to raise large sums of money for its headquarters and staff. (Abraham Foxman, national director of ADL earns annual compensation of about half a million dollars and was disgraced by his role in persuading President Bill Clinton to issue a pardon for tax fugitive Marc Rich, a major ADL contributor.)

In conclusion, few of prominence and respectability in the Jewish community today regard the ADL as a responsible voice for Judaism. Wags dismiss the ADL as the circumcised wing of the Democratic Party.

The reputations of all those maligned in the hateful 1994 report have suffered no setbacks and if anything, the Jewish community looks toward those named with appreciation and gratitude for their staunch defense of those values that have made the United States of America the most tranquil and prosperous haven Jews have experienced in the past two millennia.

As someone who has been a rabbi and Jewish community leader for several decades, the undersigned wishes personally to thank David Barton of Wallbuilders along with the other leaders defamed in that sixteen-year-old mistake for all they have done for Judeo-Christian values in America and to express his willingness to be contacted personally by anyone seeking further information on this shameful episode in the history of a once proud and valuable organization, the Anti-Defamation League.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin

The American Alliance of Jews and Christians.

Religious Acknowledgments in the Capitol Visitor Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calling Muslims to the Capitol?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God Bless!

David Barton

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

The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion?

Was the American Revolution an act of rebellion against God and the Bible? Many today claim that it was. For example, John McArthur (Pastor of Grace Community Church and host of the national radio program “Grace to You”) asserts:

People have mistakenly linked democracy and political freedom to Christianity. That’s why many contemporary evangelicals believe the American Revolution was completely justified, both politically and scripturally. They follow the arguments of the Declaration of Independence, which declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are Divinely endowed rights. . . . But such a position is contrary to the clear teachings and commands of Romans 13:1-7. So the United States was actually born out of a violation of New Testament principles, and any blessings God has bestowed on America have come in spite of that disobedience by the Founding Fathers.¹

Oklahoma church leader Albert Soto similarly claims:

The Colonists’ act of rebellion flies in the face of [Romans 13:1,2]. Did they overlook this verse? No, these were not men ignorant of Scripture. In fact, they used Scripture to support their cause in the most devious of ways. The deception that prevailed during this period of history was immense. God and Scripture was the vehicle of mobilization that unified the cause, gave it credence, and allowed the Deist leaders at the top to move the masses toward rebellion. Scripture was the Forefathers’ most useful tool of propaganda.²

Others hold the same position.³ In fact, Dr. Daryl Cornett of Mid-America Theological Seminary maintains that the American Revolution occurred because . . .

Deistic and Unitarian tendencies in regards to religion. . . . were of such strength that even orthodox Christians were swept up into rebellion against their governing authorities. . . . Those Christians who supported physical resistance against the tyranny of Britain generally turned to Enlightenment rhetoric for validation, propped up by poor exegesis and application of the Bible.

While such charges certainly reflect the personal views of these critics, they definitely do not accurately reflect the extended theological debates that occurred at the time of the American Revolution. In fact, contrary to Dr. Cornett’s claim that the Founding Fathers “turned to Enlightenment rhetoric for validation” of the American Revolution, the topic of civil disobedience and resistance to governing authorities had been a subject of serious theological inquiries for centuries before the Enlightenment. This was especially true during the Reformation, when the subject was directly addressed by theologians such as Frenchman John Calvin,⁴ German Martin Luther,⁵ Swiss Reformation leader Huldreich Zwingli,⁶ and numerous others.⁷

It was not strange that such Biblical discussions should have arisen in that period, for many tyrannical civil leaders who felt personally threatened by Biblical Reformation teachings attempted to suppress the spread of those teachings through bloody purges, brutal tortures, and barbaric persecutions – such as when French leaders conducted the famous St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572, resulting in 110,000 Reformation followers being killed, or when Henry VIII (1491-1547) similarly utilized public executions and burnings at the stake (a practice continued by Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth I, and subsequent monarchs). In fact, those civil leaders even deliberately enacted laws specifically prohibiting Reformation adherents from practicing their Scriptural beliefs.

Facing such civil opposition, Reformation leaders turned to the Bible and found much guidance on the subject of civil disobedience and resistance to tyrannical civil authority. In fact, numerous famous heroes of the Bible – including many of those listed in the “Faith Hall of Fame” in Hebrews 11 as well as in other passages – were accorded their special position of honor because they committed civil disobedience (e.g., Daniel, the Three Hebrew Children, the Hebrew midwives, Rahab, Moses, etc.; and the Apostles in Acts 4-5 also declared their willingness to be civilly disobedient against tyrannical commands of civil and religious rulers).

Some of the important theological works on the subject of civil disobedience and resistance published during that time included the 1556 Short Treatise of Politic Power and of the True Obedience which Subjects Owe to Kings and Other Civil Governors by Bishop John Poynet (1516-1566), and the 1579 Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (A Defense Of Liberty Against Tyrants), published by French Reformation theologian Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1549-1623) and French Reformation leader Hubert Languet (1518-1581) in response to the horrific St. Bartholomew Day Massacre. Both works undertook an in-depth Biblical examination of how God’s people throughout the Scriptures had responded to civil rulers, including both good and bad rulers. Those theological discussions continued in England during the brutal reign of Henry VIII (1491-1547), the repressive abuses of James I (1566-1625), and the ruthless rule of the Tudor monarchs, including that of Bloody Mary (1516-1558).

In fact, James I, in addition to using brutal persecutions and murders to help combat the theological teachings and writings leveled against him, even ordered Church leaders (recall that James I was the official head of the English Church) to concoct two new “church” doctrines: (1) the Divine Right of Kings (that kings stand in the place of God, representing Him to the people), and (2) Complete Submission and Non-Resistance to Authority (that because kings have an allegedly Divine position, they are not to be resisted – ever, for any reason). Not surprisingly, Reformation followers openly opposed James’ “irrational and unscriptural doctrines,”⁸ thus prompting him to level even harsher persecutions against them, including mutilation, hanging, and disemboweling.

In 1644, at a time of unlimited monarchies wherein the king was the absolute law, Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford penned the important theological work Lex Rex, demonstrating that the law is king rather than vice versa. For asserting that Biblical position, Rutherford was eventually charged by British monarchy with high treason but died before he could be tried. Not surprisingly, Lex Rex was banned by the Crown and every person who had a copy was ordered to turn it in to a king’s official.
James II continued the persecution of believers, and not surprisingly, the theological debates also continued. For example, when clergyman Abednego Seller penned a defense of James’ reign, urging complete obedience to the Crown in his Passive Obedience Prov’d to be the Doctrine of the Church of England, from the Reformation to These Times (London, 1689), clergyman Samuel Johnson responded with An Answer to the History of Passive Obedience (London, 1689).

Significantly, the many theological writings penned during these brutal and tyrannical reigns provided the underpinning for the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which: (1) tyrannical monarchs were set aside; (2) England made its first attempts to separate State from Church and thus end religious tyranny and murders wrongly committed in the name of Christ; and (3) representative government was instituted under William of Orange (1650-1702).

When British autocratic tyranny began to increase toward America preceding the Revolution, those ancient theological debates were renewed. The Quakers and Anglicans adopted the position set forth by King James I (and subsequently embraced by Dr. Cornett, Rev. MacArthur, and others of today’s critics), but the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, and most other denominations of that day adopted the theological viewpoint presented by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Rutherford, Poynet, Mornay, Languet, Johnson, and other theologians across the centuries. In fact, John Adams specifically recommended the theological works of Poynet (A Short Treatise of Politic Power, 1556) and Duplessis-Mornay and (A Defense Of Liberty Against Tyrants, 1579) to readers who wanted to understand the theological thinking in the American founding.⁹

On the basis of those numerous historic theological writings (which, significantly, had also been regularly preached from American pulpits for decades prior to the American Revolution¹⁰), Americans embraced two specific theological positions that guided their thinking and conduct in the conflict with Great Britain.

The first was that most Christian denominations during the Founding Era held that while they were forbidden to overthrow the institution of government and live in anarchy, they were not required blindly to submit to every law and policy. Those in the Founding Era understood that the general institution of government was unequivocally ordained by God and was not to be overthrown, but that did not mean that God approved every specific government; God had ordained government in lieu of anarchy – He opposed anarchy, rebellion, lawlessness, and wickedness and wanted civil government in society. Therefore, a crucial determination in the colonists’ Biblical exegesis was whether opposition to authority was simply to resist the general institution of government (an institution ordained by God Himself), or whether it was instead to resist tyrannical leaders who had themselves rebelled against God. (The Scriptural model for this position was repeatedly validated when God Himself raised up leaders such as Gideon, Ehud, Jepthah, Samson, and Deborah to throw off tyrannical governments – leaders subsequently praised in Hebrews 11:32 for those acts of faith.) That the Founders held the view that the institution of government is not to be opposed but that tyranny is, is a position clearly evident in their writings.
For example, Founding Father James Otis explained that the only king who had a “Divine right” was God Himself; beyond that, God had ordained that power should rest with the people (c.f., Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 1:15-16, etc.):

Has it [government] any solid foundation? – any chief cornerstone. . . ? I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God. . . . Government. . . . is by no means an arbitrary thing depending merely on compact or human will for its existence. . . . There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature and the grant of God Almighty, Who has given to all men a natural right to be free; and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so if they please….If both those powers are retained in the hands of the many (where nature seems to have placed them originally), the government is a simple democracy, or a government of all over all. . . . [God is] the only monarch in the universe Who has a clear and indisputable right to absolute power because He is the only one Who is omniscient as well as omnipotent.¹¹

Founding Father John Dickinson (a signer of the Constitution) also affirmed that spiritual view:

Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness. . . . We claim them from a higher source – from the King of kings and Lord of all the earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us, exist with us, and cannot be taken from us by any human power without taking our lives.¹²

In fact, Samuel Adams (the “Father of the American Revolution” and a signer of the Declaration of Independence) specifically recommended a study of the Scriptures in order to understand the basis of America’s struggle against a tyrannical king, explaining that:

The Rights of the Colonists as Christians. . . . may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.¹³

The Founders clearly believed that they were not in rebellion to God’s ordained institution of civil government; they were only resisting tyranny and not the institution itself. In fact, Rev. Jacob Duché (a supporter of the British) argued from the Bible in favor of the American position, explaining:

Inasmuch as all rulers are in fact the servants of the public and appointed for no other purpose than to be “a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them that do well” [c.f., Rom. 13:3], whenever this Divine order is inverted – whenever these rulers abuse their sacred trust by unrighteous attempts to injure, oppress, and enslave those very persons from whom alone, under God, their power is derived – does not humanity, does not reason, does not Scripture, call upon the man, the citizen, the Christian of such a community to “stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ….hath made them free!” [Galatians 5:1] The Apostle enjoins us to “submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake,” but surely a submission to the unrighteous ordinances of unrighteous men, cannot be “for the Lord’s sake,” for “He loveth righteousness and His countenance beholds the things that are just.”¹⁴

Despite the Americans embracing what they believed to be a fully-supported Biblical position, some British leaders nevertheless specifically accused the Americans of anarchy and rebellion – a charge to which John Quincy Adams forcefully responded:

[T]here was no anarchy. . . . [T]he people of the North American union and of its constituent states were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians in a state of nature but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God (which they all) and by the laws of the Gospel (which they nearly all) acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.¹⁵ (emphasis added)

Declaration signer Francis Hopkinson (also a church musician and choir leader) agreed:

Q. It has often been said, that America is in a state of rebellion. Tell me, therefore, what is Rebellion?
A. It is when a great number of people, headed by one or more factious leaders, aim at deposing their lawful prince without any just cause of complaint in order to place another on his throne.
Q. Is this the case of the Americans?
A. Far otherwise.¹⁶

Reflective of the Founding Father’s belief that they were not rebelling against God or resisting ordained government but only tyranny was the fact that the first national motto proposed for America in August 1776 was “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”¹⁷ – a summation of the famous 1750 sermon¹⁸ preached by the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew (a principle figure in the Great Awakening).

The second Scriptural viewpoint overwhelmingly embraced by most Americans during the Revolutionary Era was that God would not honor an offensive war, but that He did permit civil self-defense (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12, etc.). The fact that the American Revolution was an act of self-defense and was not an offensive war undertaken by the Americans remained a point of frequent spiritual appeal for the Founding Fathers. After all, Great Britain had attacked America, not vice versa; the Americans had never fired the first shot – not in the Boston Massacre of 1770, the bombing of Boston and burning of Charlestown in 1774, or in the attacks on Williamsburg, Concord, or Lexington in 1775.

Illustrative of this belief was the famous command to the Lexington Minutemen, “Don’t fire unless fired upon!” Yet, having been fired upon without having broken any law, the Americans believed they had a Biblical right to self-defense. In fact, the Rev. Peter Powers, in a famous sermon he preached in front of the Vermont Legislature in 1778,¹⁹ specifically noted that America had “taken up arms in its own defense”²⁰ – that she had no initiated the conflict but was only defending herself after being attacked.

The Framers’ writings repeatedly emphasized this point of spiritual appeal. For example, Founding Father Francis Hopkinson made this clear in his 1777 work “A Political Catechism”:

Q. What is war?
A. The curse of mankind; the mother of famine and pestilence; the source of complicated miseries; and the undistinguishing destroyer of the human species.
Q. How is war divided?
A. Into offensive and defensive.
Q. What is the general object of an offensive war? . . .
A. [F]or the most part, it is undertaken to gratify the ambition of a prince, who wishes to subject to his arbitrary will a people whom God created free, and to gain an uncontrolled dominion over their rights and property. . . .
Q. What is defensive war?
A. It is to take up arms in opposition to the invasions of usurped power and bravely suffer present hardships and encounter present dangers, to secure the rights of humanity and the blessings of freedom to generations yet unborn.
Q. Is even defensive war justifiable in a religious view?
A. The foundation of war is laid in the wickedness of mankind . . . . God has given man wit to contrive, power to execute, and freedom of will to direct his conduct. It cannot be but that some, from a depravity of will, will abuse these privileges and exert these powers to the injury of others; and the oppressed would have no safety nor redress but by exerting the same powers in their defense and it is our duty to set a proper value upon and defend to the utmost our just rights and the blessings of life, otherwise a few miscreants [unprincipled individuals] would tyrannize over the rest of mankind, and make the passive multitude the slaves of their power. Thus it is that defensive is not only justifiable but an indispensable duty.
Q. Is it upon these principles that the people of America are resisting the arms of Great Britain, and opposing force with force?
A. Strictly so. . . . And may Heaven prosper their virtuous undertaking!²¹

Founding Father James Wilson (a signer of both the Declaration and the Constitution, and an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court) affirmed:

The defense of one’s self . . . is not, nor can it be, abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defense is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man. It is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those to whom he bears a peculiar relation – of his wife, of his parent, of his child. . . . As a man is justified in defending, so he is justified in retaking his property. . . . Man does not exist for the sake of government, but government is instituted for the sake of man.²²

According to the Founders’ Biblical understanding, the fact that they were engaged in a defensive action made all the difference – they believed that they could boldly approach God and sincerely seek His aid and blessing in such a situation. In fact, so cognizant were American leaders they that they would account to God for their actions – and so convinced were they that they would be held innocent before Him – that the flag of the Massachusetts Army proclaimed “An Appeal to God,” and the flag of the Massachusetts Navy likewise declared an “Appeal to Heaven.”²³

The Continental Congress also issued a manifesto reflecting a similar tone of submission to God:

We, therefore, the Congress of the United States of America, do solemnly declare and proclaim that. . . . [w]e appeal to the God Who searcheth the hearts of men for the rectitude of our intentions; and in His holy presence declare that, as we are not moved by any light or hasty suggestions of anger or revenge, so through every possible change of fortune we will adhere to this our determination.²⁴

Believing that they were thus operating under fundamental Biblical principles, Founding Father Samuel Adams therefore boldly warned British officials:

There is One above us Who will take exemplary vengeance for every insult upon His majesty. You know that the cause of America is just. You know that she contends for that freedom to which all men are entitled – that she contends against oppression, rapine, and more than savage barbarity. The blood of the innocent is upon your hands, and all the waters of the ocean will not wash it away. We again make our solemn appeal to the God of heaven to decide between you and us. And we pray that, in the doubtful scale of battle, we may be successful as we have justice on our side, and that the merciful Savior of the world may forgive our oppressors.²⁵

Significantly, the Americans had been militarily attacked for well over two years before they finally announced a separation; and for eleven years preceding that announcement (from 1765 to 1776), they had diligently pursued reconciliation and not conflict, offering documents such as their famous appeal of 1775 and the May 1776 “Olive Branch Petition,” each of which was submitted in a completely submissive and conciliatory tone. Reflective of this tone was the writing of Founding Father Stephen Hopkins (a signer of the Declaration and Governor of Rhode Island) in which he explained to the British:

We finally beg leave to assert that the first planters of these colonies were pious Christians – were faithful [British] subjects who, with a fortitude and perseverance little known and less considered, settled these wild countries by God’s goodness and their own amazing labors [and] thereby added a most valuable dependence to the crown of Great-Britain; were ever dutifully subservient to her interests; so taught their children that not one has been disaffected to this day but all have honestly obeyed every royal command and cheerfully submitted to every constitutional law; . . . have carefully avoided every offensive measure . . . have never been troublesome or expensive to the mother country; have kept due order and supported a regular government; have maintained peace and practiced Christianity; and in all conditions and in every relation have demeaned themselves as loyal, as dutiful, and as faithful subjects ought; and that no kingdom or state hath, or ever had, colonies more quiet, more obedient, or more profitable than these have ever been.²⁶

The Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon (also a signer of the Declaration) also affirmed:

On the part of America, there was not the most distant thought of subverting the government or of hurting the interest of the people of Great Britain, but of defending their own privileges from unjust encroachment; there was not the least desire of withdrawing their allegiance from the common sovereign [King George III] till it became absolutely necessary – and indeed, it was his own choice.²⁷

Significantly, as Dr. Witherspoon had correctly noted, it was Great Britain who had terminated the entreaties; in fact, during the last two years of America’s appeals, her peaceful pleas were directly met by armed military force. King George III dispatched 25,000 British troops to invade his own Colonies, enter the homes of his own citizens to take their private possessions and goods, and imprison them without trials – all in violation of his own British Common Law, English Bill of Rights, and Magna Carta (centuries old documents that formed the basis of the covenant between British rulers and citizens). Only when those governmental covenants had been broken by their rulers and America had been directly attacked did the Americans respond in self-defense.

On the basis of these two theological understandings (that God Himself had ordained the institution of civil government, and that God had explicitly authorized civil self-defense) the Founding Fathers and the majority of American Christians in that day believed that they were conducting themselves in a manner that was not in rebellion to God or the Scriptures.

Consequently, Dr. Cornett’s claim, as well as those of John MacArthur and other critics, that the Founders “generally turned to Enlightenment rhetoric for validation, propped up by poor exegesis and application of the Bible” merely reflects the side that they have taken in the historic theological debate – the same as if they had been 1776 Quakers arguing against Presbyterians, or Anglicans against Congregationalists. However, just because these modern critics may disagree with the theology of Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Mornay, Rutherford, and other theologians does not mean that from an historical viewpoint the Americans’ approach was “propped up by poor exegesis and application of the Bible,” or that the Founders “generally turned to Enlightenment rhetoric for validation.” It simply means that today’s critics are either uninformed about the actual historical and theological writings from the Reformation through the Revolution, or that they disagree with the theological positions held by the Founding Fathers, theologians, and ministers of that era, but it does not mean that there was no Biblical basis for the American Revolution.

In fact, the spiritual nature of America’s resistance was so clear even to the British that in the British Parliament:

Sir Richard Sutton read a copy of a letter relative to the government of America from a [Crown-appointed] governor in America to the Board of Trade [in Great Britain] showing that. . . . If you ask an American, “Who is his master?” He will tell you he has none – nor any governor but Jesus Christ.²⁸

Such spiritual declarations – confirming what was readily evident even to America’s opponents – certainly are not consistent with what critics inaccurately claim is the Unitarian, Deistic, and Secular Enlightenment rebellion basis of the American Revolution.

Endnotes

¹ Dr. John MacArthur, see his declaration that “the truth of the matter is that our own nation was borne out of a violation of this biblical text.” “The Christian and Government: The Christian’s Responsibility to Government – Part 1,” January 6, 1985, Grace to You, https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/45-97/the-christians-responsibility-to-government-part-1.

² Albert Soto, “The American Revolution Rebellion” A True Church

³ For example, see Dr. Jack Arnold, “Dare You Resist Your Government? Romans 13: 2-4,”IIIM [Third Millennium] Magazine Online, April 16-April 22, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 16, http://cleartheology.com/expo/45Romans/NT.Arnold.Rom.59.html; Dr. John Brug, “The Christian’s Dual Citizenship: Concerning the American Revolution”; Pastor Robert L. Deffinbaugh, “Was the American Revolution Biblically Supported?” August 8, 2008, https://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=6084; etc.

⁴ John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845, the first English translation by Thomas Norton was published in London: 1561, the original Latin version was published in 1536), 4:Ch. 20, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xxi.html.

⁵ Martin Luther, Temporal Authority: To What Extent Should it be Obeyed? (1523), https://www.uoregon.edu/~sshoemak/323/texts/luther~1.htm.

⁶ Americanized Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: Belford-Clarke Co., 1890), 6456-6457, s.v. “Huldreich Zwingli.”

⁷ John Harty, The Catholic Encyclopedia. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912), “Tyrannicide,” https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15108a.htm; Rev. John C. Rager, “Catholic Sources and the Declaration of Independence,” The Catholic Mind, Vol. XXVIII, No. 13, July 8, 1930, https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/catholic-sources-and-the-declaration-of-independence.html.

⁸ J. M. Mathews, The Bible and Civil Government, in a Course of Lectures (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851), 231.

⁹ John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Young, 1797), III:210-211.

¹⁰ See, for example, numerous sermons cited in Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), 22-23, 26, 27-28, 34-37, 65-68, 86-87, 89-95,101-104; sermons by Jonathan Mayhew, A Discourse Concerning the Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers (Boston: 1750), 37-41, Jonathan Ellis, The Justice of the Present War against the French in America, and the Principles that Should Influence us in the Undertaking Asserted: A Sermon Preached to the Soldiers, Sept 22, A.D. 1755. from I Sam. Xviii. 17 (Newport: J. Franklin, 1755), John A. Lidenius, The Lawfulness of Defensive War. A Sermon Preached before the Members of the Church; at Chiechester, in the County of Chester, and Province of Pennsylvania, upon their Association for Defense, February 14, 1756 (Philadelphia: James Chattin, 1756), etc.

¹¹ James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (Boston: J. Williams 1766), 11, 13, 16-18,

¹² John Dickinson, The Political Writings of John Dickinson (Wilmington: Bonsal and Niles, 1801), I:111.

¹³ Samuel Adams, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, ed. William V. Wells (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), I:504.

¹⁴ Jacob Duche, The Duty of Standing Fast in our Spiritual and Temporal Liberties, A Sermon Preached in Christ Church, July 7, 1775. Before the First Battalion of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia (Philadelphia: James Humphreys, Jr., 1775), 13-14.

¹⁵ John Quincy Adams, An Address Delivered at the Request of the Committee of Arrangements for the Celebrating the Anniversary of Independence at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821 upon the Occasion of Reading The Declaration of Independence (Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1821), 28.

¹⁶ Francis Hopkinson, The Miscellaneous Essays and Occasional Writings of Francis Hopkinson, Esq. (Philadelphia: T. Dobson, 1792), I:115-116.

¹⁷ John Adams, Letters of John Adams, Addressed to His Wife, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1841), I:152, letter to Abigail Adams, August 14, 1776.

¹⁸ Jonathan Mayhew, A Discourse Concerning the Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers (New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1968, originally printed in Boston: 1750), 37-41.

¹⁹ The Rev. Peter Powers, Jesus Christ the true King and Head of Government; A Sermon Preached before the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, on the Day of Their First Election, March 12, 1778 at Windsor (Newbury-Port: Printed by John Michael, 1778).

²⁰ The Rev. Peter Powers, Jesus Christ the true King and Head of Government…..March 12, 1778, 18.

²¹ Francis Hopkinson, Miscellaneous Essays and Occasional Writings (1792), I:111-115.

²² James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, ed. Bird Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chuncey, 1804), II:496-497.

²³ Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts. 1776 (Watertown, MA: 1776), 51:III:196-197, April 29, 1776.

²⁴ Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Harry Alonzo Cushing (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), IV:86, “Manifesto of the Continental Congress,” October 30, 1778.

²⁵ Samuel Adams, Writings, ed. Cushing (1904), IV:38, to the Earl of Carlisle and Others, July 16, 1778.

²⁶ Stephen Hopkins, The Grievances of the American Colonies Candidly Examined (London: J. Almon, 1766), 45-48.

²⁷ John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), IX:250, “The Druid,” Number III.

²⁸ Hezekiah Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America (Baltimore: William Ogden Niles, 1822), 198.

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

Topics: Bibles & Religion

A Constitutional Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom

Church in the U.S. Capitol

Endnotes

Benjamin Rush Dream about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

Endnotes

The Bible and Taxes

Capital Gains Taxes

Wages

Income Taxes

Inheritance Taxes

John Adams: Was He Really an Enemy of Christians? Addressing Modern Academic Shallownes

Endnotes

Christmas-As Celebrated by the Presidents

David Barton & the ADL

Religious Acknowledgments in the Capitol Visitor Center

Calling Muslims to the Capitol?

The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion?

QUICK LINKS

OTHER LINKS

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

Endnotes

Endnotes

Capital Gains Taxes

Wages

Income Taxes

Inheritance Taxes

Endnotes

QUICK LINKS

OTHER LINKS

SOCIAL LINKS

Explore

Engage

Initiatives