Bibles & Religion Archives - Page 13 of 19

President Obama’s Misguided Sense of Moral Equivalency

President Obama made headlines by comparing historic Christianity with modern radical Islam. Cautioning Christians, he warned:

And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. . . . So this is not unique to one group or one religion. ¹

The indignation over these remarks was prompt. Even HBO personality Bill Maher – an ardent secularist who has described himself as an atheist – affirmed the president’s error. He noted that to make such a criticism of Christianity requires going back to ancient centuries long ago, while the problem of radical Islam is a very real one right now.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal agreed, declaring: “The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”

He added:

It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast. Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam, the assassination of journalists, the beheading and burning alive of captives. We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today. ²

Pat Buchanan, national columnist and former presidential candidate, concurred:

He’s trying to give them all [i.e., radical Islamicists] equivalence to what happened in the 11th century to what’s happening today? It’s astonishing. . . . Can the president not see the reality of his own time that he’s got to retreat centuries to find what he thinks might be a moral equivalence? ³

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee went even further. Referring to the president’s recent comment that global warming and climate change is the greatest threat facing America today, Huckabee quipped: “…I believe that most of us would think that a beheading is a far greater threat to an American than a sunburn.” ⁴

Historians and political philosophers from across the centuries have long affirmed what the president refuses to acknowledge: a people’s dominant religion (or lack thereof) always exerts a significant influence in shaping their government and behavior. For example, Baron Charles Montesquieu, the most-popular political philosopher of the Founding Era, ⁵ undertook a perusal of a thousand years of world history to assess the impact of religion (especially Islam and Christianity) upon government. He concluded:

The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. . . . [Christian rulers] are more disposed to be directed by laws and more capable of perceiving that they cannot do whatever they please. While the Mahometan princes incessantly give or receive death, the religion of the Christians renders their princes . . . less cruel. ⁶

Many others reached the same finding – including famous American diplomat and U. S. President John Quincy Adams, who noted:

[The] law of nations as practiced among Christian nations . . . is founded upon the principle that the state of nature between men and between nations is a state of peace. But there was a Mohometan law of nations which considered the state of nature as a state of war. ⁷

A half-century later, historian Charles Galloway confirmed:

The Koran puts a premium upon war, offering the highest rewards to those who slay the greatest number of infidels. Mohammed’s cardinal principle (that the end justifies the means) consecrated every form of deception and lying, and encouraged every sort of persecution and violence. . . . The citizen is the slave of the state; he has no rights to be respected. Mohammedanism is an absolute despotism. ⁸

Half-a-century after Galloway, England’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill (who was also a noted historian) concurred:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries [followers]! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement and the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, … but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilization of modern Europe might fall as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. ⁹

Based on the obvious difference between the effects of Islam and Christianity upon a nation, Montesquieu concluded:

A moderate [non-violent, non-coercive] government is most agreeable to the Christian religion, and a despotic government to the Mahometan. . . . From the characters of the Christian and Mahometan religions, we ought without any further examination to embrace the one and reject the other; for it is much easier to prove that religion ought to humanize the manners of men than that any particular religion is true. ¹⁰

Significantly, if one tabulates the loss of lives occasioned by so-called Christian governments over the 2,000 year history of Christianity (such as the Inquisition, and even the Crusades – which were largely Christian attempts to repel militant Muslim jihadist invasions made into Judeo-Christian regions ¹¹), a very generous count of the total deaths that may be laid at the doorstep of Christianity is about five million. But the number of lives lost at the hands of secular, non-, and anti-Christian leaders and governments in just the 20th century alone is well over 100 million.

That includes the 1.5 million Christian Armenians massacred by Muslim Turks ¹² on just one occasion beginning in 1915; the 62 million killed by the secular Soviet Communists; the 35 million by the secular Chinese Communists; the 1.7 million by the secular Vietnamese Communists; the 1 million in the Polish Ethnic Cleansing; the 1 million in Yugoslavia; the 1.7 million in North Korea ¹³, and other non- or anti-Christian regimes.

And the number of deaths perpetrated by such leaders is enormous, including the murder of 42.7 million by Joseph Stalin; Mao Tse-tung, 37.8 million; Adolf Hitler, 20.9 million; Vladimir Lenin, 4 million; Tojo Hideki, 4 million; Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge, 1 million; Yahya Khan, 1.5 million; ¹⁴ and so forth. Thus the number of lives lost at the hands of anti-Christians in just the past century is more than 20 times greater than those lost at the hands of Christians in the entire previous twenty centuries.

And since the President mentioned the Inquisition, in nearly four centuries of the brutal Spanish Inquisition, between 3,000 and 5,000 individuals were put to death ¹⁵ — an average of nine to fourteen deaths a year across that time. But last year alone (2014), Muslims executed 4,344 Christians, ¹⁶ thus killing as many in one year as Christians did in nearly four centuries. Additionally, when including just the publicized incidents, Muslims have killed some 11,334 innocents in terrorist attacks since 1980 ¹⁷, with thousands if not tens-of-thousands more dead as a result of the non-reported killings in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and other countries as groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Islamic State have attempted to take control in recent years.

And regarding the president’s specific allusion to Christianity and slavery, Jewish writer and national news editor Ben Shapiro correctly noted:

Christians obliterated slavery. Christians obliterated Jim Crow. Modern slavery is largely perpetrated by Muslims. Modern Jim Crow is certainly perpetrated by Muslims under Sharia law. ¹⁸

By the way, if the president’s defenders wish to invoke the American witch trials of 1692-1693 (which the president did not mention, but which American academics often do), then you can include 27 lost lives at the hands of Christians over that two-year span ¹⁹ (but you must also note that it was Christian ministers who took the lead in bringing those trials to a close ²⁰). Yet 27 American lives lost over two years is hardly an equivalent comparison to the 3,000 American lives lost on just one day in September 2001 at the hands of Muslim terrorists.

Sorry, Mr. President, but there is absolutely no moral equivalency with your comparison. You have failed to recognize the reality of history and its consistent lesson that the application and practice of the Bible and its teachings elevates a society and civilizes its institutions. By comparing modern Muslim terrorists with medieval Christians you have, once again, totally missed the mark.

Endnotes

¹ “Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast,” The White House (February 5, 2015).
² “Governor Jindal to President Obama,” Office of the Governor: State of Louisiana (February 6, 2015).
³ “Obama: Christians Did Bad Things ‘in the Name of Christ’,”NewsMax (February 5, 2015).
⁴ “Obama Says US Not in ‘Religious War’ Against Radical Islamists; Sen. Graham Asserts the Opposite,” The Christian Post (February 2, 2015).
⁵ Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988), 143.
⁶ Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws (London: J. Nourse and P. Vaillant, 1752), II:147.
⁷ John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution (New York: Samuel Colman, 1839), 73.
⁸ Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth (Nashville, TN: Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), 39-41.
⁹ Sir Winston Churchill, The River War (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1899), II:248-250.
¹⁰ Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws (1752), II:147.
¹¹ Paul Crawford, “Four Myths about the Crusades,” First Principles(April 21, 2011). See also, Bill Warner, “Jihad vs. Crusades,” Center for the Study of Political Islam (August 20, 2014).
¹² “Frequently Asked Questions,” Armenian Genocide Institute (accessed February 12, 2015).
¹³ R. J. Rummel, Death By Government (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1994), 4.
¹⁴ Rummel, Death By Government (1994), 8.
¹⁵ Llorente, Juan Antonio, The history of the inquisition of Spain, from the time of its establishment to the reign of Ferdinand VII (London, Printed for G. B. Whittaker, 1826), 14; Charles T. Gorham, The Spanish Inquisition (London : Watts & Co., 1916), 115; “Spanish Inquisition,” New World Encyclopedia (February 14, 2009).
¹⁶ “Persecution: Christian Deaths at Hands of Muslims Doubled in 2014, Study Warns It Will Only Get Worse,” The Gospel Herald Society (January 9, 2015).
¹⁷ “List of Islamic terrorist attacks,” Wikipedia, (February 4, 2015).
¹⁸ “Obama Rips Bible, Praises Koran,” Breitbart (February 6, 2015).
¹⁹ Of the 27, 14 women and 5 men were tried, found guilty and hanged; another man was tortured to death by crushing because he refused to cooperate with the court by not answering 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 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. “The Salem Witch Trials of 1692,” Salem Witch Museum, January 13, 2011 (accessed February 13,2015) per the museum’s Department of Education.
²⁰ Dictionary of American Biography, ed. Allen Johnson (New York: Charles Scribber’s Sons, 1929), s.v. “Increase Mather” and “Thomas Brattle.” See also Charles Wentworth Upham, Salem Witchcraft (New York: F. Ungar Pub. Co., 1959), 2:304-305; Mark Gribben, “Salem Witch Trials: Reason Returns,” Court TV: Crime Library (accessed on February 28, 2013); David D. Hall, Witch-Hunting in Seventeenth-Century New England (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1991), 350, 354 fn25; Jonathan Kirsch, The Grand Inquisitor’s Manual (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 245.

Bob Barr Crosses the Line

Bob Barr Crosses the LineIn a July 8th debate, Congressional candidate Bob Barr accused his opponent, Barry Loudermilk, of a most serious offense. Barr claimed that Loudermilk had accepted the endorsement of a man who’s been “roundly and uniformly criticized, with facts, for taking positions that are anti-Semitic.” That same evening, Barr sent out a tweet calling Loudermilk’s endorser an “anti- Israel anti-Semitic radical.”

In most cases, such accusations should set off alarm bells in the Jewish community. But not so this time. Barr’s charges are not only false, they’re entirely backwards. This alleged hater of Israel and the Jews, David Barton, is actually one of Israel’s most important allies in America today.

The Republican Party continues to be dominated by two overlapping voting blocs: Christian conservatives and tea party conservatives. Among these groups, there are few leaders who are as influential and respected as Barton. Thus as some national figures have endeavored to turn these conservative voters against Israel, Israel’s supporters have turned to Barton for help. It is no exaggeration to say that Barton has played a pivotal role in ensuring that conservatives continue to be among the most pro-Israel voters in America.

My appreciation for David Barton comes not only from what I’ve read about him, but from long hours working with him on behalf of a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. Barton has invited me to his conferences to teach rising conservative leaders about the importance of supporting Israel. And when I’ve needed help organizing leadership missions to Israel, Barton has not only provided me with valuable contacts; he’s volunteered to join me in leading the trips.

I have traveled across Israel multiple times with David Barton. I have seen his joy at the sites of Israel’s triumphs. I’ve seen his resolve in discussions of Israel’s challenges. I’ve seen his tears at Yad Vashem. This man’s support for Israel and the Jewish people is not merely academic, it is visceral. No matter how bad things get for Israel or Jews around the world, I know that David Barton will continue to stand by our side. I wish I could say the same for other prominent leaders I’ve known.

Despite his years of hard work on behalf of Israel, Barton stands accused of anti-Semitism because back in 1991, he spoke at two events – one hosted by Scriptures for America and the other by Kingdom Covenant College – which were allegedly organized by individuals affiliated with the “Christian Identity Movement.” The Anti-Defamation League has accused the Christian Identity Movement of racism and anti-Semitism.

Barton speaks to hundreds of groups across the country every year. He had no knowledge that some involved in these two events were accused of beliefs which he so deeply abhors. Thus his appearance at these events was, at worst, a vetting failure. We should remember, however, that in the pre-Internet days of 1991 such vetting was far more difficult to do, especially with reference to a movement that is typically described as “loosely affiliated” and “shadowy.”

Such guilt by association simply doesn’t work when the nexus is so tenuous. This is exactly why earlier this month Barton won a defamation lawsuit against two Texas politicians who made a claim almost identical to Barr’s. Even Right Wing Watch – a devoted critic of Barton’s Constitutional analysis – has had the decency to note that “We have listened to literally thousands of hours of Barton’s programs and presentations and he can be justifiably criticized for a lot of things, but being anti-Semitic … should not be among them.”

Of course if anyone should be wary of guilt by association, it’s Bob Barr. In 1998 – when there was an internet for easy vetting — Barr himself spoke to a group called the Council of Conservative Citizens. The ADL has accused the CCC of having a “racist agenda.” When the Anti-Defamation league criticized Barr for this appearance, Barr apologized and claimed that he was unaware of these allegations.

While Bob Barr is spreading distortion, David Barton has been teaching truths. Barton has taught me things about the Jewish contributions to America and the American Revolution that I had never known. In fact, Barton was the one who introduced me to one of my favorite quotes from an American Founder.

On July 4, 1788 a parade was held in Philadelphia to celebrate the ratification of the Constitution. Founding father Benjamin Rush attended the parade, and he reported that a diverse group of clergy played a prominent role in its lead. In particular, Rush noted that:

Pains were taken to connect ministers of the most dissimilar religious principles together…. The rabbi of the Jews locked in the arms of two ministers of the Gospel was a most delightful sight. There could not have been a more happy emblem.

This vision of America which David Barton taught me is one to which he has dedicated his life. It is a vision which all Americans should hold sacred. As he flails for traction, Bob Barr should be careful to do no violence to so lofty an ideal.

The White House Attack on Religion Continues: Repealing Conscience Protection

by David Barton

Some of the first acts of the Obama presidential administration make it clear that there has been a dramatic change in the way that traditional religious faith is going to be handled at the White House. For example, when the White House website went public immediately following President Obama’s inauguration, it dropped the previously prominent section on the faith-based office.

A second visible change was related to hiring protections for faith-based activities and organizations. On February 5, 2009, President Obama announced that he would no longer extend the same unqualified level of hiring protections observed by the previous administration but instead would extend those traditional religious protections to faith-based organizations only on a “case-by-case” basis.¹

Significantly, hiring protections allow religious organizations to hire those employees who hold the same religious convictions as the organization. As a result, groups such as Catholic Relief Services can hire just Catholics; and the same is true with Protestant, Jewish, and other religious groups. With hiring protections, religious groups cannot be forced to hire those who disagree with their beliefs and values – for example, Evangelical organizations cannot be required to hire homosexuals, pro-life groups don’t have to hire pro-choice advocates, etc.

Hiring protections are inherent within the First Amendment’s guarantee for religious liberty and right of association, and were additionally statutorily established in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress subsequently strengthened those protections, declaring that any “religious corporation, association, education institution, or society” could consider the applicants’ religious faith during the hiring process.² The Supreme Court upheld hiring protections in 1987,³ and Congress has included those protections in numerous federal laws.⁴ But when Democrats regained Congress in 2007, on a party-line vote they began removing hiring protections for faith-based organizations.⁵

The current concern about the weakening of traditional faith-based hiring protections was heightened when the White House announced President Obama’s commitment to “pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.”⁶ This act fully repeals faith-based hiring protections related to Biblical standards of morality and behavior, thus directly attacking the theological autonomy of churches, synagogues, and every other type of religious organization by not allowing them to choose whether or not they want to hire homosexuals onto their ministry staffs.

The administration’s third attack on religion occurred in the President’s stimulus bill, which included a provision specifically denying stimulus funds to renovate higher educational facilities “(i) used for sectarian instruction or religious worship; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.”⁷ As Republican Senator Jim DeMint (SC) explained, “any university or college that takes any of the money in this bill to renovate an auditorium, a dorm, or student center could not hold a National Prayer Breakfast.”⁸ Sen. DeMint therefore introduced an amendment to “allow the free exercise of religion at institutions of higher education that receive funding,”⁹ but his amendment was defeated along a party-line vote.

The fourth attack on tradition religious faith appeared in President Obama’s 2010 proposed budget, which included a seven-percent cut in the deduction for charitable giving. Experts calculate that this will result in a drop of $6 billion in contributions to charitable organizations, including to religious groups.¹⁰

The fifth attack was the White House’s announcement that it will repeal conscience protection for health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other health activities that violate their consciences.¹¹

In order to fully understand the far-reaching ramifications of this announcement, it will be helpful to review the history of conscience protection in the United States.

— — — ◊ ◊ ◊ — — —

Today’s liberals and secularists attempt to relegate the effects of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage exclusively to the realm of a personal theological choice, ignoring the fact that Judeo-Christian teachings also encompass a philosophy of living that is directly proportional to the degree of civil liberty enjoyed in a society. Early statesman Dewitt Clinton (1769-1828) correctly recognized that Biblical faith applies not just “to our destiny in the world to come” but also “in reference to its influence on this world,” and therefore must always “be contemplated in [these] two important aspects.”¹²

While today’s post-modern critics refuse to acknowledge the dual aspects of Judeo-Christian faith, America’s Framers wisely recognized and heartily endorsed the influence of those teachings on the civil arena – especially on the formation of America’s unique republican (i.e., elective ) form of government:

The Bible. . . . [i]s the most republican book in the world.¹³ JOHN ADAMS, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, U. S. PRESIDENT
I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism. . . . It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the Christian religion to overturn all the corrupted political . . . institutions in the world.¹⁴ BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION
[T]he genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion. . . . and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.¹⁵ NOAH WEBSTER, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER, LEGISLATOR, JUDGE
They . . . who are decrying the Christian religion . . . are undermining . . . the best security for the duration of free governments.¹⁶ CHARLES CARROLL, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
[T]o the free and universal reading of the Bible . . . men were much indebted for right views of civil liberty.¹⁷ DANIEL WEBSTER, “DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION”

Scores of other Framers, statesmen, and courts made similarly succinct declarations about how the Judeo-Christian Scriptures not only shaped republicanism¹⁸ but also many other unique aspects of our civil culture.

For example, when Benjamin Franklin founded America’s first hospital, he chose the Bible’s story of the Good Samaritan for its logo, with the passage from Luke 10:35 beneath: “Take care of him and I will repay thee.” Significantly, it was Jesus Who not only taught that it was proper to help the hurt (Luke 10:25-37) but He also taught that it was proper to feed the hungry, befriend the stranger, clothe the needy, visit the bedridden, and support the imprisoned (Matthew 25:34-40) – and to do so for strangers (Luke 10:27-37) as well as for enemies (Matthew 9:35-39). His teachings provide the true standard for charitable relief and civil benevolence.

Scriptural teachings were so important to society at large that America’s most famous public school textbooks taught students Biblical teachings such as the Good Samaritan;¹⁹ and even today, states continue to pass “Good Samaritan” statutes to protect willing volunteers (i.e., Good Samaritans) from legal liability for good-faith assistance efforts. Incontrovertibly, Biblical teaching such as the Good Samaritan, the Golden Rule (“Do unto others and you would have them do unto you” Matthew 7:12), and many others have elevated the culture; and even though these specific teachings are exclusive to Christianity, their primary application is to civil society.

The Framers thus properly recognized Christian teachings as the basis of America’s great civil benevolence – its unprecedented willingness to help others:

Christian benevolence makes it our indispensable duty to lay ourselves out to serve our fellow-creatures to the utmost of our power.²⁰ JOHN ADAMS
[T]he doctrines promulgated by Jesus and His apostles [include] lessons of peace, of benevolence, of meekness, of brotherly love, [and] of charity.²¹ JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, U. S. PRESIDENT
Let the religious element in man’s nature be neglected . . . and he becomes the creature of selfish passion. . . . [T]he cultivation of the religious sentiment . . . incites to general benevolence.²² DANIEL WEBSTER
Christianity . . . introduce[ed] a better and more enlightened sense of right and justice. . . . It taught the duty of benevolence to strangers.²³ JAMES KENT, “FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE”
The Christian philosophy, in its tenderness for human infirmities, strongly inculcates principles of . . . benevolence.²⁴ RICHARD HENRY LEE, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Significantly, nations that are primarily secular in their orientation (or those predominated by non-Judeo-Christian religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism, Jainism, Taoism, Sikhism, Bahá’í, Diasporic, Juche, etc.) rarely become involved in benevolent endeavors, and certainly are not aggressive in organizing humanitarian relief. In fact, when the massive tsunami devastated Muslim Indonesia in 2004, other Muslim nations did little to assist a nation of their own faith, yet America – even though considered by Indonesia’s dominant religion to be the “Great Satan” – was quickly on the scene, providing assistance in money, supplies, labor, and technology.

The benevolence that characterizes America – the compassion and humanitarianism that we have inculcated into our culture – is the unique product of the Bible; and non- and even anti-religious Americans have been trained in Biblical benevolence as characteristic of our culture (even if they do not recognize the source of that principle!).

The Ten Commandments provide another example of Biblical teachings that are also primarily societal. As our early leaders noted:

If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.²⁵ JOHN ADAMS

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code . . . laws essential to the existence of men in society and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.²⁶ JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

The fact that Biblical teachings provided so many positive effects on society has been understood by American leaders for over two centuries. For example, President Harry S. Truman acknowledged:

The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.²⁷

President Teddy Roosevelt agreed:

The Decalogue and the Golden Rule must stand as the foundation of every successful effort to better either our social or our political life.²⁸

In short, the Judeo-Christian system is the basis of many of our cherished civil traits – including our current affection for and commitment to protecting the RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.

According to America’s first dictionary, “CONSCIENCE” is:

Internal judgment of right and wrong; the principle within us that decides on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our own actions and instantly approves or condemns them. Conscience is first occupied in ascertaining our duty before we proceed to action, then in judging of our actions when performed. Conscience is called by some writers the moral sense.²⁹

That dictionary then gave a Biblical example to illustrate the meaning of the word:

Being convicted by their own conscience, they went out one by one. John 8.³⁰

Significantly, Christ and His Apostles made the rights of conscience a repeated subject of emphasis, with thirty references to that topic in the New Testament alone. The warning is even issued that if an individual “wounds a weak conscience of another, you have sinned” (1 Corinthians 8:12). Christians were therefore instructed to respect the differing rights of conscience (v. 13). (See also I Corinthians 10:27-29.) Christianity set forth clear protection for the rights of conscience.

However, in the twelve centuries that comprised the Dark Ages, the church sadly abandoned those doctrines; but beginning in the fifteenth century, Biblical leaders began to re-embrace those original teachings. As a result, Menno Simons in Friesland (central Europe),³¹ Jacobus Arminius in Netherlands,³² John Calvin in France,³³ and others, advocated a return to protection for the rights of conscience. Subsequent writers, including Christian philosophers such as John Locke and Charles Montesquieu, also encouraged protection for the rights of conscience that had been reintroduced by Christian leaders.³⁴

Those renewed Biblical teachings on protecting the rights of conscience were eventually carried to America, where they took root and grew to maturity at a rapid rate, having been planted in virgin soil completely uncontaminated by the apostasy of the previous twelve centuries. Hence, Christianity – especially as imported to America – became the world’s single greatest historical force in securing non-coercion and the rights of conscience.

For example, in 1640 when the Rev. Roger Williams established Providence, he penned its governing document declaring:

We agree, as formerly hath been the liberties of the town, so still, to hold forth liberty of conscience.³⁵

Similar protections also became part of subsequent early American documents, including the 1649 Maryland “Toleration Act,”³⁶ the 1663 charter for Rhode Island,³⁷ the 1664 Charter for Jersey,³⁸ the 1665 Charter for Carolina,³⁹ and the 1669 Constitutions of Carolina.⁴⁰ Christian minister William Penn incorporated the same protections into the governing documents he authored, including in 1676 for West Jersey,⁴¹ in 1682 for Pennsylvania,⁴² and in 1701 for Delaware.⁴³ There are many additional examples.

Historically speaking, it was the followers of Biblical Christianity who vigorously pursued and first achieved the protection for the rights of conscience that subsequently became a central characteristic of the American civil fabric. Even Roscoe Pound (1870-1964; a professor at four different law schools and the Dean of the law schools at Harvard and the University of Nebraska) acknowledged that it was the Biblical-minded Puritans who first brought these rights to the forefront of civil protection;⁴⁴ and in the words of an 1824 court:

[B]efore [the American colonial] period, the principle of liberty of conscience appeared in the laws of no people, the axiom of no government, the institutes of no society, and scarcely in the temper of any man.⁴⁵

So thoroughly was American thinking inculcated with protecting conscience that when America separated from Great Britain in 1776, the original state constitutions immediately secured the rights of conscience so long expounded by Christian leaders. (See, for example, the constitutions of Virginia, 1776;⁴⁶ Delaware, 1776;⁴⁷ North Carolina, 1776;⁴⁸ Pennsylvania, 1776;⁴⁹ New Jersey, 1776;⁵⁰ Vermont, 1777;⁵¹ New York, 1777;⁵² South Carolina, 1778;⁵³ Massachusetts, 1780;⁵⁴> New Hampshire, 1784;⁵⁵ etc.)

America’s Framers openly praised those protections. For example, Governor William Livingston (a devout Christian and a signer of the U. S. Constitution) declared:

Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.⁵⁶

John Jay (an author of the Federalist Papers, original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, and President of the American Bible Society) likewise rejoiced that:

Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience.⁵⁷

Thomas Jefferson (a signer of the Declaration and a U. S. President) repeatedly praised America’s protections for the rights of conscience:

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience.⁵⁸
[O]ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted.⁵⁹
A right to take the side which every man’s conscience approves . . . is too precious a right – and too favorable to the preservation of liberty – not to be protected.⁶⁰
It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences.⁶¹

James Madison (a signer of the Constitution, a framer of the Bill of Rights, and a U. S. President) similarly affirmed:

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . [and] conscience is the most sacred of all property.⁶²

Clearly, the right of conscience was a precious right under our Constitution. Today, the safeguards for the rights of conscience originally pioneered by Christian leaders now appear in forty-seven state constitutions and have been extended to cover many diverse areas of life. Consequently:

pacifists and conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars;⁶³
Jehovah’s Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools;⁶⁴
the Amish are not required to complete the standard compulsory twelve years of education;⁶⁵
Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws;⁶⁶
Muslim and Jewish men are not required to shave their beards in jobs that otherwise require employees to be clean-shaven;⁶⁷
Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work at their jobs on Saturday;⁶⁸

and there are many additional examples.

America has a centuries-long and cherished tradition of protection for the rights of conscience, but President Obama has announced that he will rescind regulations protecting those rights for medical workers.

Significantly, immediately after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade abortion-on-demand decision, Congress promptly passed medical conscience protection to prohibit discrimination against doctors and nurses who for conscience sake declined to participate in abortions; the law even ordered that federal funds be withheld from medical institutions not providing conscience protection.⁶⁹ (Those federal requirements were included in a series of acts from the 1970s through 2008.⁷⁰)

While medical conscience protections originally centered on abortion,⁷¹ they were soon expanded to include other controversial medical areas, including sterilization,⁷² contraception,⁷³ and executions.⁷⁴ More recent areas of medical conscience concern include issues related to artificial insemination of lesbian couples, “surrogate” motherhood, cloning, embryonic stem-cell procedures, and euthanasia.

In fact, many doctors and pharmacists are completely unwilling to prescribe abortifacient drugs or to dispense the life-ending drugs associated with Washington State’s law authorizing euthanasia.

Even though conscience protections for medial personnel are deeply-rooted in federal law, a recent review found that federal funds were improperly being given to medical facilities and programs that did not provide conscience protection for workers – a violation of federal law. Therefore, Mike Leavitt, the former Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, instituted new regulations to “cut off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally, or religiously objectionable.”⁷⁵

As the Department of Health and Human Services explained: “Over the past three decades, Congress enacted several statutes to safeguard the freedom of health care providers to practice according to their conscience. The new regulation will increase awareness of and compliance with these laws.”⁷⁶ Under those regulations, some 584,000 health-care organizations must provide written certification that they are in compliance with current federal laws on conscious protection or else lose federal funding (or even return funding they have already received).

The response of pro-abortion advocates to enforcing the existing conscience protection regulations was immediate:

In the U. S. Senate in 2008, Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y) filed S. 20⁷⁷ to invalidate the conscience protection regulations.
In 2009, the ACLU and pro-abortion groups filed a lawsuit against the regulations.⁷⁸
President Obama announced that he would rescind the conscience protections.⁷⁹

It is regrettable not only that the President should actively encourage non-enforcement of existing federal laws but that he should also seek to coerce healthcare workers to participate in performing abortions or other medical practices that violate their moral, ethical, or religious convictions.

The response of many physicians to the President’s announcement was clear and unambiguous. For example, U. S. Senator Tom Coburn (a practicing ob/gyn physician who is strongly pro-life) announced:

“I think a lot of us will go to jail.” . . . Coburn meant that doctors, himself included, are willing to defy the law before agreeing to perform medical procedures that violate their conscience.⁸⁰

Regrettably, with the repeal of medical conscience protection regulations, many healthcare professionals may be forced to choose between their conscience and their career. Yet, why stop here? Why not force Jehovah’s Witnesses to say the Pledge of Allegiance or forfeit access to public education? Or why not require pacifists to go to war or lose government benefits such as Social Security or Medicaid? Every one of these coercive scenarios should be reprehensible to citizens – and so, too, should be the repeal of conscience protection for healthcare workers.

Protection for the rights of conscience and non-coercion is just one more reason that Biblical Judeo-Christianity is so beneficial to a culture, and why religious influence must be preserved in America today and secularism must be resisted. History – both ancient and modern – demonstrates that neither secular, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, nor any other non-Judeo-Christian nation offers the societal benefits enjoyed in Judeo-Christian America.

Endnotes

¹ David Brody, The Brody File, “The Faith-Based ‘Hiring Protection’ Issue,” February 5, 2009 (at: https://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/535994.aspx).

² “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (at: https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html).

³ Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987).

⁴ President Clinton signed four such laws, including the 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the 1998 Community Services Block Grant Act. In the 108th Congress, hiring protections for faith-based organizations were included in Head Start and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). Congress also reaffirmed hiring protections for private schools that participate in the D.C. voucher program enacted in the Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act. See, for example, “Public Law 104-193, 104th Congress,” GPO.gov, August 22, 1996 (at: https://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ193.104); “Community Services Block Grant Act,” National Community Action Foundation (accessed on March 12, 2009).

⁵ See, for example, “Conference Report on H.R. 1429 – Improving Head Start Act of 2007,” which notes “Representative Fortuno [Republican] sought to add hiring protections to the Head Start Reauthorization by offering an amendment in Committee, but the amendment failed along a party line vote. Rep. Fortuno also submitted his amendment to Rules when H.R. 1429 was brought to the House floor for a vote, but the [Democrat] Rules Committee did not allow his amendment. During debate on H.R. 1429, the Republican Motion to Recommit offered would have allowed faith-based organizations that receive Head Start funding to be able to hire individuals based upon religious affiliation or belief. The MTR explicitly prohibited federal funds from being used for worship, instruction or proselytization. The MTR would have also prohibited the federal government from requiring a faith-based organization to alter its form of internal governance or remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other symbols. While the House debated the issue of faith-based hiring protections, the Senate bill did not include language to allow faith-based organizations to be providers. This conference report codifies the provision which allows faith-based organizations to be providers, however, it does not contain language that would provide hiring protections to such organizations. Simply, this conference report would mean that faith-based organizations that run Head Start programs would have to hire any person who has the appropriate credentials, even if he or she does not agree with the faith or adhere to the mission of the employing organization.” See this at Republican Study Committee, November 14, 2007.

⁶ The White House, “The Agenda; Civil Rights; Combat Employment Discrimination” (at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/).

⁷. “H.R. 1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,” Thomas, February 17, 2009 (at: https://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app09.html), “Title XIV: State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Sec. 14004. Uses of Funds by Institutions of Higher Education.”

⁸ “Congressional Record,” Thomas, February 5, 2009, S1650 (at: https://thomas.loc.gov/home/r111query.html).

⁹ “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes: On the Amendment (DeMint Amdt. No. 189),” United States Senate, February 5, 2009 (at: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00047).

¹⁰ Karin Hamilton, “Will Obama tax plan hurt religious groups?,” USA Today, March 22, 2009 (at: https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-22-obama-church-giving_N.htm).

¹¹ See, for example, David Stout, “Obama Set to Undo ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers,” New York Times, February 27, 2009.

¹² William W. Campbell, The Life and Writings of DeWitt Clinton (New York: Baker and Scribner, 1849), p. 305, in an address delivered to the American Bible Society, May 8, 1823.

¹³ John Adams and Benjamin Rush, The Spur of Fame: Dialogues of John Adams and Benjamin Rush 1805-1813, John A. Schutz, editor (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1966) p. 82, letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush, February 2, 1807.

¹⁴ Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. II, pp. 820-821, letter to Thomas Jefferson, August 22, 1800.

¹⁵ Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 6, 300.

¹⁶ Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475, letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry, November 4, 1800.

¹⁷ Daniel Webster, Address Delivered at Bunker Hill, June 17, 1843, on the Completion of the Monument (Boston: Tappan and Dennet, 1843), p. 17.

¹⁸ See, for example, John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 636, letter to Benjamin Rush, August 28, 1811; John Hancock, Independent Chronicle (Boston newspaper), November 2, 1780, last page; Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1898), p. 269, “Inaugural Address: 1780;” Updegraph v. Commonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824); Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1799), p. 9; Jacob Rush, Charges and Extracts of Charges on Moral and Religious Subjects (Philadelphia Geo Forman, 1804), p. 58, “A Charge on Patriotism,” April, 1799; K. Alan Snyder, Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York: University Press of America, 1990), p. 253, letter to James Madison, October 16, 1829; Noah Webster, A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster and Clark, 1843), p. 292, “Reply to a Letter of David McClure on the Subject of the Proper Course of Study in the Girard College, Philadelphia,” October 25, 1836; John Witherspoon, The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: William W. Woodard, 1802), Vol. III, pp. 41-42, 46, “The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men,” May 17, 1776; and many, many others.

¹⁹ William H. McGuffey, McGuffey First Reader (Cincinnati: Truman and Smith, 1836-1853), Lesson XX, p. 47.

²⁰ John Adams, Familiar Letters of John Adams and His Wife Abigail Adams, During the Revolution (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1875), p. 118, letter to Abigail Adams, October 29, 1775.

²¹ 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: Morss and Brewster, 1837), p. 61.

²² Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 615, “The Addition to the Capitol,” July 4, 1851.

²³ James Kent, Commentaries on American Law (New York: O. Halsted, 1826), Vol. I, p. 10.

²⁴ Richard Henry Lee, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, James Curtis Ballagh, editor (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1914), Vol. II, p. 343, letter to Samuel Adams, March 14, 1785.

²⁵ John Adams, A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Young, 1797), Vol. III, p. 217, “The Right Constitution of a Commonwealth Examined,” Letter VI.

²⁶ John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Aubrun, NY: Derby, Miller & Co, 1848), p. 61.

²⁷ Harry S. Truman, “Address Before the Attorney General’s conference on Law Enforcement Problems,” February 15, 1950, American Presidency Project (at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13707).

²⁸ Theodore Roosevelt, American Ideals, The Strenuous Life, Realizable Ideals (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1926), pp. 498-499.

²⁹ Noah Webster, Dictionary (1828), s. v. “conscience.”

³⁰ Noah Webster, Dictionary (1828), s. v. “conscience.”

³¹ Menno Simon, The Complete Works of Menno Simon (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library, 2005), p. 118, “A Brief Complaint or Apology of the Despised Christians and Exiled Strangers,” (at: https://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa;cc=moa;rgn=main;view=text;idno=AGV9043.0002.001); or (at: https://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moa;cc=moa;idno=AGV9043.0002.001;seq=118).

³² “The Works of James Arminius: Vol. 2, Disputation LVI on the Power of the Church in Enacting Laws,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library (at: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works2.txt) (accessed on March 12, 2009).

³³ John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989), Book 3: Chapter 19, §14, p. 140, Book IV, Chapter 10, Sec. 5, pp. 416-417 (at: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.txt).

³⁴ John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (York: Wilson, Spence and Mawman, 1788), pp. 17-25, 31-33, 45, 55, 65-69, 89, 91, 93, John Locke, “A Letter Concerning Toleration,” The Founders Constitution (at: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions10.html) (accessed on March 17, 2009). See also Baron de Montesquieu, “Spirit of Laws,” The Founders Constitution, Bk. 12, Chs. 4, 5, 1748 (at: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions12.html).

³⁵ “Plantation Agreement at Providence,” The Avalon Project, August 27 – September 6, 1640 (at: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ri01.asp).

³⁶ William MacDonald, Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of American History 1606-1775 (New York: MacMillan Company, 1899), p. 104-106, “Maryland Toleration Act,” April, 1649.

³⁷ The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and Other Organic Laws, Francis Newton Thorpe, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), Vol. VI, p. 3211, “Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations-1663.”

³⁸ “The Concession and Agreement of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of New Caesarea, or New Jersey,” The Avalon Project, 1664 (at: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nj02.asp).

³⁹ “Charter of Carolina,” June 30, 1665, The Avalon Project (at: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nc04.asp).

⁴⁰ “Fundamental Constitution of Carolina,” March 1, 1669, The Avalon Project, (at: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nc05.asp).

⁴¹ “The Charter or Fundamental Laws of West New Jersey,” 1676, The Avalon Project (at: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nj05.asp).

⁴² “Frame of Government of Pennsylvania,” May 5, 1682, The Avalon Project (at: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/pa04.asp).

⁴³ “Charter of Delaware,” October 28, 1701, University of Maryland (at: https://www.stateconstitutions.umd.edu/Thorpe/display.aspx?ID=119).

⁴⁴ Roscoe Pound, The Spirit of the Common Law (Boston: Marshall Jones Company, 1921), p. 42.

⁴⁵ Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394 (Sup. Ct. Pa. 1824).

⁴⁶ The American’s Guide: Comprising the Declaration of Independence; the Articles of Confederation; the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitutions of the Several States Composing the Union (Philadelphia: Hogan & Thompson, 1845), p. 180, Virginia, June 12, 1776, Art. XVI, “Bill of Rights.”

⁴⁷ Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), p. 91, Delaware, September 10, 1776, Art. 2, “A Declaration of Rights and Fundamental Rules of the Delaware State.”

⁴⁸ Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), p. 132, North Carolina, December 18, 1776, Art. 19, “A Declaration of Rights.”

⁴⁹ Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), p. 77, Pennsylvania, September 28, 1776, Ch. 1, Art. 2, “A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the State of Pennsylvania.”

⁵⁰ Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), p. 73, New Jersey, July 2, 1776, Art. XVIII, “Constitution of New Jersey.”

⁵¹ The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws, Francis Newton Thorpe, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), Vol. VI, p. 3740, Vermont, July 8, 1777, Ch. 1, Art. III, “A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the State of Vermont.”

⁵² The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), p. 67, New York, April 20, 1777, Art. 38, “Constitution of New York.”

⁵³ Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), pp. 152-154, South Carolina, March 19, 1778, Art. 38, “Constitution of the State of South Carolina.”

⁵⁴ Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), p. 6, Massachusetts, March 2, 1780, Part 1, Art. II, “A Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”

⁵⁵ Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), pp. 3-4, New Hampshire, June, 1784, Part 1, Art. 1, No. 5, “The Bill of Rights.”

⁵⁶ B. F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864) pp. 162-163.

⁵⁷ B. F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), p. 152.

⁵⁸ Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XVI, p. 332, letter to the Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, CT, February 4, 1809.

⁵⁹ Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVII, p. 213.

⁶⁰ Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), Vol. VIII, p. 260, letter to Katherine Sprowle Douglas, July 5, 1785.

⁶¹ Thomas Jefferson, Papers (1951), Vol. IV, p. 404, “Proclamation Concerning Paroles,” January 19, 1781.

⁶² James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906), Vol. VI, p. 102, “Property,” from the National Gazette, March 29, 1792.

⁶³ United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).

⁶⁴ West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

⁶⁵ Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

⁶⁶ See, for example, “Some parents falsely claim religious objections to child vaccines,” Associated Press, October 27, 2007.

⁶⁷ Potter v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 01-1189 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2007).

⁶⁸ Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida, 480 U.S. 136 (1987); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 409 (1963).

⁶⁹ 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7.

⁷⁰ See, Federal Register: December 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 245), Rules and Regulations, Pages 78071-78101, from the Federal Register Online via GPO Access, DOCID:fr19de08-20, Page 78071, Part VI, Department of Health and Human Services. A series of acts from 1970-2004 were passed on this issue, including the Public Health Service Act of 1996, and the Weldon Act of 2004. See also “Testimony Re: Abortion Non-Discrimination Act: The Committee on Energy and Commerce,” The Protection of Conscience Project, July 11, 2002.

⁷¹ See, for example, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(b) (prohibiting public discrimination against individuals and entities that object to performing abortions on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions); 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c) (prohibiting entities from discriminating against physicians and health care personnel who object to performing abortions on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions); 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(e) (prohibiting entities from discriminating against applicants who object to participating in abortions on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions); 42 U.S.C. § 238n (prohibiting discrimination against individuals and entities that refuse to perform abortions or train in their performance); 20 U.S.C. § 1688 (ensuring that federal sex discrimination standards do not require educational institutions to provide or pay for abortions or abortion benefits).

⁷² See, for example, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(b) (prohibiting public discrimination against individuals and entities that object to performing sterilizations on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions); 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c) (prohibiting entities from discriminating against physicians and health care personnel who object to performing sterilizations on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions); 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(e) (prohibiting entities from discriminating against applicants who object to participating in sterilizations on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions).

⁷³ See, for example, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-67, § 641, 115 Stat. 514, 554-5 (prohibiting health plans participating in the federal employee health benefits program from discriminating against individuals who, for religious or moral reasons, refuse to prescribe or otherwise provide for contraceptives, and protecting the right of health plans that have religious objections to contraceptives to participate in the program).

⁷⁴ See, for example, 18 U.S.C. § 3597(b) (providing that no state correctional employee or federal prosecutor shall be required, as a condition of employment or contractual obligation, to participate in any federal death penalty case or execution if contrary to his or her moral or religious convictions).

⁷⁵ Rob Stein, “Rule Shields Health Workers Who Withhold Care Based on Beliefs,” Washington Post, December 19, 2008, Page A10 (at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121801556.html).

⁷⁶ “News Release: HHS Issues Final Regulation to Protect Health Care Providers from Discrimination,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, December 18, 2008.

⁷⁷ “S. 20: To Prohibit the Implementation or Enforcement of Certain Regulations,” Thomas, November 20, 2008. See also “Senators Clinton and Murray Introduce Legislation to Stop New HHS Rule that Would Undermine Women’s Health Care,” United States Senate, November 20, 2008.

⁷⁸ “ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Conscience Protection Rules,” Catholic News Agency, January 17, 2009.

⁷⁹ “Health Workers ‘Conscience’ Rule Set to Be Voided,” The Washington Post, February 28, 2009, A01 (at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022701104.html).

⁸⁰ Josiah Ryan, “U. S. Senator Says He Would Practice Civil Disobedience If Obama Repeals Abortion ‘Conscience Clause’,” CNSNews, March 2, 2009.

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

Hobby Lobby – They Got It Right

An article appeared in Fredericksburg.com, complaining about a Fourth of July ad run by Hobby Lobby that included several quotes reflecting the religious heritage of America. The Fredericksburg article claimed that three of the historical declarations made in the ad were inaccurate, but historical documentation demonstrates that it is the critics and not Hobby Lobby who were errant in their claims.

A. Complaint in Article:

As referenced in the ad, John Jay did write a letter in which he declared it “the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” This reminds us that, along with their visionary striving for human rights, many of the Founders were tainted with the prejudices of their times. Fortunately, they got it right in Article VI of the Constitution: “[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Otherwise, presumably with the blessing of Hobby Lobby’s owners, we’d have told Rep. Eric Cantor and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, “Sorry, you need not apply.”¹

Answer:

Founding Father John Jay (author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court) did indeed declare:

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty (as well as the privilege and interest) of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.²

The claim that choosing a leader on the basis of his faith is a direct violation of Article VI in the Constitution is flat wrong. The Founders made clear that the Article VI prohibition was an explicit limitation only on the powers of the federal government, not on those of citizens. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story affirmed: “it [Article VI] was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject.”³ The Founders believed that an investigation of the religious views of a candidate was appropriate if undertaken by the voters, but not by the federal government.

Justice Theophilus Parsons, a ratifier of the federal Constitution, succinctly explained:

It has been objected that the Constitution provides no religious test by oath and [that] we may have in power unprincipled men, atheists, and pagans. No man can wish more ardently than I do that all our public offices may be filled by men who fear God and hate wickedness [Exodus 18:21], but it must remain with the electors to give the government this security. . . . [T]he only evidence we can have of the sincerity and excellency of a man’s religion is a good life, and I trust that such evidence will be required of every candidate by every elector.⁴

Signer of the Constitution Richard Dobbs Spaight agreed:

I do not suppose an infidel or any such person will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion.⁵

Therefore, while the federal government is explicitly prohibited from investigating anyone’s religious views, it is completely constitutional for voters to do so. As one court explained in 1837:

The distinction is a sound one between a religion preferred by law, and a religion preferred by the people without the coercion of law – between a legal establishment (which the present Constitution expressly forbids) . . . and a religious creed freely chosen by the people for themselves.⁶

Article VI limits only the power of the federal government, not the power of the people.

[Personal note from David Barton: Perhaps a more accurate modern translation for the intent of Jay’s statement would be that it is the duty of Christians to select and prefer for office those who hold a Biblical viewpoint. Quite frankly, many Jews, such as Rabbis Daniel Lapin and Aryeh Spero, are much more Biblically aligned in their values and principles than many so-called Christians; and I would personally work hard to elect them to office over many professing Christians. In fact, one hundred percent of the time I would vote for traditional-Biblical-value Jew Eric Cantor over anti-traditional-Biblical-value Christian Barack Obama, and I think John Jay would have done the same. But that being said, the choice is still every individual’s to make; the people have the constitutional right, unaffected by Article VI, to use whatever test they wish in the selection of their leaders, including a personal religious test – as many Muslims, Jews, and atheists also do every time they vote.]

B. Complaint in Article:

The Hobby Lobby ad grossly distorts the sense of the court’s ruling in Vidal v. Girard’s Executors (1844) by strategically altering a key word. Here’s how the ad quotes the decision: “Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, be read and taught as a divine revelation in [schools]?” This, the ad explains, was from a “Unanimous Decision Commending and Encouraging the Use of the Bible in Government-Run Schools.” Far from it. The ad misquotes, substituting “schools” for the true wording in the decision, which was “the college”–specifically, Girard College. The real story: Multimillionaire Stephen Girard bequeathed property to the city of Philadelphia, intending to set up a school for poor orphans. His will stipulated:
“I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college, nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises. [M]y desire is that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that, on their entrance into active life, they may, from inclination and habit, evince benevolence towards their fellow creatures and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.”
Clearly, Girard opposed using his charitable school to promote any specific religious faith. Girard’s heirs contested the will on grounds that Philadelphia couldn’t legally take this property in trust. That’s the issue the court was deciding, and it ruled for Girard and his will. The opinion discusses religious training not in order to rule in its favor in “schools” but to show that Girard’s will couldn’t be shown to have “impugned or repudiated” Christianity in endowing his “college.” Supreme Court decisions are full of such explanatory comments. The ones cited in the Hobby Lobby ad aren’t “Declaring America a Christian Nation” any more than Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. made Nazi-style eugenics into official public policy with his infamous conclusion “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” in Buck v. Bell (1927).⁷

Answer:

First, the word “college” is indeed used in the original Court ruling; and Girard “college” still exists today, training children from grades one through twelve. So Girard “college” is actually not a “college” in the modern sense that the word is used today, but by today’s standards it is rather a pre-secondary “school” – an elementary, junior high, and high school, but it is not a college as understood today. Therefore, the use of the word “[school]” in place of the word “college” accurately reflects the object of the Court’s declaration and correctly portrays its intent.

Secondly, the Court did rule – definitively and unanimously so – in favor of religious instruction in this government-administered school run by the City of Philadelphia. As the Court announced:

It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider what would be the legal effect of a devise in Pennsylvania for the establishment of a school or college for the propagation of Judaism, or Deism, or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country.⁸

This is a forthright declaration by the Court strongly endorsing that some form of religious education (i.e., what the Court described as “Divine revelation”) must indeed be taught at the school, and that some “form of infidelity” (i.e., lack of religious instruction) was not to be part of this government-administered education.

C. Complaint in Article

In Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. (1892), the issue to be decided wasn’t the religious affiliation of the U.S.; it was whether a U.S. church had the right to hire a pastor from outside the country, in spite of a federal law barring any employer from recruiting foreign workers. Its remarks about the prevalence of Christianity were to show that Congress did not intend that its labor law be used to prevent a congregation from choosing its own pastor.⁹

Answer:

In the 1892 U. S. Supreme Court decision Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States is found this succinct statement:

[N]o purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national because this is a religious people. . . . [T]his is a Christian nation.”¹⁰

Critics assert that this forthright declaration is historically irrelevant because it is not part of the Court’s actual ruling on the employment issue. However, a quick review of the short sixteen-page ruling in this case unequivocally refutes this assertion.

At issue in the case was an 1885 federal immigration law declaring:

[I]t shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever to . . . in any way assist or encourage the importation . . . of any alien or . . . foreigners into the United States . . . under contract or agreement . . . to perform labor or service of any kind.¹¹

This law appeared to be a straightforward ban on hiring foreign labor. So when the Church of the Holy Trinity in New York employed a clergyman from England as its pastor, the U. S. Attorney’s office brought suit against the church. The Supreme Court examined the issue and then rendered a unanimous ruling.

In the first eight pages of the ruling, the Court established that the law’s sole purpose had been to halt the influx of almost slave-like Chinese foreign labor being exploited to construct the western railroads, not limit the hiring of foreigners in general. Therefore, while the church’s hiring of the minister had violated the literal wording of the law, the law clearly had not been designed to affect the hiring of a pastor. The Court therefore held that it would be an absurd application of the law to prosecute the church for hiring a minister of its choice, and then explained that if the intent of the law had been to prevent the church from hiring a minister, then the law would have been unconstitutional.

To show why any law restricting the church would have been unconstitutional, in the final eight pages of its ruling the Court systematically reviewed scores of historical precedents to show that America was indeed a Christian nation; and since it was a Christian nation, then any law that would hinder the spread or propagation of Christianity would be unconstitutional.¹² After citing those precedents, including several previous judicial holdings declaring America to be a Christian nation,¹³ the Court then concluded:

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings – declarations of private persons: they are organic [legal, governmental] utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. . . . These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.¹⁴

According to the Court, the employment issue was closed because America was a Christian nation, so the Christian nation declaration was central to the Court’s ruling on the employment/hiring issue.

Endnotes

¹ “July 4 ad exaggerated our Christian heritage: William W. Ziegler’s op-ed column on Hobby Lobby and their Christian ad,” fredericksburg.com, July 22, 2012.
² John Jay to John Murray, Jr., October 12, 1816, William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), II:376, .
³ Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company, 1833), III:731, §1873.
⁴ Theophilus Parsons, Memoir of Theophilus Parsons (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1859), 97-98. See also Theophilus Parsons, Massachusetts, January 23, 1788, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, ed. Jonathan Elliot (Washington: Jonathan Elliot, 1836), II:107-108.
⁵ Richard Dobbs Spaight, North Carolina, July 30, 1788, Debates in the Several State Conventions, ed. Elliot (1836), IV:208.
⁶ State v. Chandler, 2 Harr. 553, 2 Del. 553, 1837 WL 154 (Del.Gen.Sess. 1837).
⁷ “July 4 ad exaggerated our Christian heritage: William W. Ziegler’s op-ed column on Hobby Lobby and their Christian ad,” fredericksburg.com, July 22, 2012.
⁸ Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 43 U. S. 127, 198 (1844).
⁹ “July 4 ad exaggerated our Christian heritage: William W. Ziegler’s op-ed column on Hobby Lobby and their Christian ad,” fredericksburg.com, July 22, 2012.
¹⁰ Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 465, 470-471 (1892).
¹¹ Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 458 (1892).
¹² Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 465-470 (1892).
¹³ Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 470-471 (1982).
¹⁴ Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 470-471 (1892).

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

Unconfirmed Quotation: Franklin Principles of Primitive Christianity

~~Unconfirmed~~ Quotation

“Whosoever shall introduce into public affairs the principles
of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.”
– Benjamin Franklin

This particular quotation above has been used in many works since the 1970s that seek to remind Americans of our religious heritage.¹ In fact, David used it in the Myth of Separation (1989), but around 1995, when he was preparing Original Intent and was unable to find this quote in any primary source, he stopped using it and WallBuilders put it on our “Unconfirmed Quotations” list. But we are now able to report that we have found an early primary source that does attribute the core of this quotation to Franklin.

Before we get to the quote, we would remind readers that in the early 1990s, David challenged historical writers on all sides of the debate over religion in the Founding Era to stop relying on secondary sources and quotations from later Eras and to instead utilize original sources. As an act of good faith, David went through his earlier works and not only removed quotations that could not be verified from original sources, he publicly announced them on WallBuilders’ website. Although many people, including several respected academics, have told him that they admire his honesty and transparency, others have attempted to use this practice against him. For instance, in a recent critique of David’s work, Professor Gregg Frazer of The Master’s College writes:

Having been confronted over the use of false quotes, Barton was forced to acknowledge their illegitimacy in some way on his website. There, he describes them as “unconfirmed” – as if there is some doubt about their legitimacy. In a computer age with search capabilities, we know that these quotes are false – the fact that they are listed as “unconfirmed” reflects a stubborn attempt to hold onto them and to suggest to followers that they might be true. That is made worse by the fact that under these “unconfirmed” quotes are paragraphs maintaining that the bogus quote is something that the person might have said.²

So much for honesty and transparency.

As we clearly state in our piece “Taking on the Critics”, we were not confronted by any individual or group about these quotes. To the contrary, we were the first to step forward and challenge all sides in the historical debate over religion in the Founding to “raise the bar” and use only quotations that could be verified by primary sources.

Calling these unconfirmed quotes “bogus” implies that they were simply made up by David. Yet each and every one of them can be found in reputable secondary sources such as George Bancroft’s A History of the United States (1866).

Frazer suggests that David and WallBuilders live in a fantasy world where they stubbornly engage in wishful thinking that these unconfirmed quotations are accurate. He ignores the fact that we have been able to confirm numerous of these quotations. We clearly list and document this fact.

With respect to the above quotation from Franklin, David originally cited it to works from the 1970s (see footnote 1 above). But in searching backwards to find a primary source, he found it in George Bancroft’s 1866 History of the United States, which stated:

He [Franklin] remarked to those in Paris who learned of him the secret of statesmanship: “He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.”³

This is no insignificant source, for Bancroft is considered “The Father of American History.” He is most famous for his thorough, systematic history of the nation published in ten volumes from 1854-1878). David did not simply make this quote up. It appeared in one of the greatest histories of the United States ever written! But, adhering to his own standards, he stopped using it until it could be confirmed in an original source. As noted, above, we have found such a source.

Here is its context: Franklin had been sent by America as an ambassador to France in 1776, a position in which he served until 1785. He was highly beloved by the French, and he offered them many useful and friendly recommendations including political advice to those who would listen.⁴ Shortly after Franklin’s death in 1790, Jacques Mallet Du Pan, a French journalist and leader, published his historical memoirs, in which he reported:

Franklin often told his disciples in Paris that whoever should introduce the principles of primitive Christianity into the political state would change the whole order of society.⁵

While this 1793 work does not contain the word for word quotation so often cited today, it clearly communicates the main ideas in the quotation. One reason for the difference may be because the work was written in French, so there may be some variations in how a particular translator renders that statement into English.⁶

It may be objected that a second-hand account of what someone said is not as reliable, say, a letter clearly penned by Franklin in which he writes the same quotation. We agree. And yet students of the American founding repeatedly utilize such sources. For instance, speeches made in the Federal Convention of 1787 are regularly quoted as if they were directly spoken by particular delegates, although in most (but not all) cases what is being quoted is Madison’s notes of the speeches.

Those who wish to deny America’s Christian heritage will undoubtedly brush off Du Pan’s account of Franklin’s views. Yet those interested in an accurate account of religion in the American Founding cannot afford to be so dismissive of this intriguing find.

Endnotes

¹ See, for example, Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Light and the Glory (NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1977), 370; Stephen McDowell, America’s Providential History (Charlottesville, VA: Providence Foundation, 1989), 1; William Federer, America’s God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations (Coppell, TX: Fame Publishing, Inc., 1994), 246; Martin H. Manser, Westminster Collection of Christian Quotations (Westminster: John Knox Press, 2001), 31; Classics of American Political and Constitutional Thought, Scott J. Hammond, Kevin r. Hardwick, Howard L. Lubert, editors (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2007), II:228.

² From a written review on David Barton and WallBuilders conducted by Dr. Gregg Frazer at the request of Dr. Jay Richards. That written critique was subsequently passed on to David Barton on August 13, 2012, by the Rev. James Robison, who had received it from Jay Richards.

³ George Bancroft, History of the United States, From the Discovery of the American Continent (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1866), IX:492.

⁴ See, for example, Benjamin Franklin, Two Tracts: Information to Those Who Would Remove to America. And, Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America (London: 1784), 3-24, “Information to Those Who Would Remove to America.”

⁵ M. Mallet Du Pan, Considerations on the Nature of the French Revolution, and on the Causes which Prolong its Duration Translated from the French (London: J. Owen, 1793), 31.

⁶ The original reads: “Francklin répéta plus d une fois à ses Paris que celui qui transporteroit état politique les principes du christianisme changeroit la face de la société.” Jacques Mallet du Pan, Considerations sur la nature de la revolution de France (Londres, 1793), 28.

Statement: David Barton on The Jefferson Lies

Statement: David Barton on The Jefferson Lies

The announcement that Thomas Nelson has pulled The Jefferson Lies because it has “lost confidence” in the work has become national news. However, while Thomas Nelson may have “lost confidence” in the work, others have not and thus the book has already been picked up by a much larger national publisher and distributor. Even at the time Nelson dropped the work, they admitted that it was still selling very well.

As is the case with all of our published items, we go above and beyond with original source documentation so that people can be thoroughly confident when they see the truth of history for themselves. We find it regrettable that Thomas Nelson never contacted us with even one specific area of concern before curtly notifying us they had dropped the work. Had they done so, we would have been happy to provide them with the thorough and extensive historical documentation for any question or issue they raised; they never asked. The Jefferson Lies has not been pulled from publication and it will continue to sell nationally.

The Importance of Voting and Christian Involvement in the Political Arena

John Adams

We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our hands; we have a check upon two branches of the legislature . . . the power I mean of electing at stated periods [each] branch. . . . It becomes necessary to every [citizen] then, to be in some degree a statesman, and to examine and judge for himself of the tendency of political principles and measures. Let us examine, then, with a sober, a manly . . . and a Christian spirit; let us neglect all party [loyalty] and advert to facts; let us believe no man to be infallible or impeccable in government any more than in religion; take no man’s word against evidence, nor implicitly adopt the sentiments of others who may be deceived themselves, or may be interested in deceiving us.¹

Samuel Adams

Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.²

Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men.³

Matthias Burnett

Consider well the important trust . . . which God . . . [has] put into your hands. . . . To God and posterity you are accountable for [your rights and your rulers]. . . . Let not your children have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions which your fathers delivered to you. . . . [L]ook well to the characters and qualifications of those you elect and raise to office and places of trust. . . . Think not that your interests will be safe in the hands of the weak and ignorant; or faithfully managed by the impious, the dissolute and the immoral. Think not that men who acknowledge not the providence of God nor regard His laws will be uncorrupt in office, firm in defense of the righteous cause against the oppressor, or resolutly oppose the torrent of iniquity. . . . Watch over your liberties and privileges – civil and religious – with a careful eye.⁴

Frederick Douglass

I have one great political idea. . . . That idea is an old one. It is widely and generally assented to; nevertheless, it is very generally trampled upon and disregarded. The best expression of it, I have found in the Bible. It is in substance, “Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]. This constitutes my politics – the negative and positive of my politics, and the whole of my politics. . . . I feel it my duty to do all in my power to infuse this idea into the public mind, that it may speedily be recognized and practiced upon by our people.⁵

Charles Finney

[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them. . . . Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time has come when they must act differently. . . . Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you He does see it – and He will bless or curse this nation according to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].⁶

James Garfield

Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.⁷

Francis Grimke

If the time ever comes when we shall go to pieces, it will . . . be . . . from inward corruption – from the disregard of right principles . . . from losing sight of the fact that “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but that sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]. . . .[T]he secession of the Southern States in 1860 was a small matter with the secession of the Union itself from the great principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, in the Golden Rule, in the Ten Commandments, in the Sermon on the Mount. Unless we hold, and hold firmly to these great fundamental principles of righteousness…our Union…will be “only a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.”⁸

Alexander Hamilton

A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.⁹

John Jay

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.¹⁰

The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.¹¹

Thomas Jefferson

The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the wisdom, and resting on the will of the people.¹²

[T]he rational and peacable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people.¹³

[S]hould things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights.¹⁴

William Paterson

When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.¹⁵

William Penn

Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good and the government cannot be bad. . . . But if men be bad, let the government be never so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn. . . .[T]hough
good laws do well, good men do better; for good laws may want [lack] good men and be abolished or invaded by ill men; but good men will never want good laws nor suffer [allow] ill ones.¹⁶

Daniel Webster

Impress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well as on his own.¹⁷

Noah Webster

In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate – look to his character. . . . When a citizen gives his suffrage to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country.¹⁸

When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, “just men who will rule in the fear of God.” The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.¹⁹

John Witherspoon

Those who wish well to the State ought to choose to places of trust men of inward principle, justified by exemplary conversation. . . .[And t]he people in general ought to have regard to the moral character of those whom they invest with authority either in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches.²⁰

Endnotes

¹ John Adams as ‘U’ to the Boston Gazette, August 29, 1763, The Papers of John Adams, ed. Robert J. Taylor (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977), 1:81.
² Samuel Adams in the Boston Gazette, April 16, 1781, The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Harry Alonzo Cushing (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907), IV:256.
³ Samuel Adams to James Warren, November 4, 1775, Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Cushing (1907), III:236-237.
⁴ Matthias Burnett, An Election Sermon, Preached at Hartford, on the Day of the Anniversary Election, May 12, 1803 (Hartford: Printed by Hudson & Goodwin, 1803), 27-28.
⁵ Frederick Douglass speech delivered at Ithaca, New York, October 14th, 1852, The Frederick Douglass Papers, ed. John Blassingame (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 2:397.
⁶ Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1868), 281-282.
⁷ James A. Garfield, “A Century of Congress,” July, 1877, The Works of James Abram Garfield, ed. Burke Hinsdale (Boston: James R. Osgood and Company, 1883), II:486, 489.
⁸ Rev. Francis J. Grimke, from “Equality of Right for All Citizens, Black and White, Alike,” March 7, 1909, published in Masterpieces of Negro Eloquence, ed. Alice Moore Dunbar (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2000), 246-247.
⁹ Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York, Columbia University Press, 1962), III:544-545.
¹⁰ John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry P. Johnston (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), IV:365.
¹¹ John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry P. Johnston (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), I:161.
¹² Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Bergh (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), 10:235.
¹³ Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), 12:136.
¹⁴ Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), 10:245.
¹⁵ Supreme Court Justice William Paterson reminding his fellow justices of Proverbs 29:2. United States Oracle (Portsmouth, NH), May 24, 1800.
¹⁶ William Penn quoted from: Thomas Clarkson, Memoirs of the Private and Public Life of William Penn (London: Richard Taylor and Co., 1813), I:303.
¹⁷ Daniel Webster Remarks at a Receiption to the Ladies of Richmond, Virginia, October 5, 1840, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1853), II:108.
¹⁸ Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His Education to which is subjoined a Brief History of the United States (New Haven: S. Converse, 1823), 18, 19.
¹⁹ Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), 336-337.
²⁰ John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), IV:266, 277.

How Does Jeremiah 17:9 Relate to the Constitutional Separation of Powers?

In their public presentations, our WallBuilders speakers frequently provide historical examples of how specific Bible verses impacted particular aspects of American culture. For example, the story of Matthew Maury and his geographical discoveries involves Psalm 8 and Ecclesiastes 1:6; James Kent (“A Father of American Jurisprudence”) cites 1 Samuel 7:15-16 with the formation of circuit courts; Isaiah 33:22 is associated with the three branches of government; and other such examples. ¹

Many audience members, intrigued by how specific Bible verses directly shaped American practices, look up the Bible references that we routinely mention and are immediately impressed with their specificity and obvious applicability. But almost universally when they check John Adams’ mention of Jeremiah 17:9² as the basis of the constitutional separation of powers, they are perplexed and often conclude that our speaker must have used the wrong reference. It doesn’t seem that Jeremiah 17:9 relates to constitutional separation of powers, but it actually does. Allow us to explain, but first let’s lay some groundwork.

When Progressives grasped the reins of common education in the early 1900s, they introduced profound systemic changes, including age-graded education (previously, students were grouped according to knowledge level rather than age level), compulsory education (school attendance had been generally voluntary), extended school years (school was often three months a year, but Progressives made it most of the year), and twelve years of government education (prior to the Progressives, virtually no one went past eight-grade learning levels, after which they would enter college or some trade or profession). ³

These changes were not because previous educational practices had been unsuccessful, for it had been just the opposite. In fact, few college graduates today can master the eighth-grade exit exam given in the early 1900s by most states, ⁴ when school only lasted for a few months a year and for only eight years.

Perhaps the most significant transformation imposed by Progressives was that students were no longer taught how to think, but rather how to learn. Instead of being trained to reason sequentially and study and confirm independent sources, students were now required to listen to what the teacher said and then repeat it back. Thus, true/false, multiple choice, and fill-in-the-blank tests were introduced, ⁵ for they did not require a mastery of subject-matter knowledge but rather only a mastery of whatever the teacher had said.

By this change, the teacher became the small end of the funnel of knowledge – everything flowed through the teacher to the student. To invoke an old proverb, no longer did the student learn how to fish, but rather the teacher now gave them the fish. Because students were no longer trained in critical thinking, widespread indoctrination became the result – whatever the teacher believed was what was communicated to students, which they also came to believe. The warning by Jesus in Luke 6:40 had become reality: “Every student, when he is fully trained, will be like his teacher.”

Progressivism, liberalism, secularism, relativism, socialism, and other isms were now freely communicated to students by academia, and these beliefs have now thoroughly permeated the culture as those students become adults and filled various professions.

One teaching common among Progressives (and now widely believed even by many Christians) is that man is innately good but sometimes does bad things.⁶ But the Bible teaches just the opposite – that man is innately bad but sometimes does good things; and that is only when man’s wicked heart is remade by God.

Under the Progressive belief, if man shoots someone, the problem is with the gun; since man is instinctively good, it can’t be his fault that something bad happened, so we need to regulate the gun, not the man. Or if someone gets drunk and abuses his spouse, it is because man has a medical disease beyond his control – it’s not his fault, for he is inherently good. Or if someone fathers a dozen children out of wedlock, it is because he was not given enough condoms in school. In short, under Progressivism, if man does something bad, there was some outside cause for it, for man is inherently good.

But the Bible says just the opposite. Notice a few verses on this:

Mark 7:21-23 – For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within. (Matthew 5:19)
Genesis 6:5 & 8:21 – The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Romans 3:9 – It is written: “None is righteous, no, not one.” (c.f. Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3)
Ecclesiastes 9:3 – The hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts.
Galatians 5:19-21 – Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like.
Psalm 5:9 – For there is no truth in their mouth; their inmost self is destruction; their throat is an open grave; they flatter with their tongue.

According to the Bible, man will only begin to do what is good when God changes his heart (see, for example Romans 6:6,16-17,19-20, 2 Corinthians 5:17, etc.). Without a life changed by God, mankind is naturally inclined to do what is wrong.

The Founders firmly held this Biblical view. They therefore constructed government fully expecting the worst – expecting that the people leading all three branches would become corrupt. Fifty-five hundred years of recorded history prior to the Founding Fathers had demonstrated that as the pattern of every human government that had ever existed. Understanding this, the Founders made specific plans to help limit the inherent corruption of man and they sought ways to prevent all three branches from becoming wicked at the same time. They wanted a fail-safe so that if one did, then perhaps the other branches could restrain it or drag it back to its limited function. The result was the various clauses providing and enforcing Separation of Powers.

The following excerpt is from the Founders’ Bible and it explains how the truth inherent in Jeremiah 17:9 helped produce the constitutional separation of powers.

Jeremiah 17:9 – The Constitutional Separation of Powers

“The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?”

The separation of powers and reciprocal checks and balances incorporated throughout the Constitution has been heralded as one of the most important features of American government, enabling it not only to survive but to thrive for over two centuries. History was filled with examples showing that when government power was centralized in one body or leader, that government always became a danger to the rights of individuals and brought that nation to ruin. But the Founding Fathers had not only the examples of history to guide them but especially the teachings of the Bible.

A well-known verse addressing this subject was Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?” This verse encapsulated what Calvinistic ministers and theologians termed the “depravity of man” or “total depravity” ⁷ (that the natural heart of man easily embraced moral and civil degradation), and it was a frequent topic for sermons in the Founding Era. The Founding Fathers understood the import of this verse and openly cited it – as when John Adams reminded Americans:

Let me conclude by advising all men to look into their own hearts, which they will find to be ‘deceitful above all things and desperately wicked’ [Jeremiah 17:9].⁸

The Biblically illiterate believe in the innate goodness of man – that man will naturally do what is right, but experience regularly affirms the opposite: without a heart regenerated by the power of God, man will routinely do what is wrong. Adams specifically rejected any notion of the innate goodness of man, especially when it came to government:

To expect self-denial from men when they have a majority in their favor, and consequently power to gratify themselves, is to disbelieve all history and universal experience – it is to disbelieve revelation and the Word of God, which informs us ‘the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked’ [Jeremiah 17:9]. . . . There is no man so blind as not to see that to talk of founding a government upon a supposition that nations and great bodies of men left to themselves will practice a course of self-denial is either to babble like a newborn infant or to deceive like an unprincipled impostor.⁹

And even those who had experienced a regenerated heart through the power of God in Christ and who did not embrace Calvinism nevertheless knew enough about the truth of this verse and the tendencies of the heart to not even fully trust themselves to be above its corrupting influence. As John Quincy Adams explained:

I believe myself sincere; but the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked [Jeremiah 17:9]. I do not believe the total depravity of man, but I am deeply conscious of the frailty of my own nature.¹⁰

Understanding this principle from Jeremiah 17 – a principle that was accepted by all sides of the theological spectrum – the Founders knew that government would be much safer if all power did not repose in the same authority. Making practical application of this Biblical truth, they therefore divided and checked power between branches so that if one leader or branch went wicked, the other two might still check and stop it. As George Washington explained:

A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power by dividing and distributing it into different depositories . . . has been evinced [demonstrated] by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes.¹¹

This remarkable feature of American government – the separation of powers and reciprocal checks and balances – can be attributed to the Founders’ understanding of Jeremiah 17:9.

Endnotes

¹ For more information, see The Founders’ Bible (Shiloh Road Publishers, 2012).

² John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. III, p. 443, “On Private Revenge III,” published in the Boston Gazette, September 5, 1763; John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (London: John Stockdale, 1794), Vol. III, p. 289, “Letter VI. The Right Constitution of a Commonwealth, examined.”

³ For more information, see “A Short History of United States’ Education 1900 to 2006,” historyliteracy.org (accessed on September 7, 2016); “10 Things You Should Know About the American Founding,” The Catholic World Report, July 3, 2012; “A campus shared by the College, the Academy and the Charity School,” Penn University Archives & Records Center (accessed on September 7, 2016); “John Dewey,” Biography (accessed on September 7, 2016).

⁴ See some examples of 8th grade exit exams in: B. A. Hathaway, 1001 Test Examples in Arithmetic with Answers (Cleveland, OH: Burrows Brothers Company, 1890); Warp’s Review Books (Minden, NE: Warp Publishing Company, 1928), on various subjects; Colorado State Eighth Grade Examination Question Book (Lincoln, NE: Lincoln Supply Co., 1927).

⁵ See, for example, Colorado State Eighth Grade Examination Question Book (Nebraska: 1927), pp. 4, 10, 12, questions from a 1927 Agriculture, Arithmetic, and Civics test; “true-false test,” Merriam-Webster (accessed on September 7, 2016); “multiple-choice,” Merriam-Webster (accessed on September 7, 2016).

⁶ See an example of this philosophy in Theodore Roosevelt, “Who is a Progressive?” Teaching American History, April 1912.

⁷ See, for example, “total depravity,” Merriam-Webster (accessed on September 6, 2016); Herman Hanko, The Five Points of Calvinism (1976), “Chapter 1: Total Depravity.”

⁸ John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. III, p. 443, “On Private Revenge III,” published in the Boston Gazette, September 5, 1763.

⁹ John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (London: John Stockdale, 1794), Vol. III, p. 289, “Letter VI. The Right Constitution of a Commonwealth, examined.”

¹⁰ John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co, 1876), Vol. XI, p. 270, November 16, 1842.

¹¹ George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States, and Late Commander in Chief of the American Army, to the People of the United States, Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: Christopher Jackson, 1796), p. 22.

How to Respond to “Separation of Church and State”

We’ve all heard the phrase “separation of Church and State.” It is one of the best-known but least understood phrases in America today. It expresses the belief that there should be a wall of separation between one’s personal faith and any display of that faith in public. In America we advocate freedom of religion, yet if a teacher places a Bible on her desk,¹ if a student bows his head to pray in school,² or cheerleaders display Bible verses on their posters,³ they are accused of violating separation of church and state – of “subjecting” those around them to their faith.

As Christians, we must know how to respond. Do we know the history behind the phrase? Do we know our rights? Do we know our Founding Fathers’ intentions with the phrase?

Here are some simple ways we can respond so that we do not fall prey to the silencing of freedom of religion in the public square.

1. Where does the phrase “Separation of Church and State” originate?⁴

The concept of separation of Church and state actually originates in the Bible, where God created three institutions. In Genesis, God established the institution of family by creating male and female and placing them together in a lifelong union. Next came the institution of civil government to address our relationship with our fellow man. The final institution addressed our relationship with God, and was the creation of the temple, or the Church.

When God’s people left Egypt, God had them establish their own nation. At that time, God placed Moses over government and civil affairs and Aaron over spiritual ones, thus separating those two roles and jurisdictions. Neither excluded God from its operation, but each was to be headed and run by a different individual and not the same person. Later in the Bible when King Uzziah tried to combine the two institutions and serve as both a King and a Priest, God sovereignly weighed in and made clear that He did not want the same individual running both institutions together.

But in 391 AD, Emperor Theodosius combined both Church and State, and for the next twelve centuries, the State was in charge of the Church. The government decided what the official Church doctrines would be, and it punished violators who disagreed with those positions, not allowing them to practice their faith. There was a state-established Church, with the Church becoming an official arm of the State and with it being run by church officials appointed by the government. In the 1500s during the Reformation, those who followed the Bible began to call for a return to a Biblical separation of Church and State so that the government would no longer control or prohibit religious activities.

The early colonists who came to America brought this view with them, and in America they made sure that the government, or the State, could not control or limit religious beliefs or activities. This was their understanding of the separation of Church and State.

The phrase “separation of Church and State” cannot be found in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. In fact, it is not found in any of our nation’s founding documents. Related to government, the phrase first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1801.⁵

Thomas Jefferson had worked very hard to separate the Anglican Church from the government in his home state of Virginia so that all other denominations could practice their faith without government penalty or persecution. Jefferson contributed to ending government-run religion in his state, so when he became president of the United States, the Baptists and those from other denominations were his strong supporters because he had fought for their freedom of religion – for their right to be free from state control in matters of faith.

The Danbury Baptists wrote Thomas Jefferson expressing their concern that the government might try to regulate their religious expression. In response, Jefferson wrote his now famous letter, using the phrase “Separation of Church and State” to reassure the Danbury Baptists that the First Amendment prohibited the government from trying to control religious expression. In short, the First Amendment was intended to keep government out of regulating religion, but it did not keep religion out of government or the public square.

2. What Does the Constitution Actually Say?

Today, people believe that “separation of Church and State” is in the First Amendment of the Constitution. But in the First Amendment the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law…”

First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The famous separation phrase appears nowhere in that Amendment, or in the Constitution.

So we must ask the question: How does a student praying over his lunch mean the same thing as Congress making a law? The answer: it doesn’t. The First Amendment meant Congress is limited from setting up a national denomination and Congress is limited from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment does not limit faith or the people, only the government.

The First Amendment was created by America’s Founders because of their desire to avoid something like the government-run Church of England. In fact, it was not just the government of England they longed to be different from, but they were also striving to be different from the way that churches and government had operated across most of Europe for the previous thousand years, for most nations at that time had state-established and state-controlled churches.

The Pilgrims, Puritans, and others who settled America wanted to return to God’s original plan of separating the church from government control. That long-standing American desire and practice of freedom of religion was specifically written in the First Amendment.

Here is one of the Bibles (dated 1590) that the Pilgrims and Puritan brought to America with them.⁶

how-to-respond-to-separation-of-church-and-state

The notes in this Bible actually discuss having a separation between government and the church. The Pilgrims therefore set up a system where they would have separate elections for both state leaders and church leaders so that the leaders would be different, rather than the same, as was the practice in England.

3. Faith has been part of American public Society for over 180 years.

Students had been praying over their lunches for over 180 years under the Constitution with no problem, as well as doing other religious activities that were always constitutional.

In fact, we actually have several original sermons from a church that Thomas Jefferson helped facilitate. It was a church that met inside the U.S. Capitol,⁷ where services were held in the House Chamber every Sunday. Both as Vice President and as President of the United States, Jefferson faithfully attended those church services inside the US Capitol and saw no constitutional problem with them, for Congress was not controlling religion for the entire nation but rather was only allowing religious expressions to occur, which was their constitutional role.

how-to-respond-to-separation-of-church-and-state-2

These are sermons preached at the Church that met inside the U.S. Capitol. The first one is on “The Public Worship of God,” and the second is on “The Imperishable and Saving Words of Christ.” Both sermons were preached in the Chamber of the U. S. House of Representatives.

how-to-respond-to-separation-of-church-and-state-3

It has only been in recent years that faith has been excluded from public schools, governmental venues, and the public square. Did we just invent separation of church and state? No, the phrase has existed since centuries before Jefferson, but today its meaning has been taken out of context and twisted to mean something entirely different.

This first happened in 1947 when the Supreme Court quoted only one phrase from Jefferson’s short 1801 letter to the Danbury Baptists. The Court claimed that there was to be “a wall of separation between Church and State” and that religious activities could no longer occur in the public square.⁸ They took the intent and clear purpose of Jefferson’s letter completely out of context. They did not show his short letter of only three paragraphs and 233 words which contained all the context and explanation but rather lifted a 8-word phrase out of it and remained silent on the rest.

Next time you hear someone claim religion has no place in public because of the “wall of separation,” I hope you’ll remember a few of the key pieces of history that many today have forgotten.

Endnotes

¹ See, for example Roberts v. Madigan, 702 F. Supp. 1505 (D. Colo. 1989), aff’d, 921 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir. 1990).

² See, for example, Broadus v. Saratoga Springs City School District, 02-cv-0136 (N.D.N.Y. 2002).

³ See, for example, Kountze Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Matthews, No. 09-13- 00251 (Tex. App.— Beaumont 2014).

⁴ See an article on the history of the phrase “Separation of Church and State” here.

⁵ See the text of the Danbury Baptists 1801 letter to Thomas Jefferson, and Jefferson’s 1802 reply here.

⁶ A Geneva Bible from the WallBuilders library, belonging to the Arthur Upton family.

⁷ See David Barton’s article “Church in the U.S. Capitol” for more information.

⁸ Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

Biblical Christianity: The Origin of the Rights of Conscience

Overview

Significantly, 1 Timothy 1:5 declares that the goal of the entirety of everything taught in the Scriptures is threefold:

The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith.

Significantly, the three are inseparable, and without a good conscience, there will not be either a sincere faith or a pure heart. It is therefore not surprising that developing, maintaining, and living according to a good conscience is referenced more than thirty times in the New Testament (cf. Acts 24:16, 1 Timothy 1:19, 3:9, 1 Peter 3:16, 21, Romans 13:5, 2 Corinthians 4:2, etc.).

In fact, 1 Corinthians 8:4-12 flatly states that if a Christian views something as a matter of conscience – if the inner voice that God has placed within him or her tells them that something is sin to them – they are not to violate their conscience; and if anyone makes them do so, then they “sin against Christ.” (This message is repeated in Romans 1:1-23, 1 Corinthians 10:28-32, and elsewhere.) Few subjects in the Bible are stressed as strongly as that of maintaining a pure conscience – of preserving the conviction that one will answer directly to God for what his religious faith requires him to do, or refrain from doing.

Strikingly, only nations who respect Biblical teachings and traditions offer protection for the rights of religious conscience. Secular and non-Biblical nations, and those with state-established churches (such as those that predominated in England and Europe at the time of the American Founding), do not allow rights of conscience but instead demand conformity, which often requires governmental punishment coercion concerning religious beliefs, which violates the Scriptures.

Christ Himself established religious non-coercion as the standard. His approach was so voluntary that He even directed His disciples that when they presented the Gospel to others, if someone was interested, then they could stay and share the message with them; but if someone did not want to hear, then they were to leave the area and not force the issue (Luke 10:8-12). There was absolutely no coercion. It was also this way with Paul and the other Apostles: in every case; hearers then chose whether or not to follow Christianity; there was never any penalty, pressure, or force levied against them.

As John Quincy Adams noted, Jesus Christ “came to teach and not to compel. His law was a Law of Liberty. He left the human mind and human action free.”¹ Two generations later, legal writer Stephen Cowell (1800-1872) similarly avowed:

Nonconformity, dissent, free inquiry, individual conviction, mental independence, are forever consecrated by the religion of the New Testament as the breath of its own life – the conditions of its own existence on the earth. The book is a direct transfer of human allegiance in things spiritual from the civil and ecclesiastical powers to the judgment and conscience of the individual.²

And several generations after that, President Franklin D. Roosevelt continued to affirm the same truth, noting: “We want to do it the voluntary way – and most human beings in all the world want to do it the voluntary way. We do not want to have the way imposed. . . . That would not follow in the footsteps of Christ.”³

From the beginning, America faithfully observed these principles, refusing to apply government coercion or conformity to the religious beliefs and practices of individuals. But today, this is dramatically and rapidly changing, with government routinely requiring people of faith to violate their religious conscience, particularly on social issues such as those surrounding aspects of sexuality, whether the taking of unborn human life, contraception, or requiring participation in homosexual nuptials, affirmation of transgenderism, and other major sexual elements of the LGBT agenda.

The American Experience on Religious Conscience

Colonial Era

Many of the early colonists who came to America were familiar with the Bible teachings on conscience and brought them to America, where they took root and grew to maturity at a rapid rate, having been planted in virgin soil completely uncontaminated by the religious apostasy and routine violations of the rights of conscience that had characterized the previous millennia. Hence, Christianity as practiced in America became the world’s single greatest historical force in securing non-coercion, religious toleration, and the rights of conscience.

For example, in 1640, the Rev. Roger Williams established Providence (the city that became the center of the Rhode Island colony), declaring:

We agree, as formerly hath been the liberties of the town, so still, to hold forth liberty of conscience.⁴

Similar language and protections were also included in subsequent American documents, including the 1649 Maryland “Toleration Act,”⁵ the 1663 charter for Rhode Island,⁶ the 1664 Charter for Jersey,⁷ the 1665 Charter for Carolina,⁸ the 1669 Constitutions of Carolina,⁹ the 1676 charter for West Jersey,¹⁰ the 1701 charter for Delaware,¹¹ the 1682 frame of government for Pennsylvania,¹² and many others. As John Quincy Adams affirmed, “The transcendent and overruling principle of the first settlers of New England was conscience.”¹³

Revolutionary Era

In 1775 (a year before our official separation from Great Britain), Commander-in-Chief George Washington addressed Continental soldiers and from the beginning charged them:

While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men and to Him only in this case they are answerable.¹⁴

With America’s official break from Great Britain in 1776, the states created their very first state constitutions and specifically secured the religious toleration, non-coercion, and the rights of conscience. For example, the 1776 constitution of Virginia declared:

[R]eligion . . . can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force and violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience.¹⁵

The 1776 Constitution of New Jersey similarly protected the rights of conscience,¹⁶ causing Governor William Livingston (a signer of the U. S. Constitution) to happily proclaim:

Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. . . . In contrast with this spiritual tyranny, how beautiful appears our catholic [expansive] constitution in disclaiming all jurisdiction over the souls of men, and securing (by a never-to-be-repealed section) the voluntary, unchecked, moral suasion of every individual – and his own self-directed intercourse with the Father of Spirits!¹⁷

When New York’s first constitution (1777) likewise protected the rights of conscience,⁸¹ Governor John Jay (an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court) similarly rejoiced that:

Adequate security [under our constitution] is also given to the rights of conscience and private judgment. They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left. Every man is permitted to consider, to adore, and to worship his Creator in the manner most agreeable to his conscience.¹⁹

Similar clauses securing the rights of religious conscience also appeared in many other early state constitutions, including that of Delaware (1776),²⁰ North Carolina (1776),²¹ Pennsylvania (1776),²² Vermont (1777),²³ South Carolina (1778),²⁴ Massachusetts (1780),²⁵ New Hampshire (1784),²⁶ etc. Today, the safeguards for the rights of conscience explicitly appear in forty-five state constitutions, and by inference in the other five.²⁷

Federal Era

In 1788 following the ratification of the federal Constitution, six states submitted proposals for a Bill of Rights,²⁸ with several specifically recommending national language that “all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.”²⁹ Although the word “conscience” did not ultimately appear in the final language of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, those who framed that Amendment believed that by preventing the government from establishing a national religion and by guaranteeing to the people their “free exercise of religion,” that the rights of conscience had been fully secured³⁰ – a fact affirmed by President Thomas Jefferson when he penned his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that the First Amendment was an “expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience.”³¹ Subsequent constitutional commentaries reiterated that the First Amendment did indeed protect the rights of conscience.³²

Founding Fathers

In addition to the several Founders already mentioned, here are a few more unequivocal declarations regarding the constitutional duty of official to protect and defend the rights of religious conscience:

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . Conscience is the most sacred of all property.³³ JAMES MADISON

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.³⁴ It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself to resist invasions of it in the case of others, or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.³⁵ Our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted – we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God.³⁶ THOMAS JEFFERSON

[T]he consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. . . . For what business, in the name of common sense, has the magistrate (distinctly and singly appointed for our political and temporal happiness) with our religion, which is to secure our happiness spiritual and eternal? . . . [T]he state [does not] have any concern in the matter. For in what manner doth it affect society . . . in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?³⁷ WILLIAM LIVINGSTON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

Modern Era

As a result of the conscience protections long provided in American history and law, government exemptions are routinely granted to those whose religious faith requires them to participate in, or refrain from activities that violate their religious conscience. For example:

Pacifists and conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars;³⁸
Jehovah’s Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools;³⁹
The Amish are not required to complete the standard compulsory twelve years of education;⁴⁰
Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws;⁴¹
Muslim and Jewish men are not required to shave their beards in jobs that otherwise require employees to be clean-shaven;⁴²
Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work at their jobs on Saturday;⁴³

and there are additional examples.

Conclusion

Clearly, protection for the inalienable rights of religious conscience is deeply embedded into the fabric of American governmental policy. But as currently demonstrated in countless nations around the world, and now in America, when secularism or any other non-Biblical philosophy becomes dominant in its culture, a loss of legal protections for religious rights is usually one of the first casualties of the change.

Today in America, to seek to provide protection for the traditional rights of religious conscience is now regularly denounced as discriminatory.⁴⁴ The LGBT movement, and those in government aligned with it, disdain the rights of religious conscience and instead use the power, penalties, and full force of the law to coerce all others to embrace and participate in affirming their views, including Christian bakers,⁴⁵ florists,⁴⁶ photographers,⁴⁷ churches,⁴⁸ homeowners,⁴⁹ pastors,⁵⁰ clerks,⁵¹ business owners,⁵² officials,⁵³ religious schools,⁵⁴ military personnel,⁵⁵ sportscasters,⁵⁶ and others.⁵⁷

Our Framers recognized that if religious liberties and our civil liberties were inseparable – that if our religious liberties were diminished, our civil liberties would soon follow. As Joseph Story (a “Father of American Jurisprudence,” placed on the Supreme Court by President James Madison) pointed out:

There is not a truth to be gathered from history more certain or more momentous than this: that civil liberty cannot long be separated from religious liberty without danger, and ultimately without destruction to both. Wherever religious liberty exists, it will, first or last, bring in and establish political liberty.⁵⁸

Signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon concurred:

There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost and religious liberty preserved entire. . . . God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.⁵⁹

And Jedidiah Morse (a pastor, educator, and historian of the American Revolution, appointed by the federal government to document the condition of Indian affairs) agreed:

All efforts made to destroy the foundations of our Holy Religion ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation . . . in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom.⁶⁰

Secularism produces an antipathy toward religion and religious rights, when ultimately diminish our civil rights. In fact, after President Obama announced that America no longer should be viewed as a Christian nation,⁶¹ he then announced that he was rescinding the traditional religious rights of conscience for those working in the medical profession.⁶² Historically, governmental protection for religious rights is the only sure indicator of protection for other non-religious civil rights.

Endnotes

¹ John Quincy Adams, A Discourse on Education Delivered at Braintree, Thursday, October 24th, 1839 (Boston: Perkins & Marvin, 1840), 18.

² Stephen Colwell, Politics for American Christians: A Word upon our Example as a Nation, our Labour, our Trade, Elections, Education, and Congressional Legislation (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Co. 1852), 82, Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine, for 1844 (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1844), 752, “The Politics of the New Testament,” December 1844.

³ “Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Christmas Greeting to the Nation,” The American Presidency Project, December 24, 1940.

⁴ The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and Other Organic Laws, ed. Francis Newton Thorpe (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), VI:3205-3207, “Plantation Agreement at Providence – August 27-September 6, 1640.”

⁵ William MacDonald, Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of American History 1606-1775 (New York: MacMillan Company, 1899), 104-106, “Maryland Toleration Act,” April 1649.

⁶ <a href=”https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015001567794;view=1up;seq=27″ target=”“blank”” rel=”noopener”>Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), VI:3211, “Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations-1663.”

⁷ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2537, “The Concession and Agreement of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of New Caesarea, or New Jersey, 1664.”

⁸ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2771, “Charter of Carolina – 1665.”

⁹ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2785, “The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina – 1669.”

¹⁰ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2549, “The Charter or Fundamental Laws of West New Jersey, Agreed Upon – 1676.”

¹¹ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), I:558, “Charter of Delaware – 1701.”

¹² Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:3063, “Frame of Government of Pennsylvania, May 5, 1682.”

¹³ John Quincy Adams, A Discourse on Education Delivered at Braintree, Thursday, October 24th, 1839 (Boston: Perkins & Marvin, 1840), 28.

¹⁴ George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1931), 3:492, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775.

¹⁵ The American’s Guide: Comprising the Declaration of Independence; the Articles of Confederation; the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitutions of the Several States Composing the Union (Philadelphia: Hogan & Thompson, 1835), 180, 1776 Constitution: Bill of Rights, No. 16.

¹⁶ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2597, “Constitution of New Jersey – 1776.”

¹⁷ William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, ed. Carl E. Prince (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1980), 2:235, 237, article under the name “Cato,” originally published in the New Jersey Gazette on February 18, 1778.

¹⁸ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2636-2637, “Constitution of New York – 1777.”

¹⁹ William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), I:82, John Jay’s charge to the grand jury during the first term of the New York state Supreme Court.

²⁰ Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (New York: E. Oswald, 1786), 129.

²¹ Constitutions (1786), 185.

²² Constitutions (1786), 109.

²³ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), VI:3740.

²⁴ Constitutions (1786), 215.

²⁵ Constitutions (1786), 11-12.

²⁶ Constitutions (1786), 4.

²⁷ Forty-five state constitutions contain explicit language specifically singling out the rights of conscience. Five other states – Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, Montana, and South Carolina – use similar language to the U.S. Constitution (“make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”). As is seen in the subsequent section, the Founding Fathers believed that this language provided specific protection for the rights of conscience.

²⁸ Those states initially included Massachusetts, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, and North Carolina; two years later in 1790, Rhode Island submitted its proposals. See Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: 1836), I:322-333.

²⁹ Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950), 1:600-610. New Hampshire recommended an amendment stating that “Congress shall make no law touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.”

³⁰ The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, ed. Joseph Gales (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1834), I:757-796, August 15, 1789 to August 21, 1789.

³¹ Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. H. A. Washington (Washington D.C.: Taylor & Maury, 1854), VIII:113, “Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson, A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut,” January 1, 1802.

³² See, for example, Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company, 1833), I:701, § 990-991:

The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority, without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as revealed religion. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus sought to cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and the power of subverting the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries: with Notes of Reference, to the Constitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States; and of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Philadelphia: William Young Birch and Abraham Small: 1803), I:489, “Appendix: Note G. Of the Right of Conscience; and Of the Freedom of Speech and Of The Press”:

Liberty of conscience in matters of religion consists in the absolute and unrestrained exercise of our religious opinion, and duties, in that mode which our own reason and conviction dictate, without the control or intervention of any human power or authority whatsoever. This liberty though made a part of our constitution, and interwoven in the nature of man by his Creator, so far as the arts of fraud and terrors of violence have been capable of abridging it, hath been the subject of coercion by human laws in all ages and in all countries as far as the annals of mankind extend.

James Wilson, Thomas McKean [Wilson and McKean both signed the Declaration of Independence, and Wilson was a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court], Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States of America (London: 1791), II:61:

In the third place we are told, that there is no security for the rights of conscience. I ask the honorable gentleman, what part of this system puts it in the power of Congress to attack those rights? When there is no power to attack, it is idle to prepare the means of defense.

And others.

³³ James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906), VI:102, “Property,” originally published in The National Gazette on March 29, 1792.

³⁴ Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. H. A. Washington (New York: Biker, Thorne, & Co., 1854), VIII:147, to the Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, CT on February 4, 1809.

³⁵ Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, ed. Thomas Jefferson Randolph (Charlottesville: F. Carr, an Co., 1829), III:507, to Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803.

³⁶ Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (London: John Stockdale, 1787), 265, “Query XVII: The different religions received into that state?”

³⁷ William Livingston, Papers, ed. Prince (1980), 2:235, 237, article under the name “Cato,” originally published in the New Jersey Gazette on February 18, 1778; Hezekiah Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America: Or, An Attempt to Collect and Preserve Some of the Speeches, Orations, & Proceedings (Baltimore: William Ogden Niles, 1822), 306-307, “Remarks on liberty of conscience, ascribed to his excellency William Livingston, governor of New Jersey, 1778”; B. F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), 162-163, from William Livingston.

³⁸ United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).

³⁹ West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

⁴⁰ Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

⁴¹ See, for example, “Parents claim religion to avoid vaccines for kids,” NBCNews, October 17, 2007; “Vaccination Exemptions,” College of Physicians of Philadelphia (accessed on May 9, 2016).

⁴² Potter v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 01-1189 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2007).

⁴³ Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida, 480 U.S. 136 (1987); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 409 (1963).

⁴⁴ See, for example, Adam Serwer, “Arizona passes law allowing discrimination,” MSNBC, February 21, 2014; Paresh Dave, “Miss. governor signs religious freedom bill; civil rights groups dismayed,” Los Angeles Times, April 4, 2014; Chris Johnson, “Georgia Senate passes religious discrimination bill,” Washington Blade, March 5, 2015; Tony Cook, “Gov. Mike Pence signs ‘religious freedom’ bill in private,” IndyStar, April 2, 2015; Monica Davey, “Indiana and Arkansas Revise Rights Bills, Seeking to Remove Divisive Parts,” The New York Times, April 2, 2015; Timothy Holbrook, “Georgia, North Carolina bills are about LGBT discrimination. Period,” CNN, March 28, 2016; Marina Fang, “Tennessee Legislature Resurrects Discriminatory Transgender Bathroom Bill,” Huffington Post, April 6, 2016.

⁴⁵ See, for example, Ken Klukowski, “Baker Faces Prison for Refusing to Bake Same-Sex Wedding Cake,” Breitbart, December 12, 2013; Chris Enloe, “‘Sweet Cakes’ Owners’ Bank Accounts Seized as Damages for Refusing to Bake Wedding Cake for Lesbian Couple,” The Blaze, December 29, 2015.

⁴⁶ See, for example, Danny Burk, “A florist loses religious freedom, and much more,” CNN, February 20, 2015.

⁴⁷ See, for example, Ken Klukowski, “New Mexico Court: Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony,” Breitbart, August 22, 2013; Kristine Marsh, “Gays Force San Francisco Wedding Photographers to Close Shop,” MRC NewsBusters, November 21, 2014; Samuel Smith, “Christian Videographer Faces Legal Action After Refusing to Work Lesbian Wedding, Says It’s Against Her Biblical Beliefs,” Christian Post, March 18, 2015.

⁴⁸ See, for example, Molly Montag, “Group asks IRS to investigate Cornerstone Church,” Sioux City Journal, October 1, 2010; “Southern Baptists draw distance from harsh anti-gay rhetoric, yet hold to convictions,” Baptist Press, May 24, 2012.

⁴⁹ See, for example, Andrea Peyser, “Couple fined for refusing to host same-sex wedding on their farm,” New York Post, November 10, 2014.

⁵⁰ See, for example, Todd Starnes, “Fired for preaching: Georgia dumps doctor over church sermons,” Fox News, April 20, 2016; Natalie Jennings, “Louie Giglio pulls out of inauguration over anti-gay comments,” The Washington Post, January 10, 2013.

⁵¹ See, for example, Allan Smith, “Anti-gay-marriage Kentucky clerk jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses,” Business Insider, September 3, 2015; Jim Douglas, “Hood County is focal point of same-sex debate,” WFAA, July 1, 2015.

⁵² See, for example, Katie Zezima, “Couple Sues a Vermont Inn for Rejecting Gay Wedding,” The New York Times, July 19, 2011; Billy Hallowell, “Lesbian Couple Wins Discrimination Lawsuit Against Religious Bed and Breakfast Owner Who Denied Them a Room,” The Blaze, April 16, 2013; Justin Moyer, “Kentucky T-shirt printer that wouldn’t make gay pride shirts vindicated by court,” The Washington Post, April 28, 2015; Charlie Butts, “Iowa couple fined for refusing gay wedding: ‘We are still here’,” OneNewsNow, June 3, 2015.

⁵³ See, for example, Kathleen Gilbert, “San Diego firefighters victorious in suit against forced participation in gay pride parade,” Life Site News, January 28, 2011; Eryn Sun, “Court Affirms CDC’s Firing of Counselor Over Same-Sex Advice,” Christian Post, February 8, 2012; Ryan T. Anderson, “Atlanta Fire Chief Fired for Expressing Christian Beliefs,” The Daily Signal, January 8, 2015; “Utah officer who objected to role in gay pride parade says he was unfairly labeled a bigot,” Fox News, February 25, 2015; Randy Ludlow, “Ohio judges who perform weddings must marry same-sex couples,” The Columbus Dispatch, August 11, 2015.

⁵⁴ See, for example, “Evangelical College Gay Rights Stand Causes Uproar,” NewsMax, November 2, 2014; “Gay Teacher Files Sex Discrimination Claim Against Georgia School,” NPR, July 9, 2014; “Lesbian teacher who was fired for becoming pregnant sues Catholic school for discrimination,” Daily Mail, August 22, 2014.

⁵⁵ See, for example, Todd Starnes, “Fox Exclusive: Airman Faces Punishment for her Religious Beliefs,” Fox News, August 6, 2013; Kirsten Anderson, “Air Force Sergeant claims he was fired for refusing to endorse gay ‘marriage’: faces court martial,” Life Site News, September 10, 2013; “Navy Threatens To End 19-Year Career Of Decorated Chaplain Who Served Navy SEAL Teams, According To Liberty Institute,” PR Newswire, March 9, 2015.

⁵⁶ See, for example, Melissa Barnhart, “Fox Sports Southwest Charged With Discrimination for Firing Craig James Over Homosexuality Remarks,” Christian Post, March 7, 2014; Ahiza Garcia, “‘I’m not transphobic,’ says ex-ESPN analyst Curt Schilling,” CNN Money, April 22, 2016.

⁵⁷ See, for example, “Missouri school sued by student who refused to support gay adoptions,” USA Today, November 2, 2006; Paul Strand, “University Employee Punished over Marriage Petition,” CBN News, October 18, 2012; Billy Hallowell, “Christian Product Engineer Claims Ford Motor Fired Him for Voicing His Bible-Based Opposition to the Company’s Promotion of ‘Pro-Homosexual Ideas’ — Now He’s Fighting Back,” The Blaze, January 28, 2015.

⁵⁸ Joseph Story, A Discourse Pronounced at the Request of the Essex Historical Society, on the 18th of September, 1828, in Commemoration of the First Settlement of Salem, in the State of Massachusetts (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, Little, and Wilkins, 1828), 46.

⁵⁹ John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men. A Sermon, Preached at Princeton, on the 17th of May, 1776. Being the General Fast appointed by the Congress through the United Colonies (Philadelphia: 1777), 27-28, 38.

⁶⁰ Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America. Delivered at Charlestown. April 25, 1799, The Day of the National Fast (MA: Printed by Samuel Etheridge, 1799), 9.

⁶¹ Aaron Klein, “Obama: America is ‘no longer Christian’,” WorldNetDaily, June 22, 2008. See also David Brody, The Brody File, “Exclusive: Barack Obama E-mails the Brody File,” CBN News, July 29, 2007; “Obama says U.S., Turkey can be model for world,” CNN, April 6, 2009.

⁶² See, for example, Rob Stein, “Obama Plans to Roll Back ‘Conscience’ Rule Protecting Health Workers Who Object to Some Types of Care,” The Washington Post, February 28, 2009; Saundra Young, “White House set to reverse health care conscience clause,” CNN, February 27, 2009; Rob Stein, “Obama administration replaces controversial ‘conscience’ regulation for health-care workers,” The Washington Post, February 18, 2011.

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

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

Endnotes

Endnotes

A. Complaint in Article:

B. Complaint in Article:

C. Complaint in Article

Endnotes

Endnotes

Endnotes

Jeremiah 17:9 – The Constitutional Separation of Powers

Endnotes

1. Where does the phrase “Separation of Church and State” originate?4

2. What Does the Constitution Actually Say?

3. Faith has been part of American public Society for over 180 years.

Endnotes

Overview

The American Experience on Religious Conscience

Colonial Era

Revolutionary Era

Federal Era

Founding Fathers

Modern Era

Conclusion

Endnotes

QUICK LINKS

OTHER LINKS

SOCIAL LINKS

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

1. Where does the phrase “Separation of Church and State” originate?⁴