Topics: Bibles & Religion

A Brief History of Courtroom Prayers

In 2014, Wayne Mack was elected a judge in Montgomery County, Texas. As part of his responsibilities in dealing with troubled, grieving, and distraught families, he established a program for ministers to serve as volunteer chaplains, who would make themselves available to those families. Some sixty clergy from thirty different denominations and faiths currently participate in the program. Mack has observed that the clergy represent “every mosque, temple and synagogue” in the area.1 Judge Mack also allows different clerics to open his court sessions with prayer.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) of Madison, Wisconsin, learned of the prayers, objected, and filed a complaint with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. This complaint was dismissed. In 2016, FFRF filed another challenge, and the Texas Attorney General issued an opinion upholding Mack’s practice as constitutional. The Wisconsin group has since found a local attorney and residents to serve as plaintiffs, and in 2019 they filed suit in federal court objecting to the prayers in Judge Mack’s courtroom. They allege a violation of the First Amendment’s declaration that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” which they interpret as requiring a religion-free public square. FFRF claims that:

Judge Mack’s courtroom-prayer practice unambiguously and unnecessarily endorses religion in general and Christianity in particular, and places the State’s imprimatur on religion in general and Christianity in particular, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.2

Is Judge Mack’s practice of courtroom prayer a violation of the Constitution? To answer this question, we must first consider how the Constitution should be interpreted. More narrowly, we need to examine how the modern US Supreme Court has said the Establishment Clause should be interpreted.

How Should the Constitution Be Interpreted?

America’s Founders believed that the Constitution, and other laws, should be interpreted in light of their original meaning. For instance, President Thomas Jefferson recalled to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson the cardinal maxim of constitutional interpretation:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.3

James Madison, often called the “Father of the Constitution,” agreed:

[I] entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution.4

And James Wilson, an early Supreme Court Justice whose role in drafting the Constitution was on a par with that of Madison, likewise affirmed:

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.5

Justice Joseph Story concurred. The youngest Justice ever appointed to the Court, in his 34 years on the bench he authored 286 opinions, of which 94 percent were recorded as the official Court position.6 Called the “foremost of American legal writers,”7 he affirmed:

The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments [documents] is to construe them according to the sense of the terms and the intention of the parties.8

The Supreme Court and the Establishment Clause

Numerous times throughout the modern era the US Supreme Court has stated that the First Amendment must be interpreted according to its original intent—that early historical precedent is seminal in establishing constitutional understandings. As Justice Hugo Black (writing for the majority) affirmed in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the “meaning and scope of the First Amendment” must be understood in “light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress.”9 Justice Wiley Rutledge and three others dissented from the majority’s holding in that opinion, but they, too, agreed that the First Amendment must be understood in light of the Founders’ views.10 (In subsequent Establishment Clause decisions over the past 75 years, the vast majority of justices have invoked historical arguments to support their conclusions.11)

For instance, in the Marsh v. Chambers decision upholding the constitutionality of legislative chaplains and prayer (1983), Chief Justice Burger (writing for the majority) drew from a wide range of historical documents and actions to show that legislative chaplains and prayer were widespread in the Founding Era.12 He pointed out that the Founders who drafted and approved the First Amendment had themselves approved legislative prayer and therefore hired legislative chaplains.13 He further acknowledged that the fact states also had a long tradition of engaging in these practices showed that they were “deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.”14

In Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014), the justices considered the constitutionality of a city council’s practice of opening its meetings with prayer. In his majority opinion, Kennedy observed that the “Court’s inquiry, then, must be to determine whether the prayer practice in the town of Greece fits within the tradition long followed in Congress and the state legislatures.”15 Drawing heavily from Founding Era practices (and historical practices since then), he concluded that opening a city council meeting with prayer was constitutional. Both the concurring and dissenting16 opinions all made historical arguments to support their respective conclusions. All nine justices affirmed that that history plays a critical role in helping the Court resolve First Amendment Establishment Clause issues.

In the Supreme Court’s 2019 Establishment Clause case, American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. __ (2019), the justices considered the constitutionality of a military war memorial in the shape of a Latin cross.17 By a vote of 7-2, they held that it did not violate the First Amendment. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, noted that recent Establishment Clause cases “look[ed] to history for guidance,”18 specifically pointing to both the Marsh and Galloway cases. He concluded that whenever “categories of monuments, symbols, and practices with a longstanding history follow in that tradition, they are likewise constitutional.”19

A Brief History of Courtroom Prayers in America

There is no question that courtroom prayer is a practice “deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.”20 Significantly, America’s Founders were familiar with and supportive of courtroom prayer, and hosts of judges and courts at the state and federal levels continued their practice across subsequent generations.

Consider first the original Supreme Court. It was comprised of six justices—one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. Three of the six had been drafters and signers of the US Constitution (James Wilson, John Rutledge, and John Blair), and five were members of state conventions that ratified the Constitution (James Iredell, William Cushing, John Jay, John Rutledge, and James Wilson). Additionally, Jay was one of the three authors of The Federalist Papers, which James Madison described as “the most authentic exposition of the heart of the federal Constitution as understood by the body which prepared and the authority which accepted it.”21 Arguably, no other Court in American history had superior constitutional scholars or was in a better position to understand the original meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 assigned justices judicial responsibilities over a specific geographic region (circuits). They personally traveled to those areas to impanel grand juries and oversee the federal courts in each jurisdiction. In preparation for these visits, local officials would correspond with the justices to ensure that all necessary arrangements for their visit were made.

For example, on February 24, 1790, federal judge Richard Law of Connecticut inquired of Chief-Justice John Jay which judges would be coming to their region, whether there should be a parade, if special robes for the judges were desired, or “whether they would wish to have a clergyman attend” at the Court sessions.22 To the latter question, Jay responded “The custom in New England of a clergyman’s attending should in my opinion be observed and continued.”23

Prayers in the Federal Courts

Newspaper accounts of the Justices’ visits (occurring after the First Amendment and its religion clauses had been added to the Constitution) confirm that courtroom prayer was part of the official court proceedings:

After the customary proclamations were made and the Grand Jury sworn, a short (though pertinent) charge was given them by his Honor the Chief-Justice [John Jay], when the Throne of Grace was addressed by the Rev. Dr. Haven.24 PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE, 1791

Court opened on Saturday, May 12, with Chief-Justice John Jay, Associate Justice William Cushing, and Judge John Lowell in attendance….The prayer was made by the Rev. Dr. Parker. His Excellency the Vice-President of the United States [John Adams] was in Court.25 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, 1792

Last Wednesday, the Circuit Court of the United States opened in this town, when the Rev. Mr. Patten addressed the Throne of Grace in prayer, after which the Hon. Judge Wilson delivered to the Grand Jury a charge.26 NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND, 1793

On Monday last, the Hon. Judge Cushing commenced the lesson of the Circuit Court in this town when he delivered to the Grand Jury an animated charge….Previous to the charge, the Throne of Mercy was addressed in prayer by the Rev. Mr. Eckley.27 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, 1794

On Monday last, the Circuit Court of the United States was opened in this town. The Hon. Judge Paterson [a signer of the Constitution who joined the Court in 1793] presided….After the charge was delivered, the Rev. Mr. Alden addressed the Throne of Grace in an excellent, well adapted prayer.28 PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE, 1800

Prayers in federal courts continued across the generations

After a solemn and appropriate prayer by the Rev. Mr. Baker, his honor Judge [Joseph] Story delivered to the Grand Jury a highly impressive, eloquent and learned charge.29 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, 1819

[T]he courtroom was very much crowded at an early hour. About half past ten he [Judge Levi Woodbury] came in with Judge Sprague and took his seat on the right. The court was then opened, a prayer was offered up by the Rev. Mr. Kirk.30 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, 1845

President Hayes nominated a very intelligent Christian gentleman as Judge of this district. At the opening of court at G—- R—–, he telegraphed for me to come and open the court with prayer.…Judge ——- waited for me and took me up to the court-house.… [I asked] God’s blessing upon the Judge, prosecuting attorney, jurors, their town, households, families, companions, children, and youth of the town.31 WESTERN UNITED STATES TERRITORIAL FEDERL COURT, 1877

Court convened; opened with prayer by John Reed.32 UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS, 1896

Following a custom which is observed in many United States [federal] Courts, the New Jersey Circuit was opened yesterday with prayer.33 NEW JERSEY, 1908

Clearly, across the generations prayer in the courtroom was common and not viewed as a violation of any constitutional clause.

Before leaving the federal courts, it is worth noting United States Supreme Court sessions regularly begin with the prayer “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” The first recorded instance of the Supreme Court opening with this prayer was in 1827 but, as we have seen, other federal courts were already opening with prayer well before that date.34

Prayers in State Courts

Like federal courts, state court sessions also were often opened with prayer. Here are a few representative examples from across the states and generations:

At the opening of the Supreme Court in this city on Tuesday last, the Rev. W. Taylor, pastor of the Roman Catholic Church, was requested to offer up the customary prayer.35 MASSACHUSETTS, 1823

Rev. Dr. Lamson…made the opening prayer in court.36 MASSACHUSETTS, 1846

Judge Howe of Wisconsin opens his courts with prayer.37 WINCONSIN, 1851

The first general term of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the State of Vermont…opened Tuesday morning….The six judges…stood this morning while the Rev. J. H. Worcester opened the Court with prayer.38 VERMONT, 1858

One of the learned justices of the Maine Supreme Court…was holding court at Ellsworth, and according to honored custom called in a local clergyman to open the session with a supplication to heaven.39 MAINE, 1894

[O]ne of our county courts.…employed a Methodist minister to open the court with prayer.40 VERMONT, 1897

Circuit court was opened with prayer at 10 a.m. yesterday.41 SOUTH DAKOTA, 1906

Rev. F. M. Brown, pastor of the First M. E. church will open court with prayer and Judge Howard J. Curtis of Stafford will preside.42 CONNECTICUT, 1912

Dr. R. F. Moore of Sacred Heart church has been invited by County Sheriff Simeon Pease to open with prayer the December court, which will convene at the county court house tomorrow afternoon. Judge Joel H. Reed will be on the bench.43 CONNECTICUT, 1919

Judge Pomeroy called upon the Rev. Charles C. Cole, pastor of the Methodist church, to open court with prayer. It is understood that this will be a regular practice.44 MONTANA, 1921

Dr. J. F. McClure, pastor of the Broadway Methodist church, was called upon by Judge W. F. Freeman to open court with prayer.45 OKLAHOMA, 1923

Judge Emory E. Smith.…always opens his terms of court with prayer.46 MISSOURI, 1934

[A]t Marietta, Georgia, a clergyman was asked to open court with prayer.47 GEORGIA, 1947

Ministers of the Middlesboro Ministerial Association are opening police court everyday with prayer.…Each morning a different minister is assigned.48 KENTUCKY, 1950

Judge Maupin Cummings presided, and asked the Rev. W. R. Whiddon of Huntsville to open court with a prayer.49 ARKANSAS, 1955

Judge Bundy asked clerk George C. Holland to have a minister present when court opened Monday, Feb. 4. The Judge said it was his custom to open court with a prayer.50 NORTH CAROLINA, 1963

Judge Cooper Opens Court With Prayer.…[T]he invocation was delivered by the Rev. V. E. Brown, pastor of Gethsemane Baptist Church.51 NORTH CAROLINA, 1972

Judge William O. Bivens Jr.…called on a courthouse employee, Woodrow Bailey of the Assessor’s Officer, to open court with prayer. Judge Bivens usually opens the session with prayer each day.52 WEST VIRGINIA, 1977

There are many other examples.53 In fact, the practice of courtroom prayer was so common that in 1835, a ministerial handbook provided model prayers for opening a court session,54 and a century later, a 1928 pastoral handbook listed it as one of the expected activities of a minister.55

Conclusion

The First Amendment does prohibit the creation of a national church, but contrary to the claims from Freedom From Religion Foundation, it does not require religion to be scrubbed from the public square. The Establishment Clause, as it was originally understood and subsequently applied across the generations and the centuries, did not prohibit, a judge from allowing clergy from different religions and denominations to open court sessions with prayer. Such practices are “deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country,”56 and as Justice Alito recently observed, when this is the case, there is a “presumption of constitutionality for longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices.”57 Opening court sessions with prayer is clearly such a practice.

* This article concerns a historical topic and may not be up to date.

Endnotes

1 Debra Cassens, Weiss, “Refiled lawsuit challenges justice of the peace’s courtroom prayer program,” ABA Journal, March 30, 2019, here.

2 “Complaint for Declaratory Relief,” in Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Judge Wayne Mack, Case No. 4:19-cv-1934 (Filed May 29, 2019), 17, here.

3 Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), IV:373, to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823.

4 James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1865), III:443, to Henry Lee on June 25, 1824.

5 James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, ed. Bird Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), I:14, from “Lectures on Law Delivered in the College of Philadelphia; Introductory Lecture: Of the Study of the Law in the United States.”

6 Dictionary of American Biography (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936), s.v. “Joseph Story.”

7 Dictionary of American Biography (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936), s.v. “Joseph Story.”

8 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company, 1833), III:383, §400.

9 Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1947).

10 Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1, 33 (1947).

11 Mark David Hall, “Jeffersonian Walls and Madisonian Lines: The Supreme Court’s Use of History in Religion Clause Cases,” Oregon Law Review (2006) 85:563-613. A slightly revised version of the article was reprinted in the High Court Quarterly Review (2009), 5:109-153.

12 Marsh v. Chambers 463 U.S. 783 (1983), 786-95.

13 Marsh v. Chambers, 787-88.

14 Marsh v. Chambers, 786. To support this proposition, Burger quoted his majority opinion in Walz v. Tax Commissioner: “It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence, and indeed predates it. Yet an unbroken practice of according the exemption to churches, openly and by affirmative state action, not covertly or by state inaction, is not something to be lightly cast aside.” 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970).

15 Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565, 9 (2014) (Kennedy, J. majority opinion).

16 Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565, 9 (2014) (Kagan, J. dissenting).

17 American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 88 U.S. __, 1 (2019), (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).

18 American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. __, 25 (2019), (Alito, J.).

19 American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 28.

20 Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 786 (1983).

21 James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1910), IX:219, to Thomas Jefferson on February 8, 1825.

22 The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, ed. Maeva Marcus (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), II:11.

23 The Documentary History of the Supreme Court, II:13, from John Jay to Richard Law on March 10, 1790.

24 New Hampshire Gazette (Portsmouth), May 26, 1791; Documentary History of the Supreme Court, II:192.

25 Columbian Centinel (Boston), May 16, 1792, 74; Documentary History of the Supreme Court, II:276. For a similar report from 1790, see Boston Gazette (May 10, 1790), in Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924), 1:59, here.

26 The Documentary History of the Supreme Court, II:412, from the Newport Mercury (Rhode Island) of June 25, 1793.

27 Philadelphia Gazette Of The United States And Daily Evening Advertiser (June 16, 1794), 6, from Boston, June 11, 1794, here

28 United States Oracle (Portsmouth, NH), May 24, 1800; The Documentary History of the Supreme Court, III:436.

29 Richmond Enquirer (November 30, 1819), 4, here.

30 The New Era (October 22, 1845), 2, here.

31 The Presbyterian Monthly Record (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, January 1878), 2, here.

32 Turner v. U.S., United States Court of Claims, April 10, 1916, 51 Ct.Cl. 125, 1916 WL 1115.

33 Trenton Evening Times (April 15, 1908), 12, here.

34 Mark David Hall, Did America Have a Christian Founding: Separating Modern Myth from Historical Fact (Nashville: Nelson Books, 2019), 113.

35 American Watchman and Delaware Advertiser (November 25, 1823), 2, quoting from the Boston Galaxy of November 7, 1823, here.

36 Boston Post (September 26, 1846), 2, here.

37 The Plymouth Pilot (June 4, 1851), 2, here; see also The Southern Press (June 7, 1851), 2, here.

38 Burlington Free Press (July 30, 1858), 2, here.

39 The Barrister (Toronto: The Law Publishing Co., December 1894), 237, here. (For an example from 1882, see Tit-Bits From All The Most Interesting Books, Periodicals and Newspapers in the World No. 25, Vol. I (April 8, 1882), 12, here

40 Vermont Bar Association: Officers, Proceedings, Papers and Addresses (October 12, 1897), Vol. IV No. 3, 347-348, here.

41 Mitchel Capital (February 9, 1906), 1, here.

42 Bridgeport Evening Farmer (September 6, 1912), 2, here.

43 Bridgeport Times and Evening Farmer (December 1, 1919), 1, here.

44 Fort Benton River Press (February 2, 1921), 8, here.

45 Daily Ardmore (January 22, 1923), 1, here.

46 Cassville Republican (March 8, 1934), 1, here.

47 The Carthage Citizen (February 21, 1947), 1, here.

48 Middlesboro Daily News (February 10, 1950), 1, here.

49 Northwest Arkansas Times (March 7, 1955), 1, here. See also, Kansas City Word and Way (February 3, 1955), 2, here.

50 Gastonia Gazette (January 22, 1963), 3, here.

51 Burlington Daily Times (April 5, 1972), 4B, here.

52 Bluefield Daily Telegraph (March 3, 1977), 5, here.

53 See, for example, Philadelphia Gazette of the United States (August 3, 1791), reporting an event on June 30, here; Milwaukee Sentinel and Gazette (June 14, 1851), 2, here; The New Bloomfield Times (December 30, 1879), 4, here; The Green Bag (Boston: October 1903), Vol. XV, No. 10, 502, relating info from circa 1880, here; Quincy Daily Herald (January 26, 1881), 2, here; Indianapolis Journal (February 2, 1885), 2, here; Savannah Morning News (March 14, 1895), 6, here; Jeffersonville Evening Journal (October 29, 1896), 2, here; Columbus Daily Times (March 15, 1898), 4, here; Seymour Daily Republican (March 2, 1898), 2, here; Atlanta Constitution (November 12, 1901), 7, here; Washington Evening Journal (February 3, 1902), 1, here; The Quincy Journal (February 22, 1908), 5, here; Norwich Bulletin (June 11, 1909), 6, here; Gulfport Daily Herald (September 9, 1910), 4, here; The Jackson Herald (August 7, 1913), 1, here; Santa Anna Daily Evening Register (July 21, 1914), 1, here; Vienna News (September 16, 1915), 1, here; Bridgeport Evening Farmer (February 12, 1916), 1, here; Bridgeport Evening Farmer (October 23, 1916), 1, here; Missouri Valley Independent (January 4, 1923), 1, here; Bluefield Daily Telegraph (March 8, 1971), 11, here; Bluefield Daily Telegraph (March 20, 1988), 7-4, here; and others.

54 Alexander V. Griswold, Prayers Adapted to Various Occasions of Social Worship: For Which Provision is Not Made in the Book of Common Prayer (Philadelphia: William Marshall & Co., 1835), 149-151, here.

55 Nolan B. Harmon, Ministerial Ethics and Etiquette (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987, originally published 1928), 52, here.

56 Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 786 (1983).

57 American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. __, 18 (2019), (Alito, J.).

First Prayer in Congress

On September 5, 1774, the First Continental Congress met at Carpenters’ Hall in Philadelphia. Among the delegates who attended were George Washington, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Jay, and many other notables.1 This meeting was important since it was the first time the colonies united on a large scale (though one colony was not represented), thus the tone it set would be crucial for America’s future. The congress had been called to address increasing British tyranny,2 including the Intolerable Acts, which had ended self-government in Massachusetts and shut down the port of Boston to commercial shipments.3

On the second day of the gathering, Congress got down to business. There was a call to open the meeting with prayer, but some delegates doubted they could pray together since there were different denominations present.4

Samuel Adams ended the debate when he announced that he was not a bigot and could “hear a prayer” from anyone “who was at the same time a friend to his country.” He then nominated Rev. Jacob Duché to conduct the prayers.5 It was amidst all these circumstances that on the third day, September 7th, the Rev. Duché led the first prayer in Congress.6

Delegate Silas Deane reported Duché prayed for a full ten minutes and then read the Scripture for the day.7

John Adams related to his wife how much this time of prayer meant for the attendees:

[Rev. Duché] read several prayers in the established form, and then read the collect for the seventh day of September, which was the thirty-fifth Psalm. You must remember, this was the next morning after we heard the horrible rumor of the cannonade of Boston. I never saw a greater effect upon an audience. It seemed as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on that morning.8

That time of prayer united the delegates despite their differences. In fact, Daniel Webster, “Defender of the Constitution,”9 later reminded the US Supreme Court of the unifying power of prayer:

Mr. Duché read the Episcopal service of the Church of England and then, as if moved by the occasion, he broke out into extemporaneous prayer. And those men who were then about to resort to force to obtain their rights, were moved to tears; and flood of tears, Mr. Adams says, ran down the cheeks of the pacific Quakers who formed part of the most interesting assembly. Depend upon it, where there is a spirit of Christianity, there is a spirit which rises above form, above forms, independent of sect or creed, and the controversies of clashing doctrines.10

It was prayer and the Scriptures that united the Founding Fathers, and they can still unite us today.

Endnotes

1 “First Continental Congress,” ushistory.org, accessed September 4, 2024, https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/congress.html?R6wF9AvbqY=C2A7B9B226BE11CE692F46F316C45D8F.

2 “10d. First Continental Congress,” ushistory.org, accessed September 4, 2024, https://www.ushistory.org/US/10d.asp?R6wF9AvbqY=C2A7B9B226BE11CE692F46F316C45D8F.

3 “American Revolution: The Intolerable Acts,” July 10, 2017, ThoughtCo., https://www.thoughtco.com/the-intolerable-acts-2361386.

4 John Adams to Abigail Adams, September 16, 1774, Letters of John Adams, Addressed to His Wife, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1841), 23.

5 Ibid.

6 “Wednesday, September 7, 1774, A.M.,” Journals of The American Congress: From 1774 to 1788 (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), I:8.

7 Silas Deane to Elizabeth Deane, The Deane Papers (NY: New York Historical Society, 1887), I:20.

8 John Adams to Abigail, September 16, 1774, Letters of John Adams (1841), 23-24.

9 See, for example, Daniel Webster For Young Americans: Comprising the Greatest Speeches of “The Defender of the Constitution” (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1903).

10 Speech delivered in the Supreme Court on February 20, 1844, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1860), VI:162.

Court Orders D.C. Transit Authority to Accept and Run Unconstitutionally Rejected Ads

In December 2023, First Liberty, ACLU, and Steptoe filed a lawsuit on behalf of WallBuilders relating to ads that were rejected by the DC Transit Authority. (See more about the history of this issue here.) We now have great news!

“Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) to accept and run four advertisements that it had unconstitutionally rejected. The court ruled that WMATA’s ban on issue ads violates the First Amendment’s requirement that restrictions on speech be reasonable.”

Read the full Press Release from First Liberty here.

These ads have already started to appear in Washington DC! You can follow WallBuilders’ social media accounts (Facebook, Instagram, and X) to stay updated.

The ads link to a collection of quotes by numerous Founding Fathers via our article “The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible”: https://wallbuilders.com/resource/the-founding-fathers-on-jesus-christianity-and-the-bible/.

Support WallBuilders’ Mission! Donate here!

Black Robe Regiment Hub

What Is It?

The modern National Black Robe Regiment (NBRR) is a network of national and local pastors that equips and empowers pastors to engage in their Biblical and historical role to stand boldly for righteousness and transform society through spiritual and cultural engagement.

The early American pastor had a reputation as a courageous and fearless leader, causing the British during the American Revolution to dub them “The Black Regiment,” a reference to their clerical robes. Those pastors boldly proclaimed the Word of God as it applied to everything in life, whether spiritual or temporal—about eternal life in Christ, taxes, education, public policy, good government, the military, or any other current issues that the Bible addressed.

“If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it…. If satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it.” – Charles Finney

Today, the struggle is for the heart and soul of America. Never before has there been such openly orchestrated frontal attacks against America’s core beliefs, including traditional morality, public religious expressions, the rights of conscience, inalienable rights, common sense economics, and limited constitutional government. An American Revolution, not with guns, but with the same pastoral fervor and leadership is needed today.

This resource is designed to help pastors fulfill that calling.

Historical Origins

Rev Frederick Muhlenberg

The Black Robed Regiment was the name that the British placed on the courageous and patriotic American clergy during the Founding Era (a backhanded reference to the black robes they wore). Significantly, the British blamed the Black Regiment for American Independence, and rightfully so, for modern historians have documented that:

There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763.

It is strange to today’s generation to think that the rights listed in the Declaration of Independence were nothing more than a listing of sermon topics that had been preached from the pulpit in the two decades leading up to the American Revolution, but such was the case….

Read the Full Article Here!

Helpful Resources

Use these resources in your church or consider sending them to your pastor or priest adding a personal note of encouragement to not keep silent on the divisive issues facing our culture.

WallBuilders does not necessarily endorse or agree with all the information from unaffiliated organizations. Listings are provided as additional resources that may be utilized to affirm, enhance, and/or supplement Black Robe Regiment efforts.

Other Groups

http://www.blackrobereg.org/
https://www.danfisherbrr.com/

Legal Resources

ACLJ information for 501(c)(3) incorporated churches

Liberty Counsel and First Liberty have a number of very useful resources for churches and pastors to assist you in informing your church family about today’s issues. Use these resources to learn about what you can and can’t do politically.

This article and this article from the IRS lists activities that are and are not permissible for 501(c)(3) incorporated churches.
Read WallBuilders corrections to an intimidation letter from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State sent to pastors and churches in 2006 attempting to intimidating Christians and churches from being involved.

Christian Legal Organizations

Historical Resources

The sermons and proclamations listed below come from WallBuilders’ Collection. There are many more beyond this curated list available on our Resources page.

Sermons

Election Sermons

These sermons were preached to government officials at the state capitol upon the annual opening of the legislature

Governmental Sermons

Patriotic Sermons

Proclamations

The American practice of calling days of fasting or thanksgiving was so strong that by 1815, civil governments had issued at least 1,400 official prayer proclamations. Thousands more have been issued since that time—a tradition that now spans more than four centuries of the American Story, and one that continues to the present day since a 1952 federal law requires that every president issue a prayer proclamation on the National Day of Prayer, commemorated the first Thursday of every May, and observed by every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

God’s People Want to Know

This 2015 survey by Dr. George Barna asked theologically conservative Christians the areas in which they felt that they needed additional teaching from the pulpit. Here are a just a few highlights:

  • Among the national sample of spiritually active Christian conservatives and moderates, only one in ten people (10%) said their church has been very involved in the election process in the last two voting cycles (2012, 2014). Four out of ten said their church was somewhat involved. The remaining one-half said their church was not involved.
  • Christian conservatives indicated they want their church to get in the game: six out of ten (58%) said they want their church to be more involved in the election process. Among the Christian conservatives, 61% want greater involvement; among the politically moderate Christians only one-quarter (23%) want heightened church engagement.
  • A majority of the survey respondents said it is “extremely important” for their pastor to preach or teach the congregation about the following issues:
      • Abortion 71%
      • Religious persecution 61%
      • Sexual identity 56%
      • Israel 54%
      • Poverty 54%
      • Cultural restoration 53%

See the complete report here.

Protecting Private Property Through the Uniform Commercial Code

Protecting Private Property Through the Uniform Commercial Code

Questions are now being raised about important laws that have been added to state codes in all 50 states over the past 25 years. These laws were deliberately designed to abrogate private property rights and could in the future be used to harm all Americans who hold investment securities, including those held in IRA and 401(k) accounts. At the state level, the concerning statutes in question are contained within the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), primarily in Article 8, which deals with securities.

WallBuilders’ Pro-Family Legislative Network (PFLN), and other organizations and leaders, urge state legislators to carefully consider this alarming infringement on private property.

This letter explains our concerns, summarizes the legal aspects of UCC Article 8, and outlines near-term options for state policymakers who want to take action to protect their constituents and their states. Read the full letter for additional information.

What can you do to help?

Share this Information: We encourage you to forward this to your friends, family and state legislators to help make them aware of this critical issue in your state’s uniform commercial code.

Stay Apprised of the Issue: If this issue is important to you, sign up for our Concerned Citizens legislative update email and we will keep you apprised of this issue.

Stay informed!

Sign the Letter: If you represent an organization, or are an elected official who would like to sign this letter, please email us for consideration.

Contribute: If you would like to support this effort to help us brief more lawmakers across the country on this matter, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to WallBuilders Pro-Family Legislative Network Fund.

Donate

Lawsuit Challenges D.C. Transit Authority for Violating the First Amendment

In December 2023, First Liberty, ACLU, and Steptoe filed a lawsuit on behalf of WallBuilders.

First Liberty Press Release

Lawsuit Challenges D.C. Transit Authorit – First Liberty

First Liberty Article

https://firstliberty.org/news/ads-about-americas-religious-history-not-allowed/ 

WallBuilders Rejected Ads




WallBuilders Article

These ads would have linked to a collection of quotes by numerous Founding Fathers via our article “The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible”: https://wallbuilders.com/resource/the-founding-fathers-on-jesus-christianity-and-the-bible/

Additional Information & Questions

We have asked our attorneys to handle all media inquiries. Please contact Jeremy Dys at 304-881-5196 or [email protected]. Thank you.

David Barton: A Dominionist and Reconstructionist?

Over the past several decades, numbers of my detractors have resorted to making extremist claims about me intended to create distrust or even fear in the minds of those who might hear me. By so doing, they hope potential listeners or readers will reject my message out of hand before even considering the evidence. One common ridiculous claim is that I am a Dominionist (someone who wants to reinstitute Old Testament law and establish a theocracy).

As a result, over the years, I have received questions like this one:

Does David adhere to or teach Dominion Theology or “Kingdom Now” theology? That is in part, that the Church of Jesus Christ will bring in God’s reign of righteousness rather than it happening through the physical return of Jesus Christ?

I disagree with Dominion and Kingdom Now theology and I am not a Dominionist.

Additionally, to establish a theocracy in America would require the abolition of our elective constitutional government. I have worked for decades to educate Americans about the history, excellence, and importance of the US Constitution. I am passionate about knowing and applying it and preserving its principles through the elective voting process. Since having elections precludes the possibility of a theocracy, and since I am such a strong promoter of citizen involvement in the election process, I definitely don’t seek a theocracy.

Furthermore, I am clearly on record about the definite limits of Old Testament law in modern culture. (As an example, see my commentary accompanying Exodus 20 in the very popular Founders’ Bible1.)

The evidence is abundant that their claims are wrong.

The allegations about me and Dominionism originated decades ago, almost exclusively from defamatory articles of atheist and anti-religious writers. Over subsequent years, many individuals doing casual web searches of my name found those earlier articles and innocently accepted their wild claims and then repeated or reposted them without any serious investigation of the truth. As a result, today scores of newer articles brand me as something I am not, and never have been.

Understanding the Original Claims

Examining the writings of those who originally made these errant claims two decades ago, it is clear that the issues the critics considered to be reflective of Dominionism were actually issues that were mainstream across the depth and breadth not only of the Christian community but of much of the nation. Notice the things they pointed to as evidence of Christian support for Dominionism.

According to Eric La Freniere, at the time a columnist for the Daily News Record, one of the most obvious indicators of those who seek a Theocracy is their belief that traditional marriage is to be between one man and one woman (what they often describe as following Old Testament law). He warned that to vote for any state constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage (which was extremely popular in the 2000s and the 2010s, with support up to 70% in some states2) was “to cast a vote for Dominionism….the righteous religious-political movement to reclaim America as a Christian nation.”3 If La Freniere was correct, the tens of millions of voters in the 31 states who passed a state marriage amendment4 (before the US Supreme Court redefined marriage in 20155) were all part of the Christian Dominionist movement.

Author and journalist Chip Berlet agreed, asserting that the “anti-democratic tendencies in the Christian Right”6 concerning marriage amendments proved their Dominionist and Theocratic beliefs. By the way, notice his oxymoronic logic: having citizens publicly vote on marriage amendments placed on the public ballot through the elected legislative process was “anti-democratic.”

Chris Hedges in Harper’s Magazine linked such Dominionists to Adolf Hitler and fascism,7 asserting that conservative Christians were so dangerous that it was acceptable to confront and defeat them outside “the old polite rules of democracy”8—that is, the normal rules of constitutional republicanism could be set aside in order to defeat Christians. So is it Christians or the Secular Left who is really anti-democratic?

The Southern Poverty Law Center similarly warned that “Dominionist” Christians “seek to impose Old Testament law on the United States,” and that this desire runs “all the way to the [George W.] Bush White House.”9 What indications did they have of this Dominionism? —what role did the George W. Bush White House have in imposing “Old Testament law on the United States”? They, too, pointed to the state marriage amendments, and the further fact that President Bush had openly endorsed a federal Marriage Amendment.10

A Michigan newspaper (Eastern Echo) likewise alerted voters that a candidate running for Governor was part of Dominionism—that he was “seek[ing] to legislate American life under an ultimate authority of a right-wing interpretation of the Bible.”11 What made him a Dominionist? He not only supported traditional marriage but even opposed embryonic stem cell research. Clearly, he was a religious extremist seeking to impose Old Testament law on Michigan.12

Political commentator and writer Kevin Phillips added that “Christian Reconstructionists” also describe the separation of church and state as a “myth.”13 During the time he made these claims, some 1,800 legal incidents related to “separation of church and state” had occurred.14 Christian attorneys argued that the proper application of the historic separation of church and state did not mean people of faith could not express their faith in public, and that they had the same right to express their beliefs that secular folks did. But for secularists, the “separation of church and state” requires full secularization; therefore, those Christians arguing for equal protection were pursuing a “myth” and attempting to establish a Theocracy. (In recent years the US Supreme Court has issued a series of landmark decisions constitutionally repudiating the extremist views of the secularists, and, according to these arguments, they, too, are apparently Dominionists.)

More Claims

Numerous books and other seemingly countless articles used similar extremist rhetoric in attacking the Christian leaders who supported what were typically mainstream public issues.15 National Jewish writer and columnist Stanley Kurtz reviewed many of those writings and sarcastically summarized the ridiculous claims about Christians he found in those attack pieces:

What is the real agenda of the religious far Right? I’ll tell you what it is. These nuts want to take over the federal government and suppress other religions through genocide and mass murder rather than through proselytizing. They want to reestablish slavery. They want to reduce women to near-slavery by making them property, first of their fathers, and then of their husbands. They want to execute anyone found guilty of pre-martial, extramaritial, or homosexual sex. They want to bring back the death penalty for witchcraft. But aren’t extremists like this far from political power? On the contrary, the political and religious movement called “Dominionism” has gained control of the Republican Party, and taken over Congress and the White House as well. Once they take over the judiciary, the conversion of America to a theocracy will be sealed. The Dominionists are very close to achieving their goal. Once they have the courts in their hands, a willing Dominionist Republican-controlled Congress can simply extend the death penalty to witchcraft, adultery, homosexuality, and heresy. The courts will uphold all this once conservatives are in control, since [Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia himself appears to be a Dominionist.16

Kurtz then singled out one of the voices making these ridiculous claims, Kathryn Yurica. He noted that she and her extremist accusations were actually mainstream among a considerable number of secularist groups:

Yurica’s article [“The Despoiling of America”] is so wild-eyed and strange that it would barely be worth mentioning were Yurica not a featured speaker at a recent conference called, “Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right.” That conference . . . was supported by the National Council of Churches, People for the American Way, The Nation, The Village Voice, and United Americans for Separation of Church and State.17

The speakers at that conference identified five congressional policies they believed provided absolute proof that America was being placed under Old Testament law by Christian Dominionists. What were those five theocratic policies?

(1) Enacting tax cuts;
(2) Funding faith-based programs;
(3) Decreasing welfare spending;
(4) Giving the Federal Communication Commission additional tools to crackdown on indecency on television; and
(5) Attempts to end judicial filibusters.18

Horrors! Once Christians begin enacting tax cuts, the next thing they’ll do is stone rebellious children and publicly pillory adulterers! Yet as Kurtz noted, most of what were labeled Dominionist views were rational positions widely embraced by a majority of the population.

Interestingly, a much later 2020 study claimed that more than half of all Americans today are Dominionists who want a Christian Nation.19 Really??? At a time when public polls show church attendance,20 Bible reading,21 and Biblical worldview22 are at record lows, more than half the nation are Christian Dominionists? This claim is just as absurd today as it has been for the past several decades. (A brilliant rebuttal of that study and its ridiculous conclusion was done by Prof. Mark David Hall in his “Tilting at Windmills: The ‘Threat’ of Christian Nationalism.”23)

Perhaps Supreme Court Attorney David French, who has handled countless federal court cases in his career, best summarized the ludicrous nature of the false call of Dominionism:

If originalist legal arguments and a call to return our country to its founding constitutional ideals constitute dominionism, which social conservatives aren’t dominionist? Is free speech a dominionist concept? What about religious liberty? How about protecting life and ensuring that it cannot be taken without due process of law? We’re all dominionists now.24

In summary, holding traditionally conservative and constitutional positions is what it meant to be a Dominionist when the term became popular some 20 years ago and when it was first applied to me. Those who used the term intended that it should scare unknowing citizens away from fearsome “Dominionist” leaders such as Justice Anthony Scalia, President George Bush, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, or me, all of whom publicly supported traditional marriage, opposed abortion and embryonic stem cell research, and thought voluntary prayer was appropriate in schools. This is how I came to be labeled a “Dominionist.”

David Barton

Endnotes

1 The Founders Bible (Newbury Park, CA: Shiloh Road, 2017), Exodus 20.
2 See, for example, ballot measures passed with 70% or greater approval in 2004 for Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Oklahoma (“Ballot Measures,” 2004, CNN); in 2006 for South Carolina and Tennessee (“Ballot Measures,” 2006, CNN); and numerous other ballot measures throughout the early 2000s for states with a pass rating of over 50% but lower than 70% (“Ballot Measures, 2008, CNN; “Approved Amendments,” Wikipedia, accessed on March 14, 2022).
3 Eric La Freniers, “You Can Vote For Dominionism,” Daily News-Record, October 31, 2006.
4 See, for example, constitutional amendments passed in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin: “Approved Amendments,” Wikipedia, accessed on March 14, 2022.
5 Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
6 Chip Berlet, “The Christian Right & Theocracy,” Political Research Associates, accessed on March 14, 2022.
7 Chris Hedges, “Soldiers of Christ,” Harpers Magazine, May 5, 2005; Stanley Kurtz, “Dominionist Domination,” National Review, May 2, 2005.
8 Chris Hedges, “Soldiers of Christ,” Harpers Magazine, May 5, 2005; Stanley Kurtz, “Dominionist Domination,” National Review, May 2, 2005.
9 Mark Potok, “Democracy vs. Theocracy,” Southern Poverty Law Center, October 19, 2006.
10 George W. Bush, “Remarks on the Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage,” The White House, February 24, 2004.
11 Staff Edit / In Our Opinion, “Governor campaign fails to address issues,” Eastern Echo, October 30, 2006.
12 “Motors and Voters: Michigan’s Gubernatorial Race,” Wall Street Journal, 2006.
13 Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century (Viking, 2006), 233.
14 See the publication Undeniable by First Liberty, available at https://firstliberty.org/undeniable/.
15 See, for example, Tony Kiddie, Republican Jesus: How the Right Had Rewritten the Gospels (University of California Press, 2021); James C. Sanford, Blueprint for Theocracy: The Christian Right’s Vision for America (Metacomet Books, 2014); Michael L. Weinstein and Davin Seay, With God On Our Side: One Man’s War Against an Evangelical Coup in America’s Military (Thomas Dunne Books, 2013); Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation: A Challenge to the Faith of America (Transworld, 2011); Clyde Wilcox, Onward Christian Soldiers? The Religious Right in American Politics (New York: Routledge, 2011); Michael Lerner, The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right (Harper San Francisco, 2006); Damon Linker, The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege (Doubleday, 2009); Robin Rex Meyers, Why the Christian Right is Wrong: A Minister’s Manifesto for Taking Back Your Faith, Your Flag, Your Future (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006); Phillips, American Theocracy (2006); Jim Wallis, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It (HarperCollins, 2006); Bill Press, How the Republicans Stole Christmas: the Republican Party’s Declared Monopoly on Religion and What Democrats Can Do to Take it Back (Crown Publishing Group, 2005); Clint Willis, Jesus is Not a Republican: the Religious Right’s War on America (De Capo Press, 2005); Philip Gold, Take Back the Right : How the Neocons and the Religious Right have Betrayed the Conservative Movement (Basic Books, 2004); Jan G. Linn, What’s Wrong with the Christian Right (Florida: Brown Walker Press, 2004); Douglas Anthony Long, Fundamentalists and Extremists (2002); Rob Boston, Close Encounters with the Religious Right: Journeys into the Twilight Zone of Religion and Politics (New York: Prometheus Books, 2000); Frederick Clarkson, Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy (University of Michigan, 1997); William Curtis Martin, With God on Our Side: the Rise of the Religious Right in America (Broadway Books, 1996); Bruce Barron, Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology (Zondervan, 1992); Sara Diamond, Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right (New York: Black Rose Books, 1989); and numerous others.
16 Stanley Kurtz, “Dominionist Domination,” National Review, May 2, 2005.
17 Stanley Kurtz, “Dominionist Domination,” National Review, May 2, 2005.
18 Jon Ward, “Left aims to smite ‘theocracy’ movement,” The Washington Times, May 1, 2005.
19 Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 25.
20 Jeffery M. Jones, “U.S. Church Membership Falls Below Majority for First Times,” Gallup, March 29, 2021.
21 Alec Gallup & Wendy W. Simmons, “Six in Ten Americans Read Bible at Least Occasionally: Percentage of frequent readers has decreased over last decade,” Gallup, October 20, 2000.
22 George Barna, “Perceptions about Biblical Worldview and Its Application,” Center for Biblical Worldview, May 2021, 6.
23 Mark David Hall, “Tilting at Windmills: The “Threat” of Christian Nationalism,” Standing for Freedom, February 8, 2022.
24 David French, “I’m a Dominionist? I Had No Idea,” National Review, September 1, 2011.

America: God Shed His Grace on Thee Tract

This tract contains a variety of quotes that exemplify the Founders’ regard for a Biblically based system of government. See the complete text below and download it for your personal use!

America God Shed His Grace on Thee

By David Barton

America is not only one of the greatest nations in the history of the world, it has also become its longest ongoing constitutional republic. Its original government has now endured well over two centuries. However, America’s longevity is only as stable and secure as its foundation, so what is the foundation of American government?

Political scientists now know that the greatest source of political inspiration for our founding fathers was the Bible, which was cited in 34% of the quotations from the founding era (1760-1805).1

This discovery, while it might surprise many today, would have come as no surprise to the founders. It was John Adams who explained:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were….the general principles of Christianity.2

Founding father Noah Webster echoed the same message:

The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles….This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.3

Founder after founder declared the same belief:

Whether this [new government] will prove a blessing or a curse will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation [Proverbs 14:34]. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in they sphere practice virtue thyself and encourage it in others.4 Patrick Henry

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.5 Thomas Jefferson

Contrary to what is often asserted today, the founders never intended that God’s Word or His principles be separated from public life. They knew these principles were vital to the success of our new government. James Madison explained:

Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.6

And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift [James 1:17] we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land.7

Furthermore, the founders saw the Bible as inseparable from public education. Benjamin Rush, the first founder to call for free national public schools, explained:

Let the children…be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education.8

The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools.9

The founders even viewed the principles of the Bible as inseparable from civil law. James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, explained:

Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is diving….Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.10

These statements, despite the prominence of those who made them, are virtually unknown today. Instead, for the last four decades we have been taught that our founders were irreligious, desiring a complete separation between religious principles and public policy. However, the facts dispute the contention.

First, consider the actions of the founding fathers. The overwhelming majority of these men were so firmly committed to the principles of God’s Word that they went to great lengths to propagate those principles. For example, do you realize that many founders helped organize and lead several of the Christian societies which today are still spreading the gospel? Those men helped found the American Tract Society; the American Sunday School Union; over one hundred city, county, and state Bible societies, including the American Bible Society; the American Board of Foreign Missions; the Christian Constitutional Society; the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; the American Society for Educating Pious Youth for the Gospel Ministry; and many other similar groups. Are such organizations likely to be started by supposedly irreligious men who wanted God’s principles separate from society?

Second, consider their words––or their lack thereof. Today’s well-known phrase “separation of church and state” appears in no part of the Constitution. Furthermore, the discussions of the ninety founding fathers who framed the First Amendment (which the Courts now tell us means “separation of church and state”) are recorded in the Congressional Journal from June 7 to September 25, 1789. Interestingly, not once in those months of discussions did one of the founders ever mention that phrase. Doesn’t it seem logical that if they had intended today’s doctrine of “separation of church and state” that at least one of those ninety would have mentioned it? Ironically, today we no longer learn about what our founders did say in the Constitution; instead, we learn about something that they didn’t say!

The Bible reminds us that the most important part of any structure is its foundation: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3). It is time to remember our foundations, and to listen again to the words of those who were instrumental in making this country one of the world’s most powerful and respected nations. As George Washington reminded us:

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United State….We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious [favorable] smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation which disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself ordained.11

For America’s continuing survival and world leadership, we must recapture the founders’ vision of the importance of God’s Word and His gospel for this nation. America must again embrace the wisdom articulated so well by President John Adams:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion….Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.12

Download the complete tract here!

Endnotes

1 Origins of American Constitutionalism, 1987
2 Letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813
3 History of the United States, 1832
4 From Henry’s handwritten notes on the back of his copy of the Stamp Act resolutions, made public after his death
5 Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781
6 A Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785
7 Presidential Proclamation, 1815
8 A Plan for Free Schools, 1787
9 “A Defense of the Use of the Bible in Schools,” 1791
10 “Lectures on Law, Delivered in the College of Philadelphia,” 1790-1791
11 “Inaugural Address,” April 30, 1789
12 Letter of October 13, 1789.

Modern Thanksgiving Celebrations

The Pilgrims inaugural Thanksgiving in 1621 was followed by sporadic national Thanksgiving celebrations but more common celebrations at the state level. The switch to a standard Thanksgiving holiday at the federal level came about in the 1800s.

Lincoln’s 1863 Proclamation

Much of the credit for this adoption may be attributed to Mrs. Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book (a popular magazine containing poetry, art work, and articles by America’s leading authors). She persistently campaigned for an established national Thanksgiving, such as in this 1852 editorial:

The American people have two peculiar festivals, each connected with their history, and therefore of great importance in giving power and distinctness to their nationality. The Fourth of July Is the exponent of independence and civil freedom. Thanksgiving Day is the national pledge of Christian faith in God, acknowledging him as the dispenser of blessings. These two festivals should be joyfully and universally observed throughout our whole country, and thus incorporated in our habits of thought as inseparable from American life.1

For two decades, Hale promoted the idea of a national Thanksgiving Day,2 writing president after president. Abraham Lincoln eventually responded to this persistence in 1863 by setting aside the last Thursday of that November. The Thanksgiving proclamation issued by Lincoln at that time was remarkable not only for its strong religious content but also for its timing. It was delivered in the midst of the darkest days of the Civil War, after the Union had lost multiple battles in the first three years of that conflict. Yet, despite those dark circumstances, Lincoln called Americans to give thanks that:

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to invite and provoke the aggressions of foreign States, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict.3

In that proclamation, President Lincoln also noted that:

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the Source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God. . . . No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, Who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.4

Presidents After Lincoln

Over the seventy-five years following Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation, presidents faithfully followed Lincoln’s precedent, annually declaring a national Thanksgiving Day. The date, however, of the celebrations varied widely from proclamation to proclamation.

Among the many Thanksgiving proclamations in the WallBuilders’ collection is an 1887 handwritten one issued by President Grover Cleveland in which he once again emphasized God’s hand:

The goodness and the mercy of God, which have followed the American people during all the days of the past year claim our grateful recognition and humble acknowledgment. By His omnipotent power He has protected us from war and pestilence and from every national calamity; by His gracious favor the earth has yielded a generous return to the labor of the husbandman, and every path of honest toil has led to comfort and contentment; by His loving kindness the hearts of our people have been replenished with fraternal sentiment and patriotic endeavor, and by His Fatherly guidance we have been directed in the way of national prosperity.5

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt set the precedent of celebrating Thanksgiving on the fourth Thursday of each November. And in 1941, Congress permanently established that day as the national Thanksgiving holiday.6

During World War II, (which would eventually claim the lives of over 400,000 Americans7), President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued a Thanksgiving proclamation for November 1944 asking Americans to be thankful . . .

For the preservation of our way of life from the threat of destruction; for the unity of spirit which has kept our Nation strong; for our abiding faith in freedom; and for the promise of an enduring peace.8

President George W. Bush summarized this history of Thanksgiving proclamations and celebrations in his 2007 Thanksgiving proclamation:

Our country was founded by men and women who realized their dependence on God and were humbled by His providence and grace. The early explorers and settlers who arrived in this land gave thanks for God’s protection and for the extraordinary natural abundance they found. Since the first National Day of Thanksgiving was proclaimed by President George Washington, Americans have come together to offer thanks for our many blessings.9

As Americans continue to “Be thankful in all circumstances” (1 Thessalonians 5:18 NLT), our Thanksgiving celebrations should include reflections on all the reasons to be truly thankful to God for His many blessings. Perhaps the four items George Washington mentioned in America’s original federal Thanksgiving proclamation in 178910 should be the basis for future Thanksgiving commemorations:

  1. Acknowledge the providence of Almighty God;
  2. Obey His will;
  3. Be grateful for His benefits; and
  4. Humbly implore His protection and favor.

For additional articles on Thanksgiving, see:

See previous articles in this series on Thanksgiving: “The Pilgrims Thanksgiving,” https://wallbuilders.com/resource/the-pilgrims-thanksgiving/ and “The Founders Thanksgivings,” https://wallbuilders.com/resource/the-founders-thanksgivings/.

Endnotes

1 “Editor’s Table,” Godey’s Lady’s Book (Philadelphia: October 1852), 388, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Godey_s_Lady_s_Book_and_Ladies_American/3Y9MAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA388&printsec=frontcover.
2 Appleton’s Cyclopedia of American Biography, eds. James Grant Wilson & John Fiske (New York: D. Appleton & Co, 1888), III:35, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39076005094201&seq=55.
3 Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation for Thanksgiving, October 3, 1863, The Works of Abraham Lincoln, eds. John H. Clifford & Marion M. Miller (New York: University Society Inc, 1908), VI:160-161, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Works_of_Abraham_Lincoln/v5B14zepO3MC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA160&printsec=frontcover; Abraham Lincoln, “Thanksgiving Proclamation,” October 3, 1863, WallBuilders, https://wallbuilders.com/resource/proclamation-thanksgiving-day-1863/.
4 Lincoln, Proclamation for Thanksgiving, October 3, 1863, Works of Lincoln, eds. Clifford & Miller (1908), VI:160-161, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Works_of_Abraham_Lincoln/v5B14zepO3MC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA160&printsec=frontcover; Lincoln, “Thanksgiving Proclamation,” October 3, 1863, WallBuilders, https://wallbuilders.com/resource/proclamation-thanksgiving-day-1863/.
5 Grover Cleveland, “Thanksgiving Proclamation,” issued October 25, 1887, WallBuilders, https://wallbuilders.com/resource/proclamation-thanksgiving-day-1887/.
6 “Congress Establishes Thanksgiving,” The National Archives, accessed August 31, 2023, https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/thanksgiving/; “Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamations 1940-1949: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman,” Pilgrim Hall Museum, https://www.pilgrimhall.org/pdf/TG_Presidential_Thanksgiving_Proclamations_1940_1949.pdf, Proclamation 2571, November 11, 1942, referring to a “joint resolution of Congress approved December 26, 1941, which designates the fourth Thursday in November of each year as Thanksgiving Day.”
7 “WWII Memorial Registry,” accessed August 31, 2023, https://wwiiregistry.abmc.gov/.
8 Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Thanksgiving Proclamation,” issued November 1, 1944, WallBuilders, https://wallbuilders.com/resource/proclamation-thanksgiving-day-1944/.
9 George W. Bush, “Thanksgiving Day, 2007,” issued November 15, 2007, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071115-5.html.
10 George Washington, Proclamation for a National Thanksgiving on October 3, 1789, Writings of George Washington, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston: Russell, Odiorne and Metcalf, 1838), XII:119; George Washington, “Thanksgiving Proclamation,” issued on October 3, 1789, WallBuilders, https://wallbuilders.com/resource/proclamation-thanksgiving-day-1789/.