Government Archives - Page 4 of 6

John Locke – A Philosophical Founder of America

John Locke (1632-1704) is one of the most important, but largely unknown names in American history today. A celebrated English philosopher, educator, government official, and theologian, it is not an exaggeration to say that without his substantial influence on American thinking, there might well be no United States of America today – or at the very least, America certainly would not exist with the same level of rights, stability of government, and quality of life that we have enjoyed for well over two centuries.

Historians – especially of previous generations – were understandably effusive in their praise of Locke. For example:

In 1833, Justice Joseph Story, author of the famed Commentaries on the Constitution, described Locke as “a most strenuous asserter of liberty”¹ who helped establish in this country the sovereignty of the people over the government,² majority rule with minority protection,³ and the rights of conscience.⁴
In 1834, George Bancroft, called the “Father of American History,” described Locke as “the rival of ‘the ancient philosophers’ to whom the world had ‘erected statues’,”⁵ and noted that Locke esteemed “the pursuit of truth the first object of life and . . . never sacrificed a conviction to an interest.”⁶
In 1872, historian Richard Frothingham said that Locke’s principles – principles that he said were “inspired and imbued with the Christian idea of man” – produced the “leading principle [of] republicanism” that was “summed up in the Declaration of Independence and became the American theory of government.”⁷
In the 1890s, John Fiske, the celebrated nineteenth-century historian, affirmed that Locke brought to America “the idea of complete liberty of conscience in matters of religion” allowing persons with “any sort of notion about God” to be protected “against all interference or molestation,”⁸ and that Locke should “be ranked in the same order with Aristotle.”⁹

Such acknowledgments continued across the generations; and even over the past half century, U. S. presidents have also regularly acknowledged America’s debt to John Locke:

President Richard Nixon affirmed that “John Locke’s concept of ‘life, liberty and property’” was the basis of “the inalienable rights of man” in the Declaration of Independence.¹⁰
President Gerald Ford avowed that “Our revolutionary leaders heeded John Locke’s teaching ‘Where there is no law, there is no freedom’.”¹¹
President Ronald Reagan confirmed that much in America “testif[ies] to the power and the vision of free men inspired by the ideals and dedication to liberty of John Locke . . .”¹²
President Bill Clinton reminded the British Prime Minister that “Throughout our history, our peoples have reinforced each other in the living classroom of democracy. It is difficult to imagine Jefferson, for example, without John Locke before him.”¹³
President George W. Bush confessed that “We’re sometimes faulted for a naive faith that liberty can change the world, [but i]f that’s an error, it began with reading too much John Locke . . .”¹⁴

The influence of Locke on America was truly profound; he was what we now consider to be a renaissance man – an individual skilled in numerous areas and diverse subjects. He had been well-educated and received multiple degrees from some of the best institutions of his day, but he also pursued extensive self-education in the fields of religion, philosophy, education, law, and government – subjects on which he authored numerous substantial works, most of which still remain in print today more than three centuries after he published them.

In 1689, Locke penned his famous Two Treatises of Government. The first treatise (i.e., a thorough examination) was a brilliant Biblical refutation of Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha in which Filmer had attempted to produce Biblical support for the errant “Divine Right of Kings” doctrine. Locke’s second treatise set forth the fundamental principles defining the proper role, function, and operation of a sound government. Significantly, Locke had ample opportunity to assert such principles, for he spent time under some of England’s worst monarchs, including Charles I, Charles II, and James II.

In 1664, Locke penned “Questions Concerning the Law of Nature” in which he asserted that human reason and Divine revelation were fully compatible and were not enemies – that the Law of Nature actually came from God Himself. (This work was not published, but many of its concepts appeared in his subsequent writings.)

In 1667, he privately penned his “Essay Concerning Toleration,” first published in 1689 as A Letter Concerning Toleration. This work, like his Two Treatises, was published anonymously, for it had placed his very life in danger by directly criticizing and challenging the frequent brutal oppression of the government-established and government-run Church of England. (Under English law, the Anglican Church and its 39 Doctrinal Articles were the measure for all religious faith in England; every citizen was required to attend an Anglican Church. Dissenters who opposed those Anglican requirements were regularly persecuted or even killed. Locke objected to the government establishing specific church doctrines by law, argued for a separation of the state from the church, and urged religious toleration for those who did not adhere to Anglican doctrines.) When Locke’s position on religious toleration was attacked by defenders of the government-run church, he responded with A Second Letter Concerning Toleration (1690), and then A Third Letter for Toleration (1692) – both also published anonymously.

In 1690, Locke published his famous Essay Concerning Human Understanding. This work resulted in his being called the “Father of Empiricism,” which is the doctrine that knowledge is derived primarily from experience. Rationalism, on the other hand, places reason above experience; and while Locke definitely did not oppose reason, his approach to learning was more focused on the practical, whereas rationalism was more focused on the theoretical.

In 1693, Locke published Some Thoughts Concerning Education. Originally a series of letters written to his friend concerning the education of a son, in them Locke suggested the best ways to educate children. He proposed a three-pronged holistic approach to education that included (1) a regimen of bodily exercise and maintenance of physical health (that there should be “a sound mind in a sound body”¹⁵), (2) the development of a virtuous character (which he considered to be the most important element of education), and (3) the training of the mind through practical and useful academic curriculum (also encouraging students to learn a practical trade). Locke believed that education made the individual – that “of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education.”¹⁶ This book became a run-away best-seller, being printed in nearly every European language and going through 53 editions over the next century.

Locke’s latter writings focused primarily on theological subjects, including The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures (1695), A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity (1697), A Common-Place-Book to the Holy Bible (1697), which was a re-publication of what he called Graphautarkeia, or, The Scriptures Sufficiency Practically Demonstrated (1676), and finally A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians (published posthumously in 1707).

In his Reasonableness of Christianity, Locke urged the Church of England to reform itself so as to allow inclusion of members from other Christian denominations – i.e., the Dissenters. He recommended that the Church place its emphasis on the major things of Christianity (such as an individual’s relationship with Jesus Christ) rather than on lesser things (such as liturgy, church hierarchy and structure, and form of discipline). That work also defended Christianity against the attacks of skeptics and secularists, who had argued that Divine revelation must be rejected because truth could be established only through reason.

(While these are some of Locke’s better known works, he also wrote on many other subjects, including poetry and literature, medicine, commerce and economics, and even agriculture.)

The impact of Locke’s writings had a direct and substantial influence on American thinking and behavior in both the religious and the civil realms – an influence especially visible in the years leading up to America’s separation from Great Britain. In fact, the Founding Fathers openly acknowledged their debt to Locke:

John Adams praised Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding, openly acknowledging that “Mr. Locke . . . has steered his course into the unenlightened regions of the human mind, and like Columbus, has discovered a new world.”¹⁷
Declaration signer Benjamin Rush said that Locke was not only “an oracle as to the principles . . . of government”¹⁸ (an “oracle” is a wise authority whose opinions are not questioned) but that in philosophy, he was also a “justly celebrated oracle, who first unfolded to us a map of the intellectual world,”¹⁹ having “cleared this sublime science of its technical rubbish and rendered it both intelligible and useful.”²⁰
Benjamin Franklin said that Locke was one of “the best English authors” for the study of “history, rhetoric, logic, moral and natural philosophy.”²¹
Noah Webster, a Founding Father called the “Schoolmaster to America,” directly acknowledged Locke’s influence in establishing sound principles of education.²²
James Wilson (a signer of the Declaration and the Constitution, and an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court) declared that “The doctrine of toleration in matters of religion . . . has not been long known or acknowledged. For its reception and establishment (where it has been received and established), the world has been thought to owe much to the inestimable writings of the celebrated Locke…”²³
James Monroe, a Founding Father who became the fifth President of the United States, attributed much of our constitutional philosophy to Locke, including our belief that “the division of the powers of a government . . . into three branches (the legislative, executive, and judiciary) is absolutely necessary for the preservation of liberty.”²⁴
Thomas Jefferson said that Locke was among “my trinity of the three greatest men the world had ever produced.”²⁵

And just as the Founding Fathers regularly praised and invoked John Locke, so, too, did numerous famous American ministers in their writings and sermons.²⁶ Locke’s influence was substantial; and significantly, the closer came the American Revolution, the more frequently he was invoked.

For example, in 1775, Alexander Hamilton recommended that anyone wanting to understand the thinking in favor of American independence should “apply yourself without delay to the study of the law of nature. I would recommend to your perusal . . . Locke.”²⁷

And James Otis – the mentor of both Samuel Adams and John Hancock – affirmed that:

The authority of Mr. Locke has . . . been preferred to all others.²⁸

Locke’s specific writing that most influenced the American philosophy of government was his Two Treatises of Government. In fact, signer of the Declaration Richard Henry Lee saw the Declaration of Independence as being “copied from Locke’s Treatise on Government”²⁹– and modern researchers agree, having authoritatively documented that not only was John Locke one of three most-cited political philosophers during the Founding Era³⁰ but that he was by far the single most frequently-cited source in the years from 1760-1776 (the period leading up to the Declaration of Independence).³¹

Among the many ideas articulated by Locke that subsequently appeared in the Declaration was the theory of social compact, which, according to Locke, was when:

Men. . . . join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another in a secure enjoyment of their properties and a greater security against any that are not of it.³²

Of that theory, William Findley, a Revolutionary soldier and a U. S. Congressman, explained:

Men must first associate together before they can form rules for their civil government. When those rules are formed and put in operation, they have become a civil society, or organized government. For this purpose, some rights of individuals must have been given up to the society but repaid many fold by the protection of life, liberty, and property afforded by the strong arm of civil government. This progress to human happiness being agreeable to the will of God, Who loves and commands order, is the ordinance of God mentioned by the Apostle Paul and . . . the Apostle Peter.³³

Locke’s theory of social compact is seen in the Declaration’s phrase that governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Locke also taught that government must be built firmly upon the transcendent, unchanging principles of natural law that were merely a subset of God’s greater law:

[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.³⁴

[L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.³⁵

For obedience is due in the first place to God, and afterwards to the laws.³⁶

The Declaration therefore acknowledges “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” thus not separating the two but rather affirming their interdependent relationship – the dual connection between reason and revelation which Locke so often asserted.

Locke also proclaimed that certain fundamental rights should be protected by society and government, including especially those of life, liberty, and property³⁷– three rights specifically listed as God-given inalienable rights in the Declaration. As Samuel Adams (the “Father of the American Revolution” and a signer of the Declaration) affirmed, man’s inalienable rights included “first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly, to property”³⁸– a repeat of Locke’s list.

Locke had also asserted that:

[T]he first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the Legislative power. . . . [and no] edict of anybody else . . . [can] have the force and obligation of a law which has not its sanction [approval] from that Legislative which the public has chosen.³⁹

The Founders thus placed a heavy emphasis on preserving legislative powers above all others. In fact, of the 27 grievances set forth in the Declaration of Independence, 11 dealt with the abuse of legislative powers – no other topic in the Declaration received nearly as much attention. The Founders’ conviction that the Legislative Branch was above both the Executive and Judicial branches was also readily evident in the U. S. Constitution, with the Federalist Papers affirming that “the legislative authority necessarily predominates”⁴⁰ and “the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.”⁴¹

Locke also advocated the removal of a leader who failed to fulfill the basic functions of government so eloquently set forth in his Two Treatises;⁴² the Declaration thus declares that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government.”

In short, when one studies Locke’s writings and then reads the Declaration of Independence, they will agree with John Quincy Adams’ pronouncement that:

The Declaration of Independence [was] . . . founded upon one and the same theory of government . . . expounded in the writings of Locke.⁴³

But despite Locke’s substantial influence on America, today he is largely unknown; and his Two Treatises are no longer intimately studied in America history and government classes. Perhaps the reason for the modern dismissal of this classic work is because it was so thoroughly religious: Locke invoked the Bible in at least 1,349 references in the first treatise, and 157 times in the second⁴⁴– a fact not lost on the Founders. As John Adams openly acknowledged:

The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence. . . . were the general principles of Christianity. . . . Now I will avow that I then believed (and now believe) that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. . . . In favor of these general principles in philosophy, religion, and government, I [c]ould fill sheets of quotations from . . . [philosophers including] Locke – not to mention thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame.⁴⁵

Given the fact that previous generations so quickly recognized the Christian principles that permeated all of Locke’s diverse writings, it is not surprising that they considered him a theologian.⁴⁶ Ironically, however, many of today’s writers and so-called professors and scholars specifically call Locke a deist or a forerunner of Deism.⁴⁷ But since Locke included repeated references to God and the Scriptures throughout his writings, and since he wrote many works specifically in defense of religious topics, then why is he currently portrayed as being anti-religious? It is because in the past fifty-years, American education has become thoroughly infused with the dual historical malpractices of Deconstructionism and Academic Collectivism.

Deconstructionism is a philosophy that “tends to deemphasize or even efface [i.e., malign and smear] the subject” by posing “a continuous critique” to “lay low what was once high”⁴⁸ and “tear down the ancient certainties upon which Western Culture is founded.”⁴⁹ In other words, it is a steady flow of belittling and negative portrayals about the heroes, institutions, and values of Western civilization, especially if they reflect religious beliefs. The two regular means by which Deconstructionists accomplish this goal are (1) to make a negative exception appear to be the rule, and (2) deliberate omission.

These harmful practices of Deconstructionists are exacerbated by the malpractice of Academic Collectivism, whereby scholars quote each other and those from their group rather than original sources. Too many writers today simply repeat what other modern writers say, and this “peer-review” becomes the standard for historical truth rather than an examination of actual original documents and sources.

Reflecting these dual negative influences of Deconstructionism and Academic Collectivism in their treatment of John Locke, many of today’s “scholars” simply lift a few short excerpts from his hundreds of thousands of written words and then present those carefully selected extracts in such a way as to misconstrue his faith and make it seem that he was irreligious. Or more frequently, Locke’s works are simply omitted from academic studies, being replaced only with a professor’s often inaccurate characterization of Locke’s beliefs and writings.

Significantly, the charge that Locke is a deist and a freethinker is not new; it has been raised against him for over three centuries. It first originated when Locke advocated major reforms in the Church of England (such as the separation of the state from the church and the extension of religious toleration to other Christian denominations); Anglican apologists who stung from his biting criticism sought to malign him and minimize his influence; they thus accused him of irreligion and deism. As affirmed by early English theologian Richard Price:

[W]hen . . . Mr. Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding was first published in Britain, the persons readiest to attend to it and to receive it were those who have never been trained in colleges, and whose minds, therefore, had never been perverted by an instruction in the jargon of the schools. [But t]o the deep professors [i.e., clergy and scholars] of the times, it appeared (like the doctrine taught in his book, on the Reasonableness of Christianity) to be a dangerous novelty and heresy; and the University of Oxford in particular [which trained only Anglicans] condemned and reprobated the author.⁵⁰

The Founding Fathers were fully aware of the bigoted motives behind the attacks on Locke’s Christian beliefs, and they vigorously defended him from those false charges. For example, James Wilson (signer of the Declaration and Constitution) asserted:

I am equally far from believing that Mr. Locke was a friend to infidelity [a disbelief in the Bible and in Christianity⁵¹]. . . . The high reputation which he deservedly acquired for his enlightened attachment to the mild and tolerating doctrines of Christianity secured to him the esteem and confidence of those who were its friends. The same high and deserved reputation inspired others of very different views and characters . . . to diffuse a fascinating kind of lustre over their own tenets of a dark and sable hue. The consequence has been that the writings of Mr. Locke, one of the most able, most sincere, and most amiable assertors of Christianity and true philosophy, have been perverted to purposes which he would have deprecated and prevented [disapproved and opposed] had he discovered or foreseen them.⁵²

Thomas Jefferson agreed. He had personally studied not only Locke’s governmental and legal writings but also his theological ones; and his summary of Locke’s views of Christianity clearly affirmed that Locke was not a deist. According to Jefferson:

Locke’s system of Christianity is this: Adam was created happy and immortal…. By sin he lost this so that he became subject to total death (like that of brutes [animals]) – to the crosses and unhappiness of this life. At the intercession, however, of the Son of God, this sentence was in part remitted…. And moreover to them who believed, their faith was to be counted for righteousness [Romans 4:3,5]. Not that faith without works was to save them; St. James, chapter 2 says expressly the contrary [James 2:14-26]…. So that a reformation of life (included under repentance) was essential, and defects in this would be made up by their faith; i. e., their faith should be counted for righteousness [Romans 4:3,5]…. The Gentiles; St. Paul says, Romans 2:13: “the Gentiles have the law written in their hearts,” [A]dding a faith in God and His attributes that on their repentance, He would pardon them; (1 John 1:9) they also would be justified (Romans 3:24). This then explains the text “there is no other name under heaven by which a man may be saved” [Acts 4:12], i. e., the defects in good works shall not be supplied by a faith in Mahomet, Fo [Buddha], or any other except Christ.⁵³

In short, Locke was not the deist thinker that today’s shallow and often lazy academics so frequently claim him to be; and although Locke is largely ignored today, his influence both on American religious and political thinking was substantial, directly shaping key beliefs upon which America was established and under which she continues to operate and prosper.

Americans need to revive a widespread awareness of John Locke and his specific ideas that helped produce American Exceptionalism so that we can better preserve and continue the blessings of prosperity, stability, and liberty that we have enjoyed for the past several centuries.

Endnotes

¹ Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company 1833), I:299, n2.

² Story, Commentaries (1833), II:57, n2.

³ Story, Commentaries 1833), I:293, n2; I:299, n2; I:305-306.

⁴ Story, Commentaries (1833), III:727.

⁵ George Bancroft, History of the United States of America (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1858; first edition Boston: Charles Bowen, 1834), II:150.

⁶ Bancroft, History of the United States (1858; first edition 1834), II:144.

⁷ Richard Frothingham, The Rise of the Republic of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1872), 165.

⁸ John Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbors (New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1897), II:274.

⁹ John Fiske, Critical Period of American History: 1783-1789 (New York: Mifflin and Company, 1896), 225.

¹⁰ Richard Nixon, “Message to the Congress Transmitting the Report of the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission,” The American Presidency Project, September 11, 1970.

¹¹ Gerald Ford, “Address at the Yale University Law School Sesquicentennial Convocation Dinner,” The American Presidency Project, April 25, 1975.

¹² Ronald Reagan, “Toasts of the President and Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom at a Dinner Honoring the Queen in San Francisco, California,” The American Presidency Project, March 3, 1983.

¹³ William Clinton, “Remarks at the State Dinner Honoring Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom,” The American Presidency Project, February 5, 1998.

¹⁴ George W. Bush, “Remarks at Whitehall Palace in London, United Kingdom,” The American Presidency Project, November 19, 2003.

¹⁵ John Locke, The Works of John Locke (London: Arthur Bettesworth, John Pemberton, and Edward Simon, 1722), III:1, “Some Thoughts Concerning Education.”

¹⁶ Locke, Works (1722), III:1, “Some Thoughts Concerning Education.”

¹⁷ John Adams, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), I:53, to Jonathan Sewall on February 1760.

¹⁸ Benjamin Rush, The Selected Writings of Benjamin Rush, ed. Dagobert D. Runes (New York: The Philosophical Library, Inc., 1947), 78, “Observations on the Government of Pennsylvania.”

¹⁹ Benjamin Rush, Medical Inquiries and Observations (Philadelphia: T. Dobson, 1793), II:17, “An Inquiry into the Influence of Physical Causes upon the Moral Faculty.”

²⁰ Rush, Medical Inquiries (1794), I:332, “Duties of a Physician.”

²¹ Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston: Tappan & Whittemore, 1836), II:131, “Sketch of an English School.”

²² Noah Webster, A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster & Clark, 1843), 308, “Modes of Teaching the English Language.”

²³ James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, ed. Bird Wilson (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), 1:6-7, “Of the Study of the Law in the United States.”

²⁴ James Monroe, The Writings of James Monroe, ed. Stanislaus Murray Hamilton (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898), I:325, “Some Observations on the Constitution, &c.”

²⁵ Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Henry Augustine Washington (Washington, D. C.: Taylor & Maury, 1853), V:559, to Dr. Benjamin Rush on January 16, 1811.

²⁶ See, for example, REV. JARED ELIOT IN 1738 Jared Eliot, Give Caesar His Due. Or, Obligation that Subjects are Under to Their Civil Rulers (London: T. Green, 1738), 27, Evans # 4241. REV. ELISHA WILLIAMS IN 1744 Elisha Williams, The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants. A Seasonable Plea for the Liberty of Conscience, and the Right of Private Judgment, in Matters of Religion (Boston: S. Kneeland and T. Gaben, 1744), 4, Evans # 5520. Rev. JONATHAN EDWARDS IN 1754 Jonathan Edwards, A Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of That Freedom of Will, which is Supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame (Boston: S. Kneeland, 1754), 138-140, 143, 164, 171-172, 353-354. REV. WILLIAM PATTEN, 1766 William Patten, A Discourse Delivered at Hallifax in the County of Plymouth, July 24th, 1766 (Boston: D. Kneeland, 1766), 17-18n, Evans # 10440. REV. STEPHEN JOHNSON, 1766 Stephen Johnson, Some Important Observations, Occasioned by, and Adapted to, the Publick Fast, Ordered by Authority, December 18th, A. D. 1765. On Account of the Peculiar Circumstances of the Present Day (Newport: Samuel Hall, 1766), 22n-23n, Evans # 10364. REV. JOHN TUCKER, 1771 John Tucker, A Sermon Preached at Cambridge Before His Excellency Thomas Hutchinson, Esq., Governor; His Honor Andrew Oliver, Esq., Lieutenant-Governor; the Honorable His Majesty’s Council; and the Honorable House of Representatives of the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay in New England, May 29th, 1771 (Boston: Richard Draper, 1771), 19, Evans # 12256. REV. SAMUEL STILLMAN, 1779 Samuel Stillman, A Sermon Preached before the Honourable Council and the Honourable House of Representatives of the State of Massachusetts-Bay, in New-England at Boston, May 26, 1779. Being the Anniversary for the Election of the Honorable Council (Boston: T. and J. Fleet, 1779), 22-25, and many others.

²⁷ Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), I:86, from “The Farmer Refuted,” February 23, 1775.

²⁸ James Otis, A Vindication of the Conduct of the House of Representatives of the Province on the Massachusetts-Bay: Most Particularly in the Last Session of the General Assembly (Boston: Edes & Gill, 1762), 20n.

²⁹ Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), XV:462, to James Madison on August 30, 1823.

³⁰ Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988), 143.

³¹ Lutz, Origins 1988), 143.

³² John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (London: A. Bettesworth, 1728), II:206-207, Ch. VIII, §95.

³³ William Findley, Observations on “The Two Sons of Oil” (Pittsburgh: Patterson and Hopkins 1812), 35.

³⁴ Locke, Two Treatises (1728), II:233, Ch. XI, §135.

³⁵ Locke, Two Treatises (1728), II:234, Ch. XI, §135 n., quoting Hooker’s Eccl. Pol. 1. iii, sect. 9.

³⁶ John Locke, The Works of John Locke (London: T. Davison, 1824), V:22, “A Letter Concerning Toleration.”

³⁷ See, for example, Locke, Works (1824), V:10, “A Letter Concerning Toleration”; Locke, Two Treatises (1728), II:146, 188, 199, 232-233, passim; etc.

³⁸ Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Harry Alonzo Cushing (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906), I:351, from “The Rights Of The Colonists, A List of Violations Of Rights and A Letter Of Correspondence, Adopted by the Town of Boston, November 20, 1772,” originally published in the Boston Record Commissioners’ Report, XVIII:94-108.

³⁹ Locke, Two Treatises (1728), II:231,Ch. XI, §134.

⁴⁰ Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist, or the New Constitution Written in 1788 (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818), 281, Federalist #51 by Alexander Hamilton.

⁴¹ Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, The Federalist (1818), 420, Federalist #78 by Alexander Hamilton.

⁴² Locke, Two Treatises (1728), II:271, Ch. XVI, § 192.

⁴³ John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution. A Discourse Delivered at the Request of the New York Historical Society, in the City of New York, on Tuesday, the 30th of April, 1839; Being the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington as President of the United States, on Thursday, the 30th of April, 1789 (New York: Samuel Colman, 1839), 40.

⁴⁴ Locke, Two Treatises (1728), passim.

⁴⁵ John Adams, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), X:45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

⁴⁶ See, for example, Richard Watson, Theological Institutes: Or a View of the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals, and Institutions of Christianity (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1857), I:5, where Watson includes John Locke as a theologian.

⁴⁷ See, for example, Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, ed. John Bowker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 151; Franklin L. Baumer, Religion and the Use of Skepticism (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Company), 57-59; James A. Herrick, The Radical Rhetoric of the English Deists: The Discourse of Skepticism, 1680-1750 (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1997), 15; Kerry S. Walters, Rational Infidels: The American Deists (Durango, CO: Longwood Academic, 1992), 24, 210; Kerry S. Walters, The American Deists: Voices of Reason and Dissent in the Early Republic (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1992), 6-7; John W. Yolton, John Locke and the Way of Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956), 25, 115.

⁴⁸ Jack M. Balkin, “Tradition, Betrayal, and the Politics of Deconstruction – Part II,” Yale University, 1998.

⁴⁹ Kyle-Anne Shiver, “Deconstructing Obama,” AmericanThinker.com, July 28, 2008.

⁵⁰ Richard Price, Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution and the Means of Making it a Benefit to the World (Boston: True and Weston, 1818), 24.

⁵¹ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. “infidel.”

⁵² James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, ed. Bird Wilson (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), I:67-68, “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation.”

⁵³ Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), II:253-254, “Notes on Religion,” October, 1776.

Did George Washington Actually Say “So Help Me God” During His Inauguration?

By David Barton¹

In December 2008 following the election of Barack Obama as president, noted atheist Michael Newdow filed suit to prohibit religious acknowledgments or activities from being part of the inaugural ceremonies, specifically seeking to halt the inclusion of “So help me God” as part of the presidential oath as well as halt inaugural prayers by clergy.²

Newdow has an established record of bringing suits to eradicate long-standing public religious practices, including to:

remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance³
eliminate “In God We Trust” (the National Motto) from coins and currency⁴
prohibit California textbooks from mentioning Biblical events found in Genesis 1-3⁵
exclude clergy prayers from presidential inaugurations⁶
reverse the time-honored tax exemptions for housing provided by churches to clergy⁷
abolish chaplains hired by Congress⁸

Newdow insists that his quest for a completely secular public square is based on constitutional mandates, Founding Fathers’ intent, and American history. Regarding the latter, in his 2008 lawsuit, Newdow claimed that the use of the phrase “So help me God” in presidential oaths was of relatively recent origin – that George Washington had not used the phrase and that it did not become part of legal oaths, especially for presidents, until the inauguration of President Chester A. Arthur in 1881.⁹ Although courts and scholars have routinely rejected Newdow’s preposterous historical assertions, this specific one, for some inexplicable reason, gained traction among some media and academics, pitting them against many distinguished historical authorities.

The Chief Historian of the United States Capitol Historical Society, the Library of Congress, the U. S. Supreme Court (and numbers of its Justices), the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, the Architect of the Capitol, and other notables have affirmed that “so help me God” is a traditional practice dating back to George Washington. Significantly, for almost two centuries, it was universally accepted that “So help me God” had actually been said as part of the official oathtaking process, but Newdow and his fellow travelers insist that everyone except themselves has been wrong for the past two centuries.¹⁰

One of those who agrees with Newdow is Matthew Goldstein, a regular writer for atheist and secularist sites. To help prove his case, he cites with approval an article by USA Today claiming that there is “no eyewitness documentation he [Washington] ever added ‘so help me God’.”¹¹ (So USA Today is now an authoritative historical source? Really?) Other secularist voices have joined the chorus, including attorney/writer Jim Bendat, who claims that George Washington’s use of “So help me God” is a “legend”;¹² Professor Peter Henriques of George Mason University calls it a “myth,” adding that any such claim to the contrary “is almost certainly false”;¹³ and Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center says that not only is it a “popular myth” but also that it’s time to completely get rid of “So help me God” as part of the oath.¹⁴

What is the historical basis for claiming that George Washington did not say “So help me God” as part of the presidential oath? According to Newdow and other critics, no records of the day specifically show Washington reciting the phrase, therefore he did not say it.

Numerous historical documents and practices disproving Newdow’s claim will be shown below, but first consider the historical unreasonableness of claiming that someone did not do something unless it is specifically written that he did so. Even Wikipedia characterizes this type of logic as an “appeal to ignorance” – an approach asserting that something is false only because it has not been proven true – that the lack of evidence for one view is substitutionary proof that another view is true.¹⁵

Consider all the inaugural absurdities that can be “proven” under the approach taken by Newdow. For example, since there is no detailed record that President James Monroe did not launch into a string of profanities at his inauguration, then he certainly must have done so; and since no one wrote on Inauguration Day 1825 that the sun rose in the east and set in the west, then it must have been otherwise. These scenarios are ridiculous, but they illustrate the inherent fallacies in the methodology used by Newdow.

Three specific strands of historical evidence will be presented below that demonstrate the absurdity of the modern claims. First, at least seven different religious activities were part of the first inauguration, thus the proceedings were indisputably heavily religiously-permeated. Second, the entirety of American legal practice at that time, including the specific stipulations of statutory law, required the phrase “So help me God” be part of any oath administered by or to government officials. Third, Washington himself, and numerous other Founding Fathers, repeatedly affirmed that an oath of office was a religious act; they explicitly rejected any notion that an oath was secular.

1. RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES AT GEORGE WASHINGTON’S INAUGURATION

Constitutional experts abounded in 1789 at America’s first presidential inauguration. Not only was the inauguree a signer of the Constitution but one fourth of the members of the Congress that organized and directed his inauguration had been delegates with him to the Constitutional Convention that produced the Constitution.¹⁶ Furthermore, this very same Congress also penned the First Amendment and its religious clauses. Because Congress, perhaps more than any other, certainly knew what was constitutional, the religious activities that were part of the first inauguration may well be said to have had the approval and imprimatur of the greatest congressional collection of constitutional experts America has ever known.

That inauguration occurred in New York City, which served as the nation’s capital during the first year of the new federal government. The preparations had been extensive; everything had been well planned.

The papers reported on the first inaugural activity:

[O]n the morning of the day on which our illustrious President will be invested with his office, the bells will ring at nine o’clock, when the people may go up to the house of God and in a solemn manner commit the new government, with its important train of consequences, to the holy protection and blessing of the Most High. An early hour is prudently fixed for this peculiar act of devotion and . . . is designed wholly for prayer.¹⁷

As subsequent activities progressed, things seemed to be proceeding smoothly, but as the parade carrying Washington by horse-drawn carriage to the swearing-in was nearing Federal Hall, it was realized that no Bible had been obtained for administering the oath, and the law required that a Bible be part of the ceremony. Parade Marshal Jacob Morton therefore hurried off and soon returned with a large 1767 King James Bible.

The ceremony was conducted on the balcony at Federal Hall; and with a huge crowd gathered below watching the proceedings, the Bible was laid upon a crimson velvet cushion held by Samuel Otis, Secretary of the Senate. New York Chancellor Robert Livingston then administered the oath of office. (He was one of the five Founders who drafted the Declaration of Independence, but had been called back to New York to help guide his state through the Revolution before he could affix his signature to the document he had helped write. Because Livingston was the highest ranking judicial official in New York, he was chosen to administer the oath of office to President Washington.)

Standing beside Livingston and Washington were many distinguished officials, including Vice President John Adams, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, Generals Henry Knox and Philip Schuyler, and several others. The Bible was opened (at random) to Genesis 49;¹⁸ Washington placed his left hand upon the open Bible, raised his right, took the oath of office, then bent over and reverently kissed the Bible. Chancellor Livingston proclaimed, “It is done!” Turning to the crowd assembled below, he shouted, “Long live George Washington – the first President of the United States!” That shout was echoed and re-echoed by the crowd. Washington and the other officials then departed the balcony and went inside Federal Hall to the Senate Chamber where Washington delivered his Inaugural Address.

In that first-ever presidential address, Washington opened with a heartfelt prayer, explaining that . . .

it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being Who rules over the universe, Who presides in the councils of nations, and Whose providential aids can supply every human defect – that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes.¹⁹

Washington’s inaugural address was strongly religious, and he called his listeners to remember and acknowledge God:

In tendering this homage [act of worship] to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential Agency. . . . [and] we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious [favorable] smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.²⁰

Having finished his address, Washington offered its closing prayer:

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave – but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication [prayer] that . . . His Divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this government must depend.²¹

The next inaugural activities then began – activities arranged by Congress itself when the Senate directed:

That after the oath shall have been administered to the President, he – attended by the Vice-President and members of the Senate and House of Representatives – proceed to St. Paul’s Chapel to hear Divine service.²²

The House had approved the same resolution,²³ so the president and Congress thus went en masse to church as an official body. As affirmed by congressional records:

The President, the Vice-President, the Senate, and House of Representatives, &c., then proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel, where Divine Service was performed by the chaplain of Congress.²⁴

The service at St. Paul’s was conducted by The Right Reverend Samuel Provoost – the Episcopal Bishop of New York, who had been chosen chaplain of the Senate the week preceding the inauguration.²⁵ He performed the service according to The Book of Common Prayer, including prayers taken from Psalms 144-150 and Scripture readings and Bible lessons from the book of Acts, I Kings, and the Third Epistle of John.²⁶

(Significantly, in his lawsuit Newdow claimed not only that “So help me God” was of recent derivation but also that the “practice of including clergy to pray at presidential inaugurations began in 1937.”²⁷ That claim, like so many of his others, is obviously wrong: the Rev. Provoost had offered clergy-led prayers during Washington’s inaugural activities a century-and-a-half before Newdow claimed they began.)

Significantly, seven distinctly religious activities were included in this first presidential inauguration that have been repeated in whole or part in every subsequent inauguration: (1) the use of the Bible to administer the oath; (2) solemnifying the oath with multiple religious expressions (placing a hand on the Bible, saying “So help me God,” and then kissing the Bible); (3) prayers offered by the president himself; (4) religious content in the inaugural address; (5) the president calling on the people to pray or acknowledge God; (6) church inaugural worship services; and (7) clergy-led prayers.

2. THE LEGAL STATUS OF OATHS AT THE TIME OF WASHINGTON’S INAUGURATION

Significantly, long before and long after the adoption of the Constitution, the legal requirements for oathtaking specifically stipulated that “So help me God!” be part of the official oath of all legal process, whether the oaths were taken by elected officials, appointed judges, jurors, or witnesses in a court of law.

This fact is readily demonstrated by a survey of existing laws at the time – such as those of CONNECTICUT (which will be seen were reflective of what was typical in the other states). Connecticut’s original 1639 legal code governing its very first election required that elected officials were to “swear by the great and dreadful name of the everliving God . . . so help me God, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.”²⁸ When new oath laws were subsequently passed in 1718, 1726, 1731, 1742, etc., all retained the same general form, including the mandatory use of “So help me God.” Those same provisions were retained long after the federal Constitution was adopted.²⁹

GEORGIA required that elected officials, judges, jurors, and witnesses take their oath “in the presence of Almighty God . . . so help me God,” and not only that they take their oath on the Bible but specifically “on the holy evangelists of Almighty God.”³⁰ (Like the other states, this provision was the same long before and after the adoption of the federal Constitution.)

NORTH CAROLINA required “the party to be sworn to lay his hand upon the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God . . . and after repeating the words, ‘So help me God,’ shall kiss the Holy Gospels.”³¹ In SOUTH CAROLINA, officials were also required to take their “oath on the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God.”³²

Other states had similar requirements, but consider those in place in NEW YORK when President Washington was sworn in by the state’s top judicial official. At that time, New York law required that “the usual mode of administering oaths” be followed (i.e., “So help me God”) and that the person taking the oath place his hand upon the Gospels and then kiss the Gospels at the conclusion of the oath.³³ (Like the other states, these provisions remained the legal standard long after the inauguration.³⁴)

Standard oath forms, both state and federal, still in use even decades after Washington’s inauguration, retained those phrases. See some examples below – and notice that each is from a period decades prior to the time that Newdow claims the practice began:

(These are just a few of the many original oath-related documents personally owned by the author;
countless others are found in the records of the Library of Congress)

Clearly, using the phrase “So help me God” (as well as placing one’s hand on and then kissing the Bible) was established legal practice throughout the Founding Era.

No one disputes that Washington placed his hand on the Bible or that he kissed it, so why is it now claimed that he did not say “So help me God”? Are critics saying that Washington would not have done the easiest of the three legally required parts of oathtaking? Or would they prefer that officials stop saying “So help me God” but kiss the Bible instead? Their argument is ludicrous. Furthermore, the omission of “So help me God” from the oathtaking ceremony in the Founding Era would have been a clear and obvious aberration from established legal practice of the day, therefore it is the omission of that phrase rather than its inclusion that would have been particularly noticed and commented upon by observers; but such an omission was never mentioned by any witness.

3. THE FOUNDING FATHERS’ VIEWS:
WERE OATHS INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS OR INHERENTLY SECULAR?

Five locations in the U. S. Constitution address oaths to be taken by federal officials. As has already been shown, oath clauses were not a unique or original innovation of the federal Constitution but were already in use in each of the states and the national Congress long before the Constitution was written and remained in force long thereafter.

Significantly, every existing law or legal commentary from before, during, and after the writing of the Constitution unanimously affirmed that the taking of any oath by any public official was always an inherently religious activity; and numerous Framers and early legal scholars agreed (emphasis added in each quote):

[An] oath – the strongest of religious ties.³⁵ JAMES MADISON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

[In o]ur laws . . . by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system.³⁶ RUFUS KING, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations.³⁷ JOHN ADAMS, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of Hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation [calling down] of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate [lie]. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship. . . . In vows, there is no party but God and the person himself who makes the vow.³⁸ JOHN WITHERSPOON, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

The Constitution enjoins an oath upon all the officers of the United States. This is a direct appeal to that God Who is the avenger of perjury. Such an appeal to Him is a full acknowledgment of His being and providence.³⁹ OLIVER WOLCOTT, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, GOVERNOR

According to the modern definition [1788] of an oath, it is considered a “solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments . . .”⁴⁰ JAMES IREDELL, RATIFIER OF THE CONSTITUTION, U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE APPOINTED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON

The Constitution had provided that all the public functionaries of the Union not only of the general [federal] but of all the state governments should be under oath or affirmation for its support. The homage of religious faith was thus superadded to all the obligations of temporal law to give it strength.⁴¹ JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, PRESIDENT

“What is an oath?” . . . [I]t is founded on a degree of consciousness that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues or punish our vices. . . . [O]ur system of oaths in all our courts, by which we hold liberty and property and all our rights, are founded on or rest on Christianity and a religious belief.⁴² DANIEL WEBSTER, “DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION”

There are many other similar declarations.⁴³ And America’s leading legal authorities and reference sources likewise affirmed that taking an oath was a religious activity. For example, in 1793, Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first law book, declared:

An oath is a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being that he who takes it will speak the truth, and an imprecation of His vengeance if he swears false.⁴⁴

In 1816, Chancellor James Kent, considered to be one of the two “Fathers of American Jurisprudence,” noted that an oath of office was a “religious solemnity” and that to administer an oath was “to call in the aid of religion.”⁴⁵

In 1828, Founding Father Noah Webster, an attorney and a judge, defined an “oath” as:

A solemn affirmation or declaration made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath implies that the person imprecates [calls down] His vengeance and renounces His favor if the declaration is false, or (if the declaration is a promise) the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it.⁴⁶

In 1834, a popular judicial handbook declared:

Judges, justices of the peace, and all other persons who are or shall be empowered to administer oaths shall . . . require the party to be sworn to lay his hand upon the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God in token of his engagement to speak the truth as he hopes to be saved in the way and method of salvation pointed out in that blessed volume; and in further token that if he should swerve from the truth, he may be justly deprived of all the blessings of the Gospels and be made liable to that vengeance which he has imprecated on his own head; and after repeating the words, “So help me God,” shall kiss the holy Gospels as a scale of confirmation to said engagement.⁴⁷

In 1839, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, considered one of America’s most popular law dictionaries (and still widely used by courts even today), stated that an oath was:

[A] religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith. . . . . Oaths are taken in various forms; the most usual is upon the Gospel by taking the book [the Bible] in the hand; the words commonly used are, “You do swear that,” &c., “so help you God,” and then kissing the book. . . . Another form is by the witness or party promising, holding up his right hand while the officer repeats to him, “You do swear by Almighty God, the searcher of hearts, that,” &c., “And this as you shall answer to God at the great day.”⁴⁸

In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee affirmed:

Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment – without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.⁴⁹

Early legal historian James Tyler penned an extensive work on the historical and legal nature and form of oaths and concluded:

The object of the form of adjuration [oath] should be to point out this: to show that we are not calling the attention of God to man, but the attention of man to God. . . . [T]he mode now universally adopted among us is imprecatory – the invoking of God’s vengeance in case we do not fulfill our engagement to speak the truth, or perform the specific duty, “So help me God.”⁵⁰

Significantly, courts had agreed with the conclusions of the Founding Fathers and early legal authorities, issuing numerous declarations making the same affirmations.⁵¹ Even school textbooks in that day taught students that in the American constitutional process, an oath was always a religious act.⁵²

Additional sources could be cited, but the evidence is unequivocal that the taking of an oath was universally considered to be a religious activity. For this reason a secular oath was not admissible before a court of law,⁵³ and well into the latter half of the twentieth century, even the U. S. Supreme Court continued to reaffirm the religious nature of oaths.⁵⁴ After all, as one early court noted, to remove the religious meaning of oaths and to exclude the Bible on which they were sworn would make “an oath . . . a most idle ceremony.”⁵⁵

Returning to Washington’s inauguration, he took the presidential oath of office as prescribed in Article II of the Constitution – an oath he had helped write:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Why was the phrase “So help me God” not specifically included in the Constitution as part of the prescribed wording? Because to have added it would have been redundant: that phrase, as well as placing one’s hand on and then kissing the Bible, was already standard legal practice; there was no reason to duplicate in the Constitution what was already universally required both by law and tradition.

Significantly, Washington was so concerned that the oathtaking process remain inherently religious that in his famous Farewell Address at the end of his presidency, he pointedly warned Americans to never let it become secular:

[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths . . . ?⁵⁶

— — — ◊ ◊ ◊ — — —The evidence is clear that the legal requirements for the performance of oaths long before and after the adoption of the Constitution stipulated that “So help me God!” be part of the legal process. In the critics’ attempts to weaken the religious nature of the oath by suggesting the absence of “So help me God” from Washington’s inauguration, they have actually strengthened the case that the phrase was indeed used by providing the opportunity to unequivocally demonstrate that (1) the laws and legal practices at that time required that religious acknowledgment and phraseology be part of the oathtaking process, and (2) George Washington and the other Founders saw an oath as inherently religious and would have reprobated any attempt to make it secular.

Endnotes

¹ David Barton is the President of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization that presents America’s forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage. Barton is the author of numerous best-selling books, with the subjects being drawn largely from his massive library of tens of thousands of original writings from the Founding Era. His exhaustive research has rendered him an expert in historical and constitutional issues. He serves as a consultant to state and federal legislators, has participated in several cases at the Supreme Court, was involved in the development of History/Social Studies standards for public schools in numerous states, and has helped produce history textbooks now used in schools across the nation. David has received numerous national and international awards, including multiple Who’s Who in Education, DAR’s Medal of Honor, and the George Washington Honor Medal from the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge.

² Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002, Ct. of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia (2010).

³ Elk Gove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).

⁴ Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, Ct. of Appeals, 9th Cir. (2010).

⁵ “Michael Newdow Joins CAPEEM’s Legal Team,” December 17, 2007, Capeem.org.

⁶ Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002, Ct. of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia (2010).

⁷ “FFRF v. Geithner Parsonage Exemption,” Freedom from Religion Foundation, accessed on November 23, 2011.

⁸ Newdow v. Eagen, 309 F. Supp. 2d 29, Dist. Court of Columbia (2004).

⁹ See, for example, Newdow v. Roberts, Complaint 1:08-cv-02248-RBW (2008). See also Cathy Lynn Grossman, “No proof Washington said ‘so help me God’ – will Obama,” USA Today, January 9, 2009.

¹⁰ “So Help Me God in Presidential Oaths,” nonbeliever.org, accessed November 23, 2011.

¹¹ Cathy Lynn Grossman, “No proof Washington said ‘so help me God’ — will Obama?” January 9, 2009, USA Today.

¹² Jim Bendat, Democracy’s Big Day: The Inauguration of our President 1789-2009 (New York: iUniverse Star, 2008), 21.

¹³ Peter R. Henriques, “ ‘So Help Me God’: A George Washington Myth that Should Be Discarded,” January 12, 2009, History News Network.

¹⁴ Charles C. Haynes, “Inside the First Amendment: Are ‘so help me God,’ inaugural prayer still appropriate?” January 18, 2009, First Amendment Center.

¹⁵ “Argument from Ignorance,” Wikipedia, accessed November 23, 2011.

¹⁶ Significantly, many of the U. S. Senators at the first Inauguration had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention that framed the Constitution including William Samuel Johnson, Oliver Ellsworth, George Read, Richard Bassett, William Few, Caleb Strong, John Langdon, William Paterson, Robert Morris, and Pierce Butler; and many members of the House had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Roger Sherman, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Hugh Williamson, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimmons, and James Madison.

¹⁷ The Daily Advertiser (New York: April 23, 1789), 2.

¹⁸ Clarence W. Bowen, The History of the Centennial Celebration of the Inauguration of George Washington (New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1892), 52, Illustration; “The George Washington Inaugural Bible,” National Park Service, accessed June 24, 2025.

¹⁹ The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, ed. Joseph Gales (Washington: Gales & Seaton, 1834), I:27; George Washington, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, ed. James D. Richardson (Washington, D.C.: 1899), 1:44-45, April 30, 1789.

²⁰ Debates and Proceedings, ed. Gales (1834), I:27-29, April 30, 1789.

²¹ Debates and Proceedings, ed. Gales (1834), I:27-29, April 30, 1789.

²² Debates and Proceedings, ed. Gales (1834), I:25, April 27, 1789.

²³ Debates and Proceedings, ed. Gales (1834), I:241, April 29, 1789.

²⁴ Debates and Proceedings, ed. Gales (1834), I:29, April 30, 1789.

²⁵ Bowen, History of the Centennial (1892), 54; “About the Senate Chaplain,” United States Senate, accessed June 24, 2025.

²⁶ Book of Common Prayer (Oxford: W. Jackson & A. Hamilton, 1784), s.v., April 30th.

²⁷ Newdow v. Roberts, Complaint 1:08-cv-02248-RBW (2008).

²⁸ R.R. Hinman, A.M., Letters From the English Kings and Queens, Charles II, James II, William and Mary, Anne, George II, &C., To the Governors of the Colony of Connecticut, Together With the Answers Thereto, From 1635 to 1749; And Other Original, Ancient, Literary and Curious Documents, Compiled From Files and Records in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: John B. Eldredge, Printer, 1836), 26-28.

²⁹ The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), 535, Title CXXII: Oaths, Ch. 1, Sec. 6, law passed in May, 1742; 540, Title CXXII: Oaths, Ch. 1, Sec. 25, law passed in May, 1726; 541, Title CXXII: Oaths, Ch. 1, Sec. 30 & 32, law passed in May, 1718.

³⁰ “An Act for the case of Dissenting Protestants, within this province, who may be scrupulous of taking an oath, in respect to the manner and form of administering the same,” passed December 13, 1756, Oliver H. Prince, A Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia (Milledgeville: Grantland & Orme, 1822), 3.

³¹ “Oaths and Affirmations. 1777,” John Haywood, A Manual of the Laws of North Carolina (Raleigh: J. Gales, 1814), 34.

³² Joseph Brevard, An Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statue Law of South Carolina (Charleston: John Hoff, 1814), II:86, “Oaths-Affirmations.”

³³ Laws of the State of New- York (New York: Thomas Greenleaf, 1798), 21, “Chap. XXV: An Act to dispense with the usual mode of administering oaths, in favor of persons having conscientious scruples respecting the same, Passed 1st of April, 1778”; James Parker, Conductor Generalis: Or the Office, Duty and Authority of the Justices of the Peace (New York: John Patterson, 1788), 302-304, “Of oaths in general.”

³⁴ George C. Edward, A Treatise on the Powers and Duties of Justices of the Peace and Town Officers, in the State of New York (Ithaca: Mack, Andrus & Woodruff, 1836), 91, “Of the proceedings on the trial.”

³⁵ James Madison, observations by Madison on the vices of the political system of the United States, April 23, 1787, The Writings of James Madison, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1901), 2:367.

³⁶ Rufus King, October 30, 1821, Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending The Constitution of the State of New York (Albany: E. and E. Hosford, 1821), 575.

³⁷ John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and company, 1854), IX:229.

³⁸ John Witherspoon, “Lectures on Moral Philosophy,” The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), VII:139, 142.

³⁹ Oliver Wolcott, January 9, 1788, Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: Printed for the Editor, 1836), II:202.

⁴⁰ James Iredell, July 30, 1788, Elliot, Debates (1836), IV:196.

⁴¹ John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution (New York: Samuel Colman, 1839), 62.

⁴² Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defense of the Christian Ministry and in Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young, Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1844), 43, 51.

⁴³ See, for example, Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), II:238; Jacob Rush, Charges and Extracts of Charges on Moral and Religious Subjects (Philadelphia Geo Forman, 1804), 34-35, 37, 40; Daniel Webster, Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry (1844), 43, 5; From an original document in our possession, executed by John Hart on March 24, 1757; Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394 (Sup. Ct. Pa. 1824); City Council of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 2 Strob. 508, 522-524 (Sup. Ct. S.C. 1846).

⁴⁴ Swift, System of Laws (1796), II:238.

⁴⁵ James Kent, Memoirs and Letters of James Kent, ed. William Kent (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1898), 164.

⁴⁶ Noah Webster, A Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. “oath.”

⁴⁷ James Coffield Mitchell, The Tennessee Justice’s Manual and Civil Officer’s Guide (Nashville: Mitchell and C. C. Norvell, 1834), 457-458.

⁴⁸ John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, and of the Several States of the American Union (Philadelphia: T. & J. W. Johnson, 1839), s.v. “oath.”

⁴⁹ “Rep. No. 124. Chaplains in Congress and in the Army and Navy,” March 27, 1854, Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), 8.

⁵⁰ James Endell Tyler, Oaths; Their Origin, Nature, and History (London: John W. Parker, 1834), 14, 57.

⁵¹ See, for example, People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns 545, 546 (1811); Commonwealth v. Wolf, 3 Serg. & R. 48, 50 (1817); City Council of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 2 Strob. 508, 522-524 (Sup. Ct. S.C. 1846); and many others.

⁵² William Sullivan, The Political Class Book (Boston: Richardson, Lord, and Holbrook, 1831), 139, §392.

⁵³ Alexis de Tocqueville, The Republic of the United States of American and Its Political Institutions, Reviewed and Examined, trans. Henry Reeves (Garden City, NY: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), I:334, 344n. See also Daniel Webster, Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry (1844), 43; Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, ed. William W. Story (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), II:8-9; Swift, System of Laws (1796), II:238.

⁵⁴ Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).

⁵⁵ Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394 (Sup. Ct. Pa. 1824).

⁵⁶ George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796), 23.

The Aitken Bible and Congress

Prior to the American Revolution, the only English Bibles in the colonies were imported either from Europe or England. Publication of the Bible was regulated by the British government, and an English language Bible could not be printed without a special license from the British government; all English language Bibles had to bear the imprint of the Crown. However, other language Bibles were printed in America, including America’s first – the Eliot Bible (1661-1663), by John Eliot, the “Apostle to the Indians,” but his Bible was in the Massachusetts Indian language. Bibles could also be printed in French, Spanish, Latin, Greek, other Indian languages – just about anything but English.

Because English language Bibles could not be printed in America but had to be imported, when the Revolution began and the British began to blockade all materials coming to America, the ability to obtain such Bibles ended. Therefore, in 1777, America began experiencing a shortage of several important commodities, including Bibles. On July 7, a request was placed before Congress to print or import more, because “unless timely care be used to prevent it, we shall not have Bibles for our schools and families and for the public worship of God in our churches.”¹ Congress concurred with that assessment and announced: “The Congress desire to have a Bible printed under their care and by their encouragement.”² A special committee overseeing that project therefore recommended:

[T]he use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great, . . . your Committee recommend that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the States of the Union.³

Congress agreed with the committee’s recommendation and ordered Bibles imported.⁴ While those Bibles were ordered imported by Congress, there is no indication that any ever arrived.

(Interestingly, decades later in 1854, when a group claimed that the government was violating the separation of church and state by allowing government-sponsored religious activities in public, James Meacham of the House Judiciary Committee responded with a lengthy report refuting their claims. In so doing, he specifically cited that 1777 act of Congress, noting:

I do not deem it out of place to notice one act of many to show that Congress was not indifferent to the religious interests of the people and they were not peculiarly afraid of the charge of uniting Church and State. On the 11th of September, 1777, a committee having consulted with Dr. Allison [an early congressional chaplain] about printing an edition of thirty thousand Bibles, and finding that they would be compelled to send abroad for type and paper with an advance of £10,272, 10s [over $2 million in today’s currency], Congress voted to instruct the Committee on Commerce to import twenty thousand Bibles from Scotland and Holland into the different ports of the Union. The reason assigned was that the use of the book was so universal and important. Now, what was passing on that day? The army of Washington was fighting the battle of Brandywine; the gallant soldiers of the Revolution were displaying their heroic though unavailing valor; twelve hundred soldiers were stretched in death on that battlefield; Lafayette was bleeding; the booming of the cannon was heard in the hall where Congress was sitting [in Philadelphia] – in the hall from which Congress was soon to be a fugitive. At that important hour, Congress was passing an order for importing twenty thousand Bibles; and yet we have never heard that they were charged by their generation of any attempt to unite Church and State or surpassing their powers to legislate on religious matters.⁵)

Four years later, in January of 1781, Robert Aitken (publisher of the Pennsylvania Magazine in Philadelphia) petitioned Congress for permission to print an English-language Bible on his presses in America rather than import the Bibles. In his memorial to Congress, Aitken said “your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools” and went on to say “your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States.”⁶ Congress appointed a committee⁷ that was to “from time to time [attend] to his progress in the work; that they also [recommend] it to the two Chaplains of Congress to examine and give their opinion of the execution.”⁸ The committee, comprised of Founding Fathers James Duane, Thomas McKean, and John Witherspoon,⁹ reported back to Congress in September of 1782 giving its full approval. They also included assurances from the two chaplains of Congress that “Having selected and examined a variety of passages throughout the work, we are of opinion that it is executed with great accuracy as to the sense, and with as few grammatical and typographical errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude.”¹⁰ Congress gave Aitken a ringing endorsement in the form of a congressional resolution to “publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper”¹¹ to help sell and circulate the Bible. The complete text of this Congressional resolution is:

Whereupon,
RESOLVED,
THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.¹²

Robert Aitken then proceeded to print his Bible, now known as the Aitken Bible or the Bible of the Revolution. That Bible – approved by the Founding Fathers in Congress – was the first English-language Bible to be printed in America. Records show that of the 10,000 originally printed by Aitken, 30-40 total copies still exist¹³ (5-10 of which are in private hands); one of these existing Bibles is at WallBuilders.

(Incidentally, on May 30, 1783, the Rev. John Rodgers, a military chaplain and close friend of George Washington, suggested to his Commander-in-Chief that one of these congressionally approved Bibles be given to every member of the Continental Army. Washington was highly pleased with the suggestion but regretfully noted that Roger’s proposal had arrived too late – Congress had just disbanded the Continental Army, retaining only a skeleton force. Washington lamented:

Your proposition respecting Mr. Aitkin’s Bibles would have been particularly noticed by me – had it been suggested in season… It would have pleased me if Congress should have made such an important present to the brave fellows who have done so much for the security of their country’s rights and establishment.¹⁴)

Of this Bible, and of Congress’ direct role in its creation and distribution, one early historian observed:

Who, in view of this fact, will call in question the assertion that this is a Bible nation? Who will charge the government with indifference to religion when the first Congress of the states assumed all the rights and performed all the duties of a Bible Society long before such an institution had an existence in the world!¹⁵

You can view the Congressional actions concerning the Aitken Bible in the WallBuilders “Library” section here.

Endnotes

¹ Letters of Delegates to Congress, ed. Paul H. Smith (Washington: Library of Congress, 1981), 7:311, n1.
² Letters of Delegates, ed. Smith (1981), VII:311, “Committee on Publishing a Bible to Sundry Philadelphia Printers,” July 7, 1777.
³ Journals of the Continental Congress (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1907), VIII:734, September 11, 1777.
⁴ Journals of the Continental Congress (1907), VIII:735, September 11, 1777.
⁵ Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives, Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. P. Nicholson, 1854), II:126, “Rep. No. 124: Chaplains in Congress and in the Army and Navy,” March 27, 1854.
⁶ The Holy Bible as Printed by Robert Aitken and Approved & Recommended by the Congress of the United States of America in 1782 (New York: Arno Press, 1968), Introduction to this Aitken Bible reprint.
⁷ Journals of the Continental Congress (1912), XIX:91, January 26, 1781.
⁸ Journals of the Continental Congress (1907), XXIII:572-573, September 12, 1782.
⁹ Journals of the Continental Congress (1907), XXIII:572, September 12, 1782.
¹⁰ Journals of the Continental Congress (1907), XXIII:573, September 12, 1782.
¹¹ Journals of the Continental Congress (1907), XIII:574, September 12, 1782; The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments (Philadelphia: Robert Aitken, 1782).
¹² Journals of the Continental Congress (1907), XIII:574, September 12, 1782; The Holy Bible (1782).
¹³ “ The First English Language Bible Published in North America,” Library of Congress, accessed on March 29, 2012.
¹⁴ George Washington to John Rodgers on June 11, 1783, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1938), 27:1.
¹⁵ W. P. Strickland, History of the American Society from its Organization to the Present Time (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1849), 20-21.

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.

Federal Judges: Demigods?

By David Barton

You may recall pictures of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sitting on the front row in Congress sleeping during President Obama’s State of the Union Address. News later broke explaining why: “I wasn’t 100% sober.”¹

A State of the Union message is a constitutionally-mandated duty (Article II, Section 3), and for those who respect the Constitution, this address is serious stuff. But apparently not to Justice Ginsburg – which probably is not surprising given that her rulings routinely reflect a general dismissal of the Constitution and that she publicly advises leaders in other nations to seek something better than the U. S. Constitution for their country.²

Regardless, it is certain that public intoxication by a Supreme Court justice does not inspire faith in the Judiciary. Luther Martin (one of the 55 delegates who framed the U. S. Constitution) warned: “It is necessary that the supreme judiciary should have the confidence of the people,”³ and to ensure this, the Founders made certain that the federal bench could be ridded of those who embarrassed or misused it.

Citizens today might be dubious of such a statement, for we have long been told (and wrongly so) that federal judges have lifetime appointments. They do not – and it was the Founding Fathers themselves who specifically stipulated that federal judges could serve only for the duration of “good behavior” (Article III, Section 1). So as long as a judge acted right, he could stay on the bench, but if he acted otherwise he could be removed. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of, much less guarantee for lifetime appointments for judges.

The first federal judge to be removed from the bench came at the behest of President Thomas Jefferson. That judge, John Pickering, was no obscure lightweight. Originally placed on the federal bench by President George Washington, Pickering had been a framer of the New Hampshire Constitution, served as the state’s governor, was selected as a delegate to frame the U. S. Constitution (but declined), and was subsequently a ratifier of the federal Constitution. So why was he removed? Among the reasons given was public intoxication (as well as a public disrespect for God).⁴ The Founding Fathers considered this to be bad behavior for a judge.

Don’t think I am calling for the removal of Ginsburg for her recent faux pas. Rather, I am pointing out that the current notion that federal judges are unaccountable because they have lifetime appointments is one of the greatest lies of our lifetime.

Consider historical reasons given by Congress why federal judges should be removed from the bench:

In 1804, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for judicial high-handedness and for excluding evidence from a trial.⁵
In 1830, federal judge James H. Peck was impeached for judicial high-handedness.⁶
In 1862, federal judge West H. Humphreys was impeached for supporting the secession movement.⁷
In 1904, federal judge Charles Swayne was impeached for financial improprieties and judicial high-handedness.⁸
In 1912, federal circuit judge Robert W. Archibald was impeached for judicial high-handedness and misconduct.⁹
In 1926, federal judge George W. English was impeached for judicial high-handedness and profanity.¹⁰

Judicial high-handedness? Yes. In fact, U. S. Supreme Court Chief-Justice John Marshall observed:

[T]he present doctrine seems to be that a Judge giving a legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the legislature is liable to impeachment.¹¹

Let’s admit it. The Founding Fathers were experts on the Constitution; today’s legal professors and media pundits who claim that federal judges can only be removed for the commission of serious crimes and felonies are not. The Founders made clear that federal judges did not have lifetime appointments and were to be accountable for their behavior while on the bench.

If America ever again expects the federal courts to be just one of three so-called “co-equal” branches rather than the supreme branch they have become, then we must recover the notion that our federal judges are not unaccountable demigods.

Thomas Jefferson’s warning from two centuries ago is still very much alive for us today:

[T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . [A]nd their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.¹²

Endnotes

¹ Richard Wolf, “Justice Ginsburg: Not ‘100% sober’ at State of the Union,” USA Today, February 13, 2015.

² “Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn’t use U.S. Constitution as a model,” Fox News, February 6, 2012.

³ James Madison, The Papers of James Madison…And His Reports of Debates in the Federal Convention (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 1166, July 21, 1787, Luther Martin.

⁴ The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852), Eighth Congress, First Session, 322, January 4, 1803. See also John Randolph Tucker, The Constitution of the United States (Chicago: Callaghan & Co., 1899) I:421-422, § 200 (g).

⁵ The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852), Eighth Congress, First Session, 272, March 13, 1804, & 1237-1240, March 26, 1804. See also Tucker, The Constitution of the United States (1899) I:422, § 200 (g).

⁶ Register of the Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the First Session of the Twenty-First Congress (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1830), VI:383, April 26, 1830 & 411-413, May 4, 1830. See also Tucker, The Constitution of the United States (1899) I:422, § 200 (g).

⁷ John C. Rives, The Congressional Globe: Containing the Debates and Proceedings of the Second Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress (Washington: Congressional Globe Office, 1862), 2277, May 22, 1862. See also Floyd M. Riddick, Parliamentarian of the Senate, Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the United States Senate (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1974), 13 n, May 22, 1862; Tucker, The Constitution of the United States (1899) I:422, § 200 (g).

⁸ Proceedings and Debates, Fifty-Eighth Congress, Third Session, XXXIX:1281-1283, January 24, 1905 (See the content of his impeachment trial). See also Floyd M. Riddick, Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the United States Senate (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1974), 12 n.

⁹ Proceedings and Debates, Sixty-Second Congress, Second Session, XLVIII:9051-9053, July 15, 1912 (See the content of his impeachment trial). See also Riddick, Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials (1974), 12 n.

¹⁰ Proceedings and Debates, Sixty-Ninth Congress, First Session, LXVII:6:6585-6589, March 30, 1926 (See the content of his impeachment trial). See also Riddick, Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials (1974), 11 n.

¹¹ Albert J. Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1919), III:177. See also John Marshall, The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles F. Hobson (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990), VI:347, to Samuel Chase on January 23, 1805.

¹² Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. H. A. Washington (Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Maury, 1854), VII:178, to William Charles Jarvis on September 28, 1820.

Is America a Christian Nation?

Modern claims that America is not a Christian nation are rarely noticed or refuted today because of the nation’s widespread lack of knowledge about America’s history and foundation. To help provide the missing historical knowledge necessary to combat today’s post-modern revisionism, presented below will be some statements by previous presidents, legislatures, and courts (as well as by current national Jewish spokesmen) about America being a Christian nation. These declarations from all three branches of government are representative of scores of others and therefore comprise only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.”

Defining a Christian Nation

Contemporary critics who assert that America is not a Christian nation always refrain from offering any definition of what the term “Christian nation” means. So what is an accurate definition of that term as demonstrated by the American experience?

Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:

[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.¹

So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.”²

Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) similarly acknowledged:

In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion.³

Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed:

[W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it.⁴

Christianity is the religion that shaped America and made her what she is today. In fact, historically speaking, it can be irrefutably demonstrated that Biblical Christianity in America produced many of the cherished traditions still enjoyed today, including:

A republican rather than a theocratic form of government;
The institutional separation of church and state (as opposed to today’s enforced institutional secularization of church and state);
Protection for religious toleration and the rights of conscience;
A distinction between theology and behavior, thus allowing the incorporation into public policy of religious principles that promote good behavior but which do not enforce theological tenets (examples of this would include religious teachings such as the Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc., all of which promote positive civil behavior but do not impose ecclesiastical rites); and
A free-market approach to religion, thus ensuring religious diversity and security for the rights of religious conscience.

Consequently, a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations⁵ but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists.

American Presidents Affirm that America is a Christian Nation

President Barack Obama is the first American president to deny that America is a Christian nation.⁶ Notice a few representative statements on this subject by some of the forty-three previous presidents:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity.⁷ JOHN ADAMS

[T]he teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally….impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed.⁸ TEDDY ROOSEVELT

America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.⁹ WOODROW WILSON

American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago.¹⁰ HERBERT HOOVER

This is a Christian Nation.¹¹ HARRY TRUMAN

Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny.¹² RICHARD NIXON

There are many additional examples, including even that of Thomas Jefferson.¹³

Significantly, Jefferson was instrumental in establishing weekly Sunday worship services at the U. S. Capitol (a practice that continued through the 19th century) and was himself a regular and faithful attendant at those church services,¹⁴ not even allowing inclement weather to dissuade his weekly horseback travel to the Capitol church.¹⁵

(The fact that the U. S. Capitol building was available for church on Sundays was due to the Art. I, Sec. 7 constitutional requirement that forbade federal lawmaking on Sundays; and this recognition of a Christian Sabbath in the U. S. Constitution was cited by federal courts as proof of the Christian nature of America.¹⁶ While not every Christian observes a Sunday Sabbath, no other religion in the world honors Sunday except Christianity. As one court noted, the various Sabbaths were “the Friday of the Mohammedan, the Saturday of the Israelite, or the Sunday of the Christian.”¹⁷)
Why was Jefferson a faithful attendant at the Sunday church at the Capitol? He once explained to a friend while they were walking to church together:

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.¹⁸

The U. S. Congress Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

Declarations from the Legislative Branch affirming America as a Christian nation are abundant. For example, in 1852-1853 when some citizens sought a complete secularization of the public square and a cessation of all religious activities by the government, Congress responded with unambiguous declarations about America as a Christian nation:

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. . . . In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions.¹⁹

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: We are Christians, not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay a due regard to Christianity?²⁰

In 1856, the House of Representatives also declared:

[T]he great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.²¹

On March 3, 1863 while in the midst of the Civil War, the U. S. Senate requested President Abraham Lincoln to “designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation”²² because:

[S]incerely believing that no people, however great in numbers and resources or however strong in the justice of their cause, can prosper without His favor; and at the same time deploring the national offences which have provoked His righteous judgment, yet encouraged in this day of trouble by the assurances of His word to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way through Jesus Christ, the Senate of the United States do hereby request the President of the United States, by his proclamation, to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation.²³ (emphasis added)

President Lincoln quickly complied with that request,²⁴ and issued what today has become one of the most famous and quoted proclamations in America’s history.²⁵

Across the generations, our national reliance on God, the Bible, and Christianity has been repeatedly reaffirmed. In fact, consider five representative images produced by the U. S. Government. The first three are from World War II: one shows the Nazis as the enemy because they want to attack the Bible, and the other two encourage Americans to buy War Bonds by pointing to Christian images. The fourth and fifth images are from the Department of Agriculture in the 1960s, using the Bible and even Smokey Bear in prayer as symbols to encourage Americans to be conscious of fire safety and to help preserve and conserve nature.

There are scores of other official actions by the U. S. Congress over the past two centuries affirming that America is a Christian nation.

The Judicial Branch Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

From the Judicial Branch, consider first some declarations of prominent U. S. Supreme Court Justices regarding America as a Christian nation.

Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was appointed to the Court by President James Madison. Story is considered the founder of Harvard Law School and authored the three-volume classic Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). In his 34 years on the Court, Story authored opinions in 286 cases, of which 269 were reported as the majority opinion or the opinion of the Court²⁶ and his many contributions to American law have caused him to be called a “Father of American Jurisprudence.” Justice Story openly declared:

One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society.²⁷

His conclusion about America and Christianity was straightforward:

In [our] republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion as the great basis on which it must rest for its support and permanence.²⁸

Justice John McLean (1785-1861) was appointed to the Court by President Andrew Jackson. McLean served in the U. S. Congress, as a judge on the Ohio Supreme Court, and then held cabinet positions under two U. S. Presidents. His view on the importance of Christianity to American government and its institutions was unambiguous:

For many years, my hope for the perpetuity of our institutions has rested upon Bible morality and the general dissemination of Christian principles. This is an element which did not exist in the ancient republics. It is a basis on which free governments may be maintained through all time. . . . Free government is not a self-moving machine. . . . Our mission of freedom is not carried out by brute force, by canon law, or any other law except the moral law and those Christian principles which are found in the Scriptures.²⁹

Already mentioned at the beginning was Justice David Brewer (1837-1910), appointed to the Court by President Benjamin Harrison. Brewer held several judgeships in Kansas and served on a federal circuit court before his appointment to the Supreme Court. In addition to his already noted statements, Justice Brewer also declared:

We constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.³⁰

Brewer then chronicled the types of descriptions applied to nations:

We classify nations in various ways: as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallio, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that Court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, “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.”³¹

Brewer did not believe that calling America a Christian nation was a hollow appellation; in fact, he penned an entire book setting forth the evidence that America was a Christian nation.³² He concluded:

[I] have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a mighty factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian nation. . . . [T]he calling of this republic a Christian nation is not a mere pretence, but a recognition of an historical, legal, and social truth.³³

Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974) agreed with his predecessors. Before being appointed as Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Warren had been the Attorney General of California. Warren declared:

I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people. . . . I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.³⁴

There are many similar declarations by other Supreme Court Justices, but in addition to the declarations of individual judges, the federal courts have repeatedly affirmed America to be a Christian nation – including the U. S. Supreme Court, which declared that America was “a Christian country,”³⁵ filled with “Christian people,”³⁶ and was indeed “a Christian nation.”³⁷ Dozens of other courts past and present have repeated these pronouncements³⁸ but so,
too, have American Presidents – as in 1947 when President Harry Truman quoted the Supreme Court, declaring:

This is a Christian Nation. More than a half century ago that declaration was written into the decrees of the highest court in this land [in an 1892 decision].³⁹

American Jewish Leaders Agree with History

Jewish leaders, although firmly committed to their own faith, understand that by defending Christianity they are defending what has provided them their own religious liberty in America. For example, Jeff Jacoby, a Jewish columnist at the Boston Globe explains:

This is a Christian country – it was founded by Christians and built on broad Christian principles. Threatening? Far from it. It is in precisely this Christian country that Jews have known the most peaceful, prosperous, and successful existence in their long history.⁴⁰

Aaron Zelman (a Jewish author and head of a civil rights organization) similarly declares:

[C]hristian America is the best home our people have found in 2,000 years. . . . [T]his remains the most tolerant, prosperous, and safest home we could be blessed with.⁴¹

Dennis Prager, a Jewish national columnist and popular talkshow host, warns:

If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles (its Founders’ guiding text), we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America’s non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe.⁴²

Prager further explained:

I believe that it is good that America is a Christian nation. . . . I have had the privilege of speaking in nearly every Jewish community in America over the last 30 years, and I have frequently argued in favor of this view. Recently, I spoke to the Jewish community of a small North Carolina city. When some in the audience mentioned their fear of rising religiosity among Christians, I asked these audience-members if they loved living in their city. All of them said they did. Is it a coincidence, I then asked, that the city you so love (for its wonderful people, its safety for your children, its fine schools, and its values that enable you to raise your children with confidence) is a highly Christian city? Too many Americans do not appreciate the connection between American greatness and American Christianity.⁴³

Don Feder, a Jewish columnist and long time writer for the Boston Herald, similarly acknowledges:

Clearly this nation was established by Christians. . . . As a Jew, I’m entirely comfortable with the concept of the Christian America.⁴⁴ The choice isn’t Christian America or nothing, but Christian America or a neo-pagan, hedonistic, rights-without-responsibilities, anti-family, culture-of-death America. As an American Jew. . . . [I] feel very much at home here.⁴⁵

In fact, Feder calls on Jews to defend the truth that America is a Christian Nation:

Jews – as Jews – must oppose revisionist efforts to deny our nation’s Christian heritage, must stand against the drive to decouple our laws from Judeo-Christian ethics, and must counter attacks on public expressions of the religion of most Americans – Christianity. Jews are safer in a Christian America than in a secular America.⁴⁶

Michael Medved, a Jewish national talkshow host and columnist, agrees that America is indeed a Christian nation:

The framers may not have mentioned Christianity in the Constitution but they clearly intended that charter of liberty to govern a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. Their noble and unprecedented experiment never involved a religion-free or faithless state but did indeed presuppose America’s unequivocal identity as a Christian nation.⁴⁷

Burt Prelutsky, a Jewish columnist for the Los Angeles Times (and a freelance writer for the New York Times, Washington Times, Sports Illustrated, and other national publications) and a patriotic Jewish American, gladly embraces America as a Christian nation and even resents the secularist post-modern attack on national Christian celebrations such as Christmas:

I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. . . .How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Turkey is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn’t mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country’s population is of one religion, and most Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a darn fool would deny the obvious. . . . This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many millions of Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. It should never be forgotten that, in the main, it was Christian soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany and who liberated the concentration camps. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends.⁴⁸

Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the Jewish Policy Center unequivocally declares

[I] understand that I live . . . in a Christian nation, albeit one where I can follow my faith as long as it doesn’t conflict with the nation’s principles. The same option is open to all Americans and will be available only as long as this nation’s Christian roots are acknowledged and honored.⁴⁹

In fact, with foreboding he warns:

Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the west is doomed. Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah, and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in.⁵⁰ God help Jews if America ever becomes a post-Christian society! Just think of Europe!⁵¹

— — — ◊ ◊ ◊ — — —There is much additional evidence, and it unequivocally demonstrates that any claim that America was not a Christian nation is an unabashed attempt at historical revisionism. Of such efforts, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wisely observed, “no amount of repetition of historical errors . . . can make the errors true.”⁵²

Endnotes

¹ David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), 12.

² Brewer, A Christian Nation (1905), 57.

³ Edward Mansfield, American Education, Its Principle and Elements (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), 43.

⁴ John Marshall to Rev. Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833, The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), XII:278.

⁵ Stephen Cowell, The Position of Christianity in the United States in its Relations with our Political Institutions (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambio & Co., 1854), 11-12; Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Marsh, Capen, Lyon, and Webb, 1840), 260.

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

⁷ John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), X:45-46.

⁸ Ferdinand Cowle Iglehart, D.D., Theodore Roosevelt, The Man As I Knew Him (New York: The Christian Herald, 1919), 307.

⁹ Paul M. Pearson and Philip M. Hicks, Extemporaneous Speaking (New York: Hinds, Noble & Eldredge, 1912), 177, printing Woodrow Wilson, “The Bible and Progress;” The Homiletic Review: An International Monthly Magazine of Current Religious Thought, Sermonic Literature and Discussion of Practical Issues (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1911), LXII:238, printing Woodrow Wilson, “The Bible and Progress,” May 7, 1911.

¹⁰ Herbert Hoover, “Radio Address to the Nation on Unemployment Relief,” American Presidency Project, October 18, 1931.

¹¹ Harry S. Truman, “Exchange of Messages With Pope Pius XII,” American Presidency Project, August 28, 1947.

¹² Richard Nixon, “Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast,” American Presidency Project, February 1st, 1972.

¹³ Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, November 1, 1801, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Barbara Oberg (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 30:545.

¹⁴ See, for example, Bishop Claggett’s (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives; The First Forty Years of Washington Society, ed. Galliard Hunt (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), 13; William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), II:119, to Joseph Torrey, January 3, 1803 & 113, entry of December 12, 1802; James Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1998), 84.

¹⁵ Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence (1888), II:119, to Dr. Joseph Torrey, January 3, 1803; entry of December 26, 1802 (II:114).

¹⁶ See, for example, Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U.S. 457, 465, 470-471 (1892); City Council of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 2 Strob. 508, 518-520 (S.C. 1846); State v. Ambs, 20 Mo. 214, 1854 WL 4543 (Mo. 1854); Neal v. Crew, 12 Ga. 93, 1852 WL 1390 (1852); Doremus v. Bd. of Educ., 71 A.2d 732, 7 N.J. Super. 442 (1950); State v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 143 S.W. 785, 803 (Mo. 1912); and many others.

¹⁷ Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502, 509 (1858).

¹⁸ Hutson, Religion, 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.

¹⁹ “Rep. No. 24: Chaplains in Congress and in the Army and Navy,” March 27, 1854, Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), 6, 8.

²⁰ “Rep. Com. No. 36: Report,” January 19, 1853, The Reports of Committees of the Senate of the United States for the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress, 1852-53 (Washington: Robert Armstrong, 1853), 3.

²¹ January 23, 1856, Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States: Being the First Session of the Thirty-Fourth Congress (Washington: Cornelius Wendell, 1855), 354.

²² March 2, 1863, Journal of the Senate of the United States of America Being the Third Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1863), 379.

²³ March 2, 1863, Journal of the Senate…Third Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress (1863), 378-379.

²⁴ Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day (March 30, 1863), WallBuilders.

²⁵ A May 2016 Bing search for this proclamation resulted in 400,000+ hits.

²⁶ “Story, Joseph,” Dictionary of American Biography, ed. Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936), 18:106.

²⁷ Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, ed. William W. Story (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), II:8, 92.

²⁸ Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Hillard, Gray, and Company, 1833), III:724.

²⁹ B. F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), 639.

³⁰ Brewer, A Christian Nation (1905), 12.

³¹ Brewer, A Christian Nation (1905), 11.

³² Brewer, A Christian Nation (1905).

³³ Brewer, A Christian Nation (1905), 40, 46.

³⁴ “Breakfast in Washington,” Time, February 15, 1954.

³⁵ Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 43 U. S. 126, 198 (1844).

³⁶ U.S. v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (1931).

³⁷ Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 465, 470-471 (1892).

³⁸ See for example, Warren v. U.S., 177 F.2d 596 (10th Cir. 1949); U.S. v. Girouard, 149 F.2d 760 (1st Cir.1945); Steiner v. Darby, Parker v. Los Angeles County, 199 P.2d 429 (Cal. App. 2d Dist 1948); Vogel v. County of Los Angeles, 434 P.2d 961 (1967).

³⁹ Harry S. Truman, “Exchange of Messages with Pope Pius XII,” American Presidency Project, August 6, 1947.

⁴⁰ Jeff Jacoby, “The freedom not to say ‘amen’,” Jewish World Review, February 1, 2001.

⁴¹ Aaron Zelman, “An open letter to my Christian friends,” Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

⁴² Dennis Prager, “America founded to be free, not secular,” Townhall.com, January 3, 2007.

⁴³ Dennis Prager, “Books, Arts & Manners: God & His Enemies – Review,” BNet, March 22, 1999.

⁴⁴ Don Feder, A Jewish Conservative Looks at Pagan America (Lafayette: Huntington House Publishers, 1993), 59-60.

⁴⁵ Don Feder, “Yes – Once and For All – American is a Christian Nation,” DonFeder.com, February 16, 2005.

⁴⁶ Don Feder, “The Jewish Case for Merry Christmas,” Front Page Magazine, December 7, 2006.

⁴⁷ Michael Medved, “The Founders Intended a Christian, not Secular, Society,” Townhall.com, October 3, 2007.

⁴⁸ Burt Prelutsky, “The Jewish grinch who stole Christmas,” Townhall.com, December 11, 2006.

⁴⁹ Daniel Lapin, America’s Real War (Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 1999), p. 116.

⁵⁰ Rabbi Daniel Lapin, “A Rabbi’s Call to American Christians – Wake Up! You’re Under Attack,” End Time Prophetic Division, January 19, 2007.

⁵¹ Rabbi Daniel Lapin, “Which Jews does the ADL really represent?” WorldNetDaily, August 25, 2006.

⁵² Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 106-107 (1984), Rehnquist, J. (dissenting).

Who are the Racists and when did they Switch Political Parties?

By Tim Barton

We posted a video showing a document from the presidential election of 1928 demonstrating that the Democrats at that time were hard core racists.

Watch the short video here: “Who’s The Real Racist?”

Democratic apologists instantly posted comments dismissing that claim, arguing that everybody knows that in the 1960s and 1970s, the racists within the Democrat Party left and became Republicans.¹ Is the claim true? Did the racist Democrats become the Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s who took over the south?

According to liberal Wikipedia, throughout the decades of Democratic racism, the South was known as The Solid Democratic South, composed of 16 states plus Washington, D.C., including Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.² So did the racist Democrats switch in the 1960s and 1970s to become the Republicans who took over those states? Definitely not.

How Do We Know?

During the time of Reconstruction, as noted above with the Alabama poster, Republicans controlled the legislatures and were the Party of black Americans. But when Reconstruction ended in 1876, so, too, did Republican control of the South. The Democrats regained the control of those states that they held before the Civil War. So from the time of Reconstruction until the current time, did Republicans control the south in the 1960s and 1970s as critics claim?

Let’s start with Arkansas. It was not until 2012 that Arkansas state government again became Republican controlled.³ Imagine that! From 1874 until 2012 the Arkansas Legislature was Democrat!⁴ The Democrats controlled the state legislature for nearly half-a-century after the so-called shift supposed occurred in the 60s and 70s?

In Louisiana, it was not until 2011 that the state legislature again became Republican.⁵ For decades after the 60s and 70s, it, too, remained Democrat.

Alabama did not become Republican again until 2010.⁶ In Oklahoma, it was 2008.⁷ For Texas, it was 2002;⁸ 1996 for Florida;⁹ 1995 for Virginia;¹⁰ also the 2004 for Georgia; ¹¹ and for North Carolina it was not until 2010 that Republicans controlled the legislature,¹² and for West Virginia it was 2014.¹³

And Maryland, Delaware, and Washington DC continue to remain Democrat legislatures to this day – no alleged Democrat switch in the 1960s and 1970s ever put the Republicans in charge.¹⁴

Who Made The Switch?

If racists made a grand switch in parties from Democrat to Republicans we would certainly have many political leaders we could point to who made the change.

But bottom line is that there is not a big list of individuals in the 60’s and 70’s who switched parties – certainly not enough to shift control from racist Democrats to Republicans.

What is The Cause of the So Called Switch?

Many people who claim racist Democrats switched parties to become racist Republicans believe the change happened during the Civil Rights act under President Lyndon B Johnson.¹⁵ But this is simply not the case. We see no change in the parties during this time.

Martin Luther King Jr., for example, was fighting in the civil rights movement AFTER the laws under LBJ, and he encouraged blacks to support the Republican Party because it was the party of equality. And significantly it was Republicans in Congress, not Democrats, who authored and managed to pass the civil rights laws that LBJ signed.¹⁶

The Bottom-Line

The point of the video was not to indicate that there are no racists in the Republican Party. We can easily acknowledge that racism is part of a sinful human nature and not limited to political parties. However, the Republican Party was not and is not the “Party” of racism.

Actual facts disprove the often repeated and ridiculous defense of Democrat apologists. The Republicans certainly have their own baggage, but these claims are not part of it.

Endnotes

¹ Julian Drury, “Debunking the myth that Republicans love to repeat,” Quiet Mike, December 8, 2013; Lucinda, “How Dixiecrats Became Republicans,” CJOnline, February 5, 2013; Ian Haney-Lopez, “How the GOP became the ‘White Man’s Party’,” Salon, December 22, 2013; among others.

² “Solid South,” Wikipedia (accessed on May 18, 2016).

³ Jim Hoft, “Arkansas Senate & House Goes Republican for the First Time Since Reconstruction,” The Gateway Pundit, November 6, 2012.

⁴ “Arkansas Senate Flips; First Time Since Reconstruction,” The Courier, November 7, 2012.

⁵ “Louisiana State Senate,” Wikipedia (accessed on May 18, 2016).

⁶ “Republicans claim majority in Alabama House and Senate for 1st time in 136 years,” al.com, November 2, 2010.

⁷ Michael McNutt, “Oklahoma’s legislative leaders pledge to work with Democrats,” NewsOK, November 7, 2010.

⁸ “Politics of Texas,” Wikipedia (accessed on May 18, 2016).

⁹ “Florida goes Republican,” The Free Library (accessed on May 18, 2016).

¹⁰ Frank B. Atkinson, “Republican Party of Virginia,” Encyclopedia Virginia (accessed on May 18, 2016).

¹¹ Pema Levy, “Georgia Democrats are Seeing a Glimmer of a Blue Future,” Newsweek, November 4, 2014.

¹² “Republican Party Takes Control Over NC General Assembly,” WECT, November 2, 2010.

¹³ Allan Taylor, “GOP Makes Historic Gains in State Legislature,” MetroNews, November 4, 2014.

¹⁴.“List of United States State Legislatures,” Wikipedia (accessed on May 18, 2016).

¹⁵ Patrick Louis Cooney, Ph. D., “A Racist Party with a Racist Strategy: The Republicans,” The Vernon Johns Society (accessed May 18, 2016); Allen Clifton, “No Longer the Party of Lincoln: Here’s Proof That the Modern Day GOP Built Itself on Racism,” Forward Progressives, June 27, 2015.

¹⁶ Congressional Quarterly (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1965), Vol. 20, pp. 606, 696, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, vote on the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, February 10, 1964.

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).

No Professor Fea, The Founders Did Not Want Ministers to Stay out of Politics

by Dr. David Barton

Dr. John Fea is a professor of history at Messiah College in Pennsylvania. He has been an outspoken critic of those who believe that America had a Christian founding or think ministers should be active in politics.¹ In addition to being an historian, he writes political columns praising those on the political left. For example, he called President Barack Obama “the most explicitly Christian president in American history,” and asserted that his “piety, use of the Bible, and references to Christian faith and theology put most other American presidents to shame.”² Given Professor Fea’s political disposition, it is perhaps not surprising that his blog posts and opinion pieces on political issues are regularly critical of religious conservatives.

For instance, Dr. Fea strongly objected when 700 pastors gathered to hear from Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. The candidate addressed issues of immediate concern to some pastors, notably the Johnson Amendment – a 1954 law that many believe unconstitutionally prohibits churches from addressing or speaking about political issues or candidates. (In my view, whether or not churches should address issues of public policy or endorse candidates is a question that should be decided solely by individual churches, not the federal government.)

Fea seems particularly upset by the idea that these 700 ministers might exercise their rights as American citizens to be involved in politics. Misusing historical arguments to bolster his own personal views, he writes:

The founders who crafted the original state governments – those governments celebrated by today’s conservative politicians as the most important source of democratic life – thought it was a good idea for ministers to stay out of politics [emphasis added]. The state constitutions of North Carolina (1776), New York (1777), Georgia (1777), South Carolina (1778), Delaware (1792), Tennessee (1796), Maryland (1799), and Kentucky (1799) all banned clergymen from running for office. The 1776 North Carolina Constitution states “that no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.” The 1777 New York Constitution uses similar language: “And whereas the ministers of the gospels are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretense of description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State.”³

It is true that some state constitutions prohibited clergy from holding office. It is important to note that one reason they did so was because their framers had such a high view of the ministry that they did not want clergy to be distracted by “worldly” concerns. Yet only a small minority of states⁴ ever attempted to exclude ministers from public office, and most states that did eventually decided these restrictions were inappropriate and voluntarily removed them. In 1978, the United States Supreme Court declared the few remaining disqualifications to be unconstitutional.⁵

But it is not just states that changed their minds. Consider the views of Thomas Jefferson, often presented as one of the least religious of the Founding Fathers. The 1776 Virginia constitution contained a clergy-exclusion clause⁶ that Jefferson originally supported, explaining:

The clergy are excluded because if admitted into the legislature at all, the probability is that they would form its majority, for they are dispersed through every county in the state; they have influence with the people and great opportunities of persuading them to elect them into the legislature. This body, though shattered, is still formidable, still forms a corps, and is still actuated by the esprit de corps. The nature of that spirit has been severely felt by mankind, and has filled the history of ten or twelve centuries with too many atrocities not to merit a proscription from meddling with government.⁷

This was the early constitution of a state that, like many of the other states that excluded clergy from holding public office, had formally established the Church of England (that is, Anglicanism) as the colony’s official religion. Under these establishments the free exercise of religion was severely restricted for Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and other non-Anglicans, who were sometimes beaten, imprisoned, or fined by civic authorities joined to the state-established church.⁸ Moreover, clergy from these established churches were far more likely to be Loyalists (that is supportive of Great Britain and opposed to American independence) than clergy from other denominations. Clergy-exclusion clauses generally were not enacted in states with a history of republican or patriotic ministers, such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Jefferson, being from Anglican Virginia, feared that the religious persecution that had occurred earlier in his state might return in the newly independent Virginia. He wanted that possibility precluded and thus supported the constitutional provision. He may have also been concerned about the loyalty of these Anglican clergy. But later, when the power of the state-established church in Virginia had been fully broken and a proven record of all Christian denominations being treated equally under the law had been thoroughly demonstrated, Jefferson no longer supported that clause, explaining in 1800 to the Rev. Jeremiah Moore:

I observe . . . an abridgment of the right of being elected, which after 17 years more of experience and reflection, I do not approve: it is the incapacitation of a clergyman from being elected. . . . Even in 1783, we doubted the stability of our recent measures for reducing them [the clergy] to the footing of other useful callings [but i]t now appears that our means were effectual. The clergy here seem to have relinquished all pretension to privilege and to stand on a footing with lawyers, physicians &c. They ought therefore to possess the same rights.⁹

Not only did Jefferson think clergy should be able to run for office, there are even times when he encouraged them to do so. For instance, when he learned that his friend the Rev. Charles Clay was a candidate for Congress, he wrote him a letter wherein he wished him “every prosperity in this and in all your other undertakings.”¹⁰ And he personally recruited the Rev. William Woods, a local Baptist pastor, to run for a seat in the state legislature.¹¹

As in Virginia, Georgia’s first state constitution contained a clause declaring: “No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature.”¹² When Presbyterian minister and signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon learned of this provision, he was livid. He had invested much of his adult life in securing not only civil but also religious liberties for every individual, including ministers, and he was not about to see a reduction of those liberties. He therefore sent off a fiery public letter, pointedly asking Georgia’s lawmakers:

Now suffer me to ask this question: Before any man among us was ordained a minister, was he not a citizen of the United States, and if being in Georgia, a citizen of the state of Georgia? Had he not then a right to be elected a member of the assembly, if qualified in point of property? How then has he lost, or why is he deprived of this right? Is it by offence or disqualification? Is it a sin against the public to become a minister? Does it merit that the person who is guilty of it should be immediately deprived of one of his most important rights as a citizen? Is not this inflicting a penalty, which always supposes an offence? Is a minister then disqualified for the office of a senator or representative? Does this calling and profession render him stupid or ignorant?¹³

Witherspoon then raised additional questions Georgia legislators apparently had not considered when drafting this clause. For example, what is it that makes a man a minister? Does he have to be ordained by the Pope? Or is it because his denomination or even local church considers him a minister? Or what if he simply declares himself a minister, with no confirmation by anyone else? Furthermore, how long is a person a minister? If he is retired, is he still disqualified from running? And what if he is bi-vocational – what if he also runs a business, or also teaches science and math? Is he a mathematician or a minister? Ironically, there was no disqualification against a corrupt individual running for office, or a known criminal, but there was a disqualification against a preacher? Having pointed out absurdities in their policy, Witherspoon sarcastically concluded:

I cannot help thinking that these difficulties are very considerable, and may occasion much litigation if the article of the constitution stands in the loose, ambiguous form in which it now appears; and therefore I would recommend the following alterations, which I think will make everything definite and unexceptionable:

“No clergyman of any denomination shall be capable of being elected a member of the Senate or House of Representatives because {here insert the grounds of offensive disqualification, which I have not been able to discover}. Provided always – and it is the true intent and meaning of this part of the constitution – that if at any time he shall be completely deprived of the clerical character by those by whom he was invested with it [that is, he is defrocked], as by deposition for cursing and swearing, drunkenness or uncleanness, he shall then be fully restored to all the privileges of a free citizen; his offence [of being a minister] shall no more be remembered against him; but he may be chosen either to the Senate or House of Representatives, and shall be treated with all the respect due to his brethren, the other members of Assembly.”¹⁴

Witherspoon’s critique must have struck a chord. When Georgia re-wrote its constitution in 1798, the clause prohibiting ministers from state office was deleted and a strong declaration of the rights of religious persons was inserted¹⁵ – a vast reversal from its first constitution.

It is not clear if Fea, in opposition to Jefferson, Witherspoon, and the United States Supreme Court, thinks it is appropriate to exclude clergy from holding public office. But he indisputably states that America’s Founders “thought it was a good idea for ministers to stay out of politics,”¹⁶ a position he endorses. He couldn’t be more mistaken.

Throughout American history clergy have played a key role in American politics, some while holding office and others without doing so. Consider, for instance, those brave ministers who led the fight against slavery, opposed Indian removal, and advocated for civil rights. One strongly suspects that Fea would support the political activities of these ministers.

Fea, like many on the political left, is guilty of embracing a double standard. If a member of the clergy supports a policy he favors, that is a good thing. But if a minister takes a political stand of which he does not approve, that cannot be tolerated. In this case, it is noteworthy that he is opposing clergy listening to a speech by Donald Trump, a candidate whom Fea has publicly criticized.¹⁷

This sort of hypocrisy is nothing new. John Adams observed this same behavior toward the patriotic preachers of his day, noting that:

It is curious to observe the conduct of the Tories [those who opposed the patriots] towards this sacred body. If a clergyman preaches against the principles of the Revolution and tells the people that upon pain of damnation they must submit to an established government of whatever character, the Tories cry him up as an excellent man and a wonderful preacher, invite him to their tables, procure him missions from the society and chaplainships to the navy, and flatter him with the hopes of lawn sleeves [i.e., a special church appointment]. But if a clergyman preaches Christianity, and tells the magistrates that they were not distinguished from their brethren for their private emolument [personal economic benefit] but for the good of the people – that the people are bound in conscience to obey a good government but are not bound to submit to one that aims at destroying all the ends of government – Oh, sedition! Treason!¹⁸

Significantly, Adams goes on to specifically reject Fea’s position, declaring:

It is the duty of the clergy to accommodate their discourses to the times – to preach against such sins as are most prevalent and recommend such virtues as are most wanted [lacking]. For example, if exorbitant ambition and venality [public corruption and bribery] are predominant, ought they not to warn their hearers against these vices? If public spirit is much wanted [lacking], should they not inculcate this great virtue? If the rights and duties of Christian magistrates [public officials] and subjects are disputed, should they not explain them, show their nature, ends, limitations, and restrictions, how much soever it may move the gall [anger the critics] . . .¹⁹

Adams rejoiced that concerning civil issues, “the pulpits have thundered”;²⁰ but today Fea would apparently have the pulpits (or at least those pulpits promoting views to which he is opposed) be silent.

As Fea must know, there are a host of books by historians that attest to the important role both office-holding and non-office holding clergy played in the War for Independence and the creation of the new national government.²¹ Consider a few additional historical facts that Fea ignores:

Numerous individuals who served in formal ministry at some point in their lives also served in the Continental and Confederation Congresses, including John Witherspoon, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Benjamin Contee, Abiel Foster, James Manning, Joseph Montgomery, Jesse Root, Hugh Williamson, Robert Treat Paine, Lyman Hall, Paine Wingate, and John Zubly.²²
The Rev. Jacob Green of New Jersey was chairman of the committee that drafted the state’s original constitution in 1776;²³ the Rev. Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg helped draft Pennsylvania’s 1776 constitution;⁴² the Revs. Samuel Stillman, Robert Treat Paine, and Gad Hitchcock helped write Massachusetts’ 1780 constitution;²⁵ the Revs. John Bailey, David Rice, George Stovall Smith, Benedict Swope, Caleb Wallace, and James Crawford helped draft Kentucky’s original constitution of 1792;²⁶ the Rev. John Smith helped frame Ohio’s original constitution of 1802;²⁷ and the Rev. Amasa Learned helped write Connecticut’s first constitution following the Revolution.²⁸
Christian ministers were also at the forefront of the movement for a federal constitution. The Revs. Jeremy Belknap and Samuel Stanhope Smith became leaders in pointing out the defects of the Articles of Confederation,²⁹ joining their voices with those of the Rev. Dr. Witherspoon and the Rev. James Manning, both of whom had personally experienced its shortcomings while operating under it as members of Congress.³⁰
Several delegates at the Constitutional Convention were trained in ministry or theology, including Abraham Baldwin, James Wilson, Hugh Williamson, and Oliver Ellsworth.³¹
When the federal Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification, nearly four dozen clergymen were elected as ratifying delegates,³² and many of them played key roles in securing its adoption. For example, in Massachusetts, it appeared that the Constitution would be rejected until the efforts of the Rev. Samuel West³³ and the Rev. Samuel Stillman helped carry the day in support of the Constitution.³⁴ Benjamin Lincoln (one of George Washington’s most trusted generals during the final campaigns of the War for Independence) reported to his former Commander-in-Chief: “It is very fortunate for us that the clergy are pretty generally with us . . .”³⁵
In addition to ministers holding office, active Christian leaders and laymen also played a key role. According to the historian Stephen Marini, “Literally hundreds of [delegates to the U. S. Constitution ratification conventions] were Anglican vestrymen, Congregational deacons, and Presbyterian ruling elders. These were the highest offices available to laymen, empowering them to maintain the financial health of the parish, to enforce the moral norms of the church, and often to choose the minister of the congregation. Many hundreds more of the delegates were loyal parishioners who held lesser church offices: trustees, wardens, tithingmen, assessors, teachers, moderators, commissioners, and committeemen.”³⁶

So ministers were not only vital in helping secure America’s independence and its form of government but they were also at the forefront of celebrating the new federal Constitution. During the ratification parade in Philadelphia, signer of the Declaration Benjamin Rush happily reported:

The clergy formed a very agreeable part of the procession. They manifested by their attendance their sense of the connection between religion and good government. They amounted to seventeen in number. Four and five of them marched arm in arm with each other to exemplify the Union. Pains were taken to connect ministers of the most dissimilar religious principles together, thereby to show the influence of a free government in promoting Christian charity. 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.³⁷

When the first federal Congress convened, its members numbered several ministers, both active and inactive, including the Revs. Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, Abiel Foster, Benjamin Contee, Abraham Baldwin, Hugh Williamson, and Paine Wingate. In fact, the first Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives was the Rev. Frederick Muhlenberg; and his is one of only two signatures appearing at the bottom of the Bill of Rights – which was intended to secure the right of every citizen – including ministers – to participate in the political process. This includes the First Amendment rights that protect the ability of ministers to publicly criticize the government, to speak freely about what is occurring in the civil arena, to join with other ministers and Christians to do the same, to express their personal religious convictions about any public policy issue, and to serve in public office!

And just as history does not demand the exclusion of ministers, neither does the Bible. Consider how often God sent His ministers to publicly confront civil leaders or expose their wicked policies:

Elijah confronted civil leaders Ahab and Queen Jezebel over issues such as their unjust use of eminent domain, religious persecution, and subornation of perjury (1 Kings 21:1-24, 1 Kings 18:18).
Isaiah confronted civil ruler Hezekiah over national security failures and issues related to the treasury (1 Chronicles 32:27-31, 2 Kings 20:12-19)
Nathan confronted civil leader David over his wicked moral policies and practices (2 Samuel 12),
Eliezer and Jehu confronted King Jehoshaphat over his blunders in foreign relations and ill-advised foreign alliances (2 Chronicles 19:1-2, 2 Chronicles 20:35-37)
John the Baptist confronted civil leaders for their hypocrisy (Matthew 3:7)
Jeremiah confronted King Zedekiah over numerous of his wicked public policies (Jeremiah 34)
John the Baptist confronted King Herod over his divorce and marriage practices (Luke 13:32. Matthew 12:23, 23:33, 23:27)
Samuel confronted King Saul over not fulfilling his assigned responsibilities (1 Samuel 13:1-14, I Samuel 15)
Micaiah regularly confronted King Ahab over his wicked public policies (1 Kings 22:7-18)
Gad confronted King David over wrong-headed public policies stemming from his own pride and arrogance (2 Samuel 24)
Jesus refused to be intimidated by Herod (Luke 13:31-32) and confronted the teachers of the law (Matthew 23)
Daniel confronted Nebuchadnezzar over his pride and arrogance (Daniel 4:1-27), and Belshazzar over his moral debauchery (Daniel 5:17-28)
Azariah (along with eighty other priests) confronted King Uzziah for usurping religious practices through an improper expansion of government powers (2 Chronicles 26:16-21)

And God’s ministers not only called out bad civil leaders and pointed out unBiblical public policies, they also frequently partnered with civil leaders in constructing good public policies and offering sound guidance. For example:

Elisha provided the King of Israel counsel and advice regarding military intelligence and policy (2 Kings 6)
Nathan provided guidance to David on architectural issues (2 Samuel 7:1-13)
Ezra gave strong counsel on marriage policy (Ezra 9-10), and Governor Nehemiah implemented that counsel into public policy (Nehemiah 8:1-6, 13:23-27
Paul provided civil leaders with guidance during times of impending disaster and natural calamity (Acts 27:9-12)
Jeremiah provided military guidance to King Zedekiah (Jeremiah 21:1-10)
King Joash pursued good policies as long as the priest Jehoiada provided him counsel, but when Joash lost that Godly input, his policies became wicked (2 Chronicles 24:1-2, 15-19)
Isaiah provided guidance on national security issues and foreign policy to King Hezekiah (Isaiah 37)

The Bible is loaded – and almost overflowing – with such examples. But Dr. Fea holds an opposite view. In fact, in lamenting how unhistorical it was that 700 ministers should hear from a presidential candidate and consider becoming involved in politics in different ways, he condescendingly quipped:

There’s an old Baptist saying that goes something like this: “If you mix horse manure and ice cream it doesn’t do much to the manure, but it sure does ruin the ice cream. ” . . . For all those concerned about the witness of the Christian church in the world, let’s remember that the founders thought it was a bad idea to mix horse manure and ice cream.³⁸

The real horse manure is Dr. Fea’s claim that either the Founders or the Bible opposed the active participation of ministers in the civil arena.

Endnotes

¹ See various of his articles criticizing those who hold such beliefs, including David Lane (“Why the Founding Fathers wanted to keep ministers from public office,” Religion News Service, August 15, 2016; David Barton; Mike Huckabee (“Why Huckabee May Have a Shot at the GOP Nomination,” philipvickersfithian.com, January 23, 2015; Focus on the Family (“Is America a Christian Nation? What Focus on the Family Gets Wrong,” philipvickersfithian.com, November 4, 2012; Eric Metaxas (“Burkholder on Metaxas,” philvickersfithian.com, September 26, 2012; and Peter Marshall (“Houston Chronicle Op-Ed,” philipvickersfithian.com, August 15, 2009.

² “Would you vote for this man?” Patheos, February 15, 2012.

³ “Why the Founding Fathers wanted to keep ministers from public office,” Religion News Service, August 15, 2016.

⁴ According to Francis Thorpe’s 1909 collection of state constitutions (The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and the Organic Laws of the State, Territories, and Colonies; Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America, ed. Francis Newton Thorpe (Washington, D.C. 1909), of the 46 states in the United States at that time, only 14 ever had a clergy-exclusion clause, and most of those were voluntarily repealed. Those 14 states: Delaware (1776, 1792, 1831), Florida (1838), Georgia (1777, 1789), Kentucky (1792, 1799, 1850), Louisiana (1812, 1845, 1864), Maryland (1776, 1851, 1867), Missouri (1820, 1865), Mississippi (1817), New York (1777, 1821), North Carolina (1776), South Carolina (1778,1790, 1865), Tennessee (1834, 1870), Texas (1836, 1845, 1866), and Virginia (1850, 1864).

⁵ McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978).

⁶ The Constitution of the Sixteen States (Boston: Manning and Loring, 1797), 212, “The Constitution of Virginia” July 5, 1776, “…all ministers of the gospel, of every denomination, be incapable of being elected members…”

⁷ Thomas Jefferson to Chelier de Chastellux, September 2, 1785, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), 8:470.

⁸ This type of Virginia persecution occurred from Anglicans against non-Anglicans. For an example of what Baptists suffered in Virginia, see: William Cathcart, Baptist Patriots in the American Revolution (Philadelphia: S. A. George & Co., 1876), 12-18; Isaac Backus, A History of New England, With Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians Called Baptists (Newton, MA: Backus Historical Society, 1871), II:97-98; George Bancroft, A History of the United States of America (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1858), 1:449-450; Sanford Hoadley Cobb, The Rise of Religious Liberty in America Republicanism in Jefferson’s Virginia (New York: MacMillan, 1902), 112; Bruce Gourley, “An outline of Baptist Persecution in America,” The Baptist Index (accessed August 17, 2016); Lewis Peyton Little, Imprisoned Preachers and Religious Liberty in Virginia (Lynchburg, VA: J. P. Bell Co., Inc., 1938), xiii; etc.

⁹ Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moore on August 14, 1800, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), IX:143.

¹⁰ Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Charles Clay, January 27, 1790, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), VIII:3-4.

¹¹ Rev. John B. Turpin, A Brief History of the Albemarle Baptist Association (Richmond, VA: The Virginia Baptist Historical Society, 1891), 30-31.

¹² The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charter, and Other Organic Laws, ed. Francis Newton Thorpe (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), II:785, “Constitution of Georgia – 1777,” Art. LXII.

¹³ John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, Parliament-Square, 1815), IX:220-223, “On the Georgia Constitution.”

¹⁴ Witherspoon, Works of Witherspoon (1815), IX:220-223, “On the Georgia Constitution.”

¹⁵ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), II:800-801, “Constitution of Georgia – 1798,” Art. IV, Sec. 10.

¹⁶ “Why the Founding Fathers wanted to keep ministers from public office,” Religion News Service, August 15, 2016.

¹⁷ “Historians Against Trump,” The Way of Improvements Leads Home, July 12, 2016.

¹⁸ John Adams, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), IV:55, “Novanglus: No. IV.”

¹⁹ Adams, Works of Adams, ed. Adams (1851), IV:56, “Novanglus: No. IV.”

²⁰ Adams, Works of Adams, ed. Adams (1851), III:476, “The Earl of Clarendon to William Pym,” January 20, 1766.

²¹ For example, Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (1928; reprint, New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958); Keith L. Griffin, Revolution and Religion: American Revolutionary War and the Reformed Clergy (New York: Paragon House, 1994). See also the excellent collection of political sermons from this era edited by Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era 1730-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Press, 1991).

²² See, John Sanderson, Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence (Philadelphia: R. W. Pomeroy, 1823), V:102-104; Charles A. Goodrich, Lives of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence (New York: Thomas Mather, 1837), 113; Hubert Bruce Fuller, The Speakers of the House (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1909), 22-23; William B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1850), V:488; The National Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York: James T. White & Company, 1897)), VII:148; Memoir of the Rev. James Manning (Boston: Perkins & Marvin, 1839), 4-5; James H. Marshall, The United States Manual of Biography and History (Philadelphia: Leary & Getz, 1857), 182; Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: 177-Present for Lyman Hall, Joseph Montgomery, Jesse Root, Paine Wingate, and John Zubly.

²³ 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), 366.

²⁴ William Warren Sweet, The Story of Religion in America (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1950), 182.

²⁵ Frank Moore, The Patriot Preachers of the American Revolution (New York: Charles T. Evans, 1862), 260; Appletons’ Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888), IV, s.v. “Robert Treat Paine”; Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit (1865), Unitarian Congregational: VIII:29.

²⁶ Mrs. William Preston Drake, Samuel M. Wilson, Mrs. William Breckenridge Ardery, Kentucky in Retrospect: Noteworthy Personages and Events in Kentucky History: 1792-1942 (Commonwealth of Kentucky: Sesquicentennial Commission, 1942), 141-142, 151, 153, 179-180.

²⁷ “John Smith,” Ohio History Central, accessed August 17, 2016.

²⁸ “Learned, Amasa (1750-1825),” Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, accessed August 17, 2016.

²⁹ James Hutchinson Smylie, American Clergymen and the Constitution of the United States of America (New Jersey: Princeton Theological Seminary, doctoral dissertation, 1958), 127-129.

³⁰ Smylie, American Clergymen and the Constitution (1958), 139, 143.

³¹ Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: 177-Present for Abraham Baldwin and Hugh Williamson; “James Wilson,” University of St. Andrews, accessed on August 24, 2016); William Garrott Brown, The Life of Oliver Ellsworth (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1905), 20-21.

³² John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1987), 352, n.15.

³³ Smylie, American Clergymen and the Constitution (1958), 185-186; Baldwin, New England Clergy (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), 145.

³⁴ Frank Moore, The Patriot Preachers of the American Revolution (New York: Charles T. Evans, 1862), 260.

³⁵ Benjamin Lincoln to George Washington, February 9, 1788, The Papers of George Washington, ed. Dorothy Twohig (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1997), 6:104-105.

³⁶ Stephen A. Marini, “Religion, Politics, and Ratification,” in Religion in a Revolutionary Age, ed. Ronald Hoffman and Peter Albert (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 189.

³⁷ Benjamin Rush to Elias Boudinot, July 9, 1788, Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L. H. Butterfield (Princeton: American Philosophical Society, 1951), I:474.

³⁸ “Why the Founding Fathers wanted to keep ministers from public office,” Religion News Service, August 15, 2016.

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.

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

Endnotes

Endnotes

Endnotes

Endnotes

Defining a Christian Nation

American Presidents Affirm that America is a Christian Nation

The U. S. Congress Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

The Judicial Branch Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

American Jewish Leaders Agree with History

Endnotes

How Do We Know?

Who Made The Switch?

What is The Cause of the So Called Switch?

The Bottom-Line

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

Endnotes

Jeremiah 17:9 – The Constitutional Separation of Powers

Endnotes

QUICK LINKS

OTHER LINKS

SOCIAL LINKS

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

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