Topics: Culture & Ideology

Revisionism: How to Identify It In Your Children’s Textbooks

Revisionism Definition & Goals

Revisionism is the common method employed by those seeking to subvert American culture and society. The dictionary defines revisionism as an “advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine; especially a revision of historical events and movements.”

Revisionism attempts to alter the way a people views its history and traditions in order to cause that people to accept a change in public policy. For example, during the 150 years that textbooks described the Founding Fathers as being devout men and Christians who actively practiced their faith, civic policy embraced and welcomed public religious expressions. But in recent years as the same Founders have come to be portrayed as atheists, agnostics, and deists who were opposed to religious activities, public policies have similarly been reversed.

Revisionists generally accomplish their goal of rewriting history by:

Underemphasizing or ignoring the aspects of American history they deem to be politically incorrect and overemphasizing those portions they find acceptable;

Vilifying the historical figures who embraced a position they reject; and

Concocting the appearance of widespread historical approval for the social policy they are attempting to advance.

There are many means that are used by revisionists to accomplish these goals but the most common include:

1. Patent Untruths

Numerous history texts make claims such as: our “national government was secular from top to bottom,” or that the Founders “reared a national government on a secular basis.” Those who have studied the American Founding know that this is a patent untruth. Many Founders proved the opposite, such as John Adams. He declared: “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.” (Even the text of the Declaration of Independence refutes any charges of government secularism.) This approach usually relies on a general lack of public knowledge about that untruth. Consequently, such untruthful claims are rarely made in areas where citizens have broad general knowledge. (For example, claiming that James Madison used an atomic bomb to end the Civil War. Or that the first sub-machine gun was developed in 1536 in Nevada by the Quakers). Revisionism relies on a lack of citizen knowledge in specific areas.

2. Overly Broad Generalizations

This revisionist tool presents the exception as if it were the rule. For example, texts often name Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine as proof of the lack of religiosity among the Founders. Yet they fail to mention the rest of the almost 200 Founding Fathers. Dozens of these men received their education in schools specializing in the training of ministers of the Gospel and were active in Christian ministry and organizations. Some examples include: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Benjamin Rush, Roger Sherman.

Similarly, when discussing religion in America, the Salem Witch trials are universally presented. Rarely mentioned, however, are the positive societal changes produced by Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, and dozen of other religious groups. These organizations worked for the abolition of slavery, secured religious freedoms, and fought to end societal abuses. Also never mentioned is that the American witch trials resulted in some two dozen deaths and were halted by religious leaders. The European witch trials resulted in 100,000 deaths. American Christianity at that time might not have been perfect but it was light years ahead of Europe. European secularism also resulted in thousands of executions in the French Revolution.

3. Omission

Notice the following three examples from American history works:

We whose names are under-written . . . do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick. MAYFLOWER COMPACT, 1620

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? . . . I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death? PATRICK HENRY, 1775

. . . ART. I.—His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States . . . PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 1783

What was omitted from these important historical quotes?

We whose names are under-written having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northern parts of Virginia do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick.

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death?

In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts . . . ART. I.—His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States . . .

The omitted segments are those that indicate the strongly religious nature of American government documents and leaders. Also regularly omitted from texts is the fact that gratitude to God was central to the first Pilgrim Thanksgiving. And ignored is that, in 1782, the US Congress approved America’s first English-language Bible. Also, in 1800, Congress voted that on Sundays, the Capitol Building would serve as a church building. (By 1867, the largest protestant church in America was the one that met inside the US Capitol.)

4. A Lack of Primary Source References

The avoidance of primary-source documents is characteristic in revisionism. For example, the authors of the widely-used text The Godless Constitution blatantly announce that they have “dispensed with the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes.” This is supposed to support their thesis that America’s government is built on a secular foundation. Similarly, The Search for Christian America purports to examine the Founding Era and finds a distinct lack of Christian influence. Yet 80 percent of the “historical sources” on which it relies to document its finding were published after 1950! That is, to determine what was occurring in the 1700s, they quote from works printed in the 1900s.

Identify Revisionism

To locate revisionism in a text, look at its tone, the documents it presents, and the heroes it elevates.

  1. To discover a revisionist tone, find the answers to these questions in the textbook: Is exploration and colonization motivated only by the desire for land or gold? Are those who promoted religious and moral values portrayed as harsh, punitive, and intolerant? Is traditional family ignored? Is government presented as statist — that is, that the state (rather than individuals, families, churches, or communities) is to take care of society’s needs? Is there a victim ideology — a steady diet of those who have been exploited throughout history rather than those who have uplifted their culture? Are other religions portrayed positively and Christianity negatively (if at all)?
  2. Are original documents presented? (Do students see the actual text or only what someone else says about it?) Do they see the Mayflower Compact? Or the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Are George Washington’s “Farewell Address” and Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address presented? Are the documents edited to present only a few sentences or do they provide a substantive amount of text?
  3. Who are the heroes presented? Do they tend to be angry – fighting an unjust society or government? Do they tend to be modern heroes only? Do they tend to be only secular leaders? For example, the U. S. Capitol displays some 100 statues of the most important individuals in America’s history; a significant percentage of those statues are of ministers and Christian leaders. Will your children receive in their textbooks at least the same view of American heroes that is presented in America’s pre-eminent government building?

Conclusion

When examining a text, always remember that your children do not know as much about history as you do. Consequently, they have no basis for identifying bias. Therefore, examine each text as if you knew nothing at all about history except what is presented in that text. On that basis, will you be pleased with the tone toward America inculcated in your child through that text? If not, then urge your school to get a better text or be diligent to supplement for your children what is missing or wrongly presented in the text.

It is not melodramatic to state that America’s future rests on what is taught to our children, for as Abraham Lincoln wisely observed:

The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. (attributed)

Famous American educator Noah Webster therefore rightly admonished:

The education of youth should be watched with the most scrupulous attention. . . . [It] lays the foundations on which both law and gospel rest for success.

Indeed!

Election 2004: A Moral Mandate?

Most observers were surprised by the scope of President Bush’s winning margin as well as the reasons for that margin. Few expected Bush to:

  • receive more popular votes (60.5 million) than any previous president, and almost 6 million more than Ronald Reagan received in his 1984 landslide victory;
  • become the first incumbent since FDR in 1936 to increase his own vote and the size of his majority in both the House and Senate;
  • be the first president in 16 years to win more than 50% of the popular vote.

Even those who expected President Bush to win did not expect “moral issues” to rank first among reasons for voting. Who could have imagined that moral issues would outdistance taxes, the economy, Iraq, terrorism, education, or health care?

Numerous indicators affirm that the election results were directly affected by voters’ views on basic Biblical issues. Before examining some of those significant indicators, consider the overall demographics of the election.

General 2004 Voter Demographics

118 million votes were cast in the election, up nearly 12% from the 105 million cast in 2000.

Evangelical Voters: 23% (27.1 million) of all votes cast were by evangelicals. Bush received 78% (21.2 million) of those evangelical votes, representing an amazing 35% of his total of 60.5 million votes. (In 2000, evangelicals cast 15 million votes (15% of the total) and Bush received 71 percent of those votes, representing 21 percent of his 50.5 million total votes.)

Undoubtedly, one of the reasons that moral issues ranked so high in this year’s election was the 80% increase in the number of evangelical voters from the 2000 election. (In 2000, 15 million evangelicals voted; in 2004, nearly 12 million more evangelicals voted – a total of 27.1 million). This surge was one of the factors in reelecting Bush and in increasing Republican gains in both the U. S. House and Senate.

Women Voters: The “gender gap” (first measured in the 1980 election) favors Democrats, but in this election the gap was narrowed to only 7%. Among married women, Bush received 54% of the vote to Kerry’s 45%, but Kerry won 62% of the votes of unmarried women.

Jewish Voters: Jewish voters continue to remain a loyal Democratic constituency, although President Bush expanded his support from 19% in 2000 to 25% in this election.

Catholic Voters: Catholics have been a strong Democratic constituency, but in this election, 52% of the 31 million Catholic voters supported President Bush, resulting in 3.3 million more Catholic voters for Bush than in 2000 (up from his 45% in 2000).

Hispanic Voters: Hispanics, another traditional Democratic block, accounted for 12% of the total vote with 7 million voters (1 million more than in 2000); President Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote – the largest share for a Republican since recording began in 1972, and up from the 35% he received in 2000.

African American Voters: African Americans continue to be the Democrats’ most faithful constituency in recent elections, but President Bush increased his share of the black vote from 8% in 2000 to 11% in this election.

Urban Voters: Urban areas tend to be the most strongly-Democratic geographic regions of the nation (i.e., the blue areas on the map); yet in this election, urban support for Democrats fell from 71% in 2000 to 60%, prompting Democratic observers to lament that the blue areas on the map are becoming less blue.

Youth Voters: There were 4.6 million more youth voters (ages 18-29) in this election than in 2000. (18.4% of youth voted this year, compared with 16.4% in 2000). Youth supported Kerry by a margin of 54 to 44, but the divide was not nearly as great as predicted. The expected gains from “Rock the Vote,” “Vote for Change,” and the “Vote or Die” efforts of MTV and secular entertainment artists were largely offset by the “Redeem the Vote” efforts of Third Day and nearly three dozen other Christian bands.

General Trends: Bush did poorly among single women, the young, and those who rarely attend church, but he made considerable gains in most other areas. And while half of Kerry’s vote came from Hispanics, African Americans, and single women, Bush made gains in two of those three groups compared to his 2000 election numbers.

A Religious Divide Among Voters

Even though most election analyses examined the vote according to traditional demographics (i.e., by ethnic group, gender, age, etc.), it is probably more accurate to analyze this year’s vote according to the religious practice of voters. In fact, numerous polls leading up to the election indicated that the best predictor of how an individual would vote in this election was frequency of church attendance.

This divide first became apparent in 2000, when those who attended religious services more than once a week supported Bush by a margin of nearly 2-1 and those who never attended religious services supported Gore by the same margin. With an eye to the 2004 election, Washington Post writer Thomas Edsall reported: “Pollsters are finding that one of the best ways to discover whether a voter holds liberal or conservative value stands is to ask: How often do you go to church? Those who go often tend to be Republican, those who go rarely or not at all tend to be Democratic.”

The recent election numbers affirm that the same religious-practice divide of 2000 was again present in 2004, and that it extended across ethnic, gender, and age lines. In this election, 61% of Bush’s vote came from people from all faiths who attend services weekly (this group comprised 41% of the electorate); conversely, Kerry received the support of 62% of Americans who never attend worship (accounting for 14% of the electorate); and among occasional church goers, voters were split almost evenly between Republicans and Democrats. Among Catholics who attended Mass on a weekly basis, 56% voted for Bush, but among Catholics who did not attend Mass regularly, Kerry won. (Protestants reflected the same trend.) Ultimately, Bush received 52% of the Catholic vote, prompting AP writer Richard Ostling to observe, “The majority of Catholics preferred an anti-abortion Methodist incumbent to one of their own – underscoring that today’s religious divide cuts across denominational lines.” (The exception to this trend is among African Americans, who tend to be active church goers but who vote almost exclusively Democratic.)

State Marriage Initiatives

The most obvious indicator that Biblical issues directly affected the election results was visible in the results of the state marriage initiatives. Many liberal Democratic leaders early acknowledged that this issue might be a determining factor in this election – evidenced by their vigorous efforts to keep the marriage issue off state ballots. In state after state, if Democrats failed to kill the measure in the state legislature they turned to courts to have the issue removed from the ballot.

Democratic fears about this issue were confirmed in Missouri three months before the November election. Even though the marriage issue was placed on the primary rather than the general ballot – and despite the fact that pro-marriage advocates were outspent by a margin of 40-1 – the measure passed with 71% support amidst record voter turnout! Matt Franck of the St. Louis Post Dispatch accurately concluded, “values appeared to beat dollars at the ballot box.” (By the way, the report of this massive victory was relegated to page A-16 of the New York Times.)

If the Missouri results disturbed liberal Democrats and marriage opponents, the subsequent efforts in Ohio were even more distressing. After all, citizens there had only nine weeks to gather 323,000 signatures to place the issue on the ballot; yet at the end of those nine weeks, 557,000 signatures had been submitted – and 54,500 new voters registered to vote so they could express their political voice in support of traditional marriage.

When election night arrived, marriage proposals in 11 states had survived all legal attempts to remove the issue from the ballot, and almost 20 million Americans in those states voted on the marriage issue. Not only did the measure pass in all 11 states by an overall margin of 2-1, but support ranged from a low of 57% support in Oregon (still an impressive number) to an almost unimaginable 86% support in Mississippi. (Interestingly, the marriage measures also passed by wide margins in blue states won by Kerry, and 8 of the 11 states included a ban on civil unions as well as on same-sex marriages.)

Immediately after the results were announced, legal challenges were filed in 6 states to overturn the statewide elections on marriage. (Even if the state courts eventually uphold the election results, the votes could still be overturned by federal courts – which is why the Federal Marriage Amendment is being so vigorously pursued in Congress.) Support for marriage was also a defining issue in several U. S. Senate races – including that of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who was defeated by John Thune (the first time in 52 years that a Senate party leader has lost a re-election bid).

(The interesting counter-trend to the national pro-marriage movement was seen in Massachusetts, where all incumbent state legislators who had advocated same-sex marriage or unions were reelected.)

Clearly, the marriage issue was a powerful influence in state and federal elections; was it also influential in the presidential election? Undoubtedly. Although the mainstream media failed to report on the more than 40 major speeches that President Bush delivered on the marriage issue, voters still learned of those speeches and spoke loudly on Election Day. As Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, noted: “At weddings they used to say, ‘Speak now or forever hold your peace.’ This shows that the people, when given the opportunity, speak very clearly.”

The Pro-Life Vote

In this election, 13% of all voters said they voted for pro-abortion candidates, but 25% of voters said they voted for pro-life candidates, obviously resulting in a distinct advantage for pro-life candidates.

Evidences of pro-life victories in this election are readily available. For example, the Susan B. Anthony List (an organization that endorses only pro-life candidates) placed almost $5 million into pro-life races, and Emily’s List (an organization that only endorses pro-abortion candidates) placed almost $45 million into pro-abortion races. Yet despite being outspent by more than 8-1, 80% of the candidates endorsed by Susan B. Anthony won, compared to only 39% of the candidates endorsed by Emily’s List. In fact, Susan B. Anthony candidates defeated six candidates backed by Emily’s List; 15 backed by Planned Parenthood; five by NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League); 11 by NOW’s PAC; and 11 by the pro-abortion Women’s Candidate Fund. (By the way, the 2002 and 2004 elections have added 19 new members to the U. S. Senate: 15 Republicans and four Democrats; all 15 Republicans are pro-life, but none of the Democrats are. The U. S. Senate has become significantly more pro-life over the last two elections.)

The pro-life as well as the marriage issue helped President Bush make significant gains in the Hispanic community. Bush ran ads on abortion and homosexual marriage in Spanish-language media and received the largest numbers of Hispanic votes ever received by a Republican president. One Hispanic voter seemed to sum up the feeling of many when he explained, “I voted for Bush based on his moral stance. Bush is pro-life, I’m pro-life. He believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and so do I.”

(One amazing and almost inexplicable aspect of this election was the fact that 26% of those who oppose all abortions voted for Kerry – who opposes no abortions.)

The African American Vote

While the percentage increase of African Americans voting for President Bush appeared relatively small, the gain was actually much greater than it appears. While Bush received 8% support of the 10.8 million black voters in 2000 (that is, 864,000 votes), in this election he received the support of 11% of 13.2 million black voters (that is, 1.45 million votes – nearly a 70% increase in the actual number of individual African Americans voting for President Bush).

As suggested by columnist Gregory Kane of the Baltimore Sun, the cause for much of the African American increase in support for President Bush was his pro-life and pro-traditional marriage position. Just days after the election, Kane explained:

The first inkling I had that Sen. John Kerry would lose Tuesday’s election came exactly a week before, when I participated in a telephone conference call that the Massachusetts senator had with about 350 black clergy. After former President Bill Clinton introduced him, Kerry told the group that the issue of gay marriage was a red herring. “I ask you not to be diverted from the real issue in this case,” as if blowing off the moral issue that would eventually cost him the election weren’t enough, we have to look at what else was wrong with the picture: when you’re telling clergy folks that things many Christians regard as sins don’t matter, you might not want an admitted philanderer to be the guy introducing you. Earlier in the campaign, Kerry shared a stage with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, another fella not yet bitten by the monogamy bug, who [also] said moral issues in campaign 2004 were a diversion.

While overall African American support for Bush was at 11%, it was much higher in many battleground states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania where African American support for Bush reached 16%.

The New Faces Elected

The voters’ support for life, faith, and traditional family produced an outstanding body of freshmen House and Senate members. Consider first the U. S. Senate results: nine new freshman Senators, seven of whom are pro-life (all the Republicans).

Following the election, veteran Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) observed, “In terms of the Republicans, with the exception of Don Nickles, every one of them is more conservative than the person they replaced.” The voting records as recorded by the American Conservative Union (ACU) confirm the truth of Kyl’s statement:

  • South Dakota: John Thune (former House Member; ACU: 92%) will replace Tom Daschle (ACU: 22%).
  • South Carolina: Jim DeMint (current House Member; ACU: 100%) will replace Fritz Hollings (ACU: 15%).
  • North Carolina: Richard Burr (current House Member; ACU: 96%) will replace John Edwards (ACU: 30%).
  • Louisiana: David Vitter (current House Member; ACU: 100%) will replace John Breaux (ACU: 42%).
  • Florida: Mel Martinez (a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage Secretary of HUD under President Bush) will replace Bob Graham (ACU: 20%).
  • Georgia: Johnny Isakson (current House Member; ACU: 96%) will replace Zell Miller (ACU: 47%)
  • Oklahoma: Tom Coburn (former House member; ACU: 97%) will replace retiring Don Nickles (ACU rating: 100%). (This is the seat in which Kyl correctly acknowledged that there would be little change.)

The new Republican Senators are not just conservative votes but rather are committed leaders. As freshman Tom Coburn expressed it:

I believe we have a deficit of moral courage in the United States Congress. We have many learned individuals who know what is right but have not the courage to stand against the moral corruption that is now attempting to undermine our republic. I believe we have lost sight of the moorings of the Constitution in that it was founded upon the principles of a Creator and that we have inalienable rights given by that Creator. We need leaders who are unashamed of their faith and understand its importance in the maintenance of a free society.

On the Democratic side, the two new freshmen Senators – Barack Obama (IL) and Ken Salazar (CO) – are both pro-abortion and both oppose marriage protection.

In the House, there are 39 new members: 23 freshman Republicans, 14 freshmen Democrats, and two undecided (two House races in Louisiana will have runoffs in December). Like the Senate, the Democratic House Members tend to be pro-abortion and the Republicans pro-life, including new pro-life and pro-family advocates Geoff Davis (KY), Bobby Jindal (LA), Patrick McHenry (NC), Virginia Foxx (NC), Jeff Fortenberry (NE), Ted Poe (TX), Kenny Marchant (TX), Louie Gohmert (TX), Michael McCaul (TX), Cathy McMorris (WA), Mike Sodrel (IN), Mike Fitzpatrick (PA), Bob Inglis (SC), Dave Reichert (WA), and many others. (Additionally, the House’s strongest pro-choice Republican was replaced by a much more conservative Member.)

Clearly, candidates embracing Biblical moral values did very well in this election as voters showed their preference for such leaders.

The Specter Response

The day following the election, when even the secular media was acknowledging a moral mandate from the election, pro-abortion Republican Senator Arlen Specterv(likely the next chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) appeared to issue a thinly veiled warning to the President to not send conservative pro-life judicial nominees before his committee.

Senate offices were immediately inundated with thousands of calls, asking Senators to deny Specter the committee chairmanship. That unorchestrated, spontaneous, and rapid response was in itself a major victory, demonstrating that citizens intend to remain engaged in the culture war on the policy side as well as the election side. This unexpected response from citizens has already had a profound effect inside the Senate.

As a result, Sen. Specter is rapidly backtracking. It is likely that he will publicly pledge not to oppose any of the President’s nominees, and as a result his fellow Senators may permit him to become chairman. Such a result ensures that the message delivered so clearly by citizens in the election will be paid attention to after the election.

(Interestingly, the new Senate Minority Leader for the Democrats is Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada. Reid’s pro-life record is not particularly strong, but he is one of the strongest pro-life Democratic Senators. Ironically, over the last three sessions of Congress, Reid has actually had a better pro-life voting record than Specter!)

Three Post Election Reactions

There have been three distinct visible reactions (not responses) to the election results from various groups of Democratic leaders and activists. The first reaction is reminiscent of the reaction of Democrats against Republicans 144 years ago.

The election of 1860 was characterized by a cultural divide over slavery. The upstart Republicans (having been founded only six years earlier, in 1854) had issued platforms setting forth bold declarations of equality and civil rights for all African-Americans and, condemning slavery, the Fugitive Slave Law, and the Dred Scott decision. The Democrat platforms, however, strongly defended slavery and supported both the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dred Scott decision.

When Americans in that election handed the presidency, the House, and the Senate to Republicans, it was obvious to Democrats what was about to happen: the anti-slavery and pro-civil rights positions of the Republicans were about to become reality. What was the response? Southern Democrats seceded – they left Congress and took their states with them, forming a new nation that described itself as the “slave-holding” Confederate States of America – a nation led by a Democrat U. S. Senator as its president and a Democrat U. S. Representative as its vice-president. (By the way, the fear of Democrats in that election came true: Republicans not only passed a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery while still fighting the Civil War but they also passed two dozen civil rights laws in only a decade, one of which banned all segregation; but the Supreme Court – being as out of touch with the wishes of that generation as it is with today’s – struck down that desegregation law.)

Now, a century-and-a-half later in 2004, with it being obvious to Democrats that Republicans intend to protect marriage, innocent human life, and reign in an activist judiciary, Democratic leaders such as Lawrence O’Donnell, Bob Beckel, and Geraldine Ferraro (as well as many rank-and-file Democrats) are once again making noise about secession. The proposed map they are circulating on the internet demonstrates their understanding of the cultural divide in this election: they propose that the 19 blue states won by Kerry join with Canada to form the “United States of Canada,” and that the remaining 31 red states be named “Jesusland.”

However, not all Democrats are seeking to secede; some are simply seeking psychotherapy. In fact, so many have sought help that mental health professionals have developed a new category for the disorder. According to Rob Gordon of the American Health Association, “We’re calling it ‘post-election selection trauma’.” What are the symptoms of this disorder? “They include feelings of extreme anger, despair, hopelessness, powerlessness, a failure to function behaviorally, a sense of disillusionment, of not wanting to vote anymore.” Gordon warns: “There are definitely people depressed by John Kerry’s loss, and this can easily lead to suicides like the one we saw up in New York this weekend.”

The third apparent post-election reaction is a deliberate attempt to reshape long-held definitions of established words, or doing what the dictionary describes as “new-speak” (the “deliberately ambiguous and contradictory language used to mislead and manipulate the public,” based on the term invented in the famous novel 1984). In other words, many liberals, understanding that they lost the election largely because of traditional moral values, are attempting to redefine the scope and universally understood meaning of those words. For example, the Rev. Robert Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, laments: “The religious right has successfully gotten out there shaping personal piety issues – civil unions, abortion – as almost the total content of ‘moral values.’ And yet . . . God doesn’t want 45 million Americans without health care.”

Supporters of same-sex marriage are now asserting that it is “moral” to extend partnership rights to two men or two women who have “committed” themselves to each other, and pro-abortion advocates are now claiming that it is “moral” for a poor mother to have an abortion rather than bear a child she might not want. Since the election, the Left has begun chanting about “morals” and “values,” but giving those words their own new meanings.

Another frequently mentioned “moral value” involves taking care of the poor. As the Rev. Stephen Bouman explains, “One thing Jesus was absolutely clear about was helping the poor.” While it is true that the Bible does have much to say about helping the poor, it is also true that the Bible clearly prioritizes certain issues. Consider the fact that God took over 600 laws and reduced them into His “Top Ten” commandments. The protection of innocent life does make God’s Top Ten (#6), and the protection of the sanctity of marriage also makes God’s Top Ten (#7); however, taking care of the poor does not make God’s Top Ten, and to elevate that issue above what God has elevated is to usurp His authority and that of His Word.

Additionally, when George W. Bush, then Texas Governor first implemented faith-based programs in Texas, CBS News traveled to Fredericksburg, Texas, and reported that the same amount of welfare money that previously had taken care of 4 recipients in the government system was now taking care of hundreds of recipients in the faith-based welfare system. Therefore, it is apparent that the ability to better help the poor is dramatically increased by the implementation of faith-based
programs – something that most Democrats vehemently oppose and most Republicans strongly support.

Statistical indicators in the election – as well as the reactions and rhetoric of those who lost – clearly confirm that “moral issues” were a definitive and major influence in the outcome of this election. So was there a moral mandate delivered by voters on election night 2004? Many indicators would suggest that the answer may be, “Yes.”

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

Taking On The Critics

As an example of the kind of misportrayals and mischaracterizations that David Barton is subjected to by critics, we have provided the following excerpt from an article written by Barry Hankins, an associate director of Baylor University’s JM Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies. Hankins’ article was entitled Separation Of Church And State Is Not Just For Liberals, and is typical of works by secularism advocates in that while it purports to discuss the “history” of church-state separation, it fails to use historical sources but instead overwhelmingly relies on works from current sources rather than primary or original sources. (David Barton’s response is provided below the article excerpt.)

Separation Of Church And State Is Not Just For Liberals excerpt:

Close observers of this phenomenon will know that arguably the most prolific and effective proponent of the antiseparationist view is David Barton, the former math teacher and high school principal who founded Wall Builders, headquartered in Aledo, Texas. Barton barnstorms the country with high tech slide-show presentations purporting to prove that the founders intended to establish a nation that gave preference to Christianity. He has written the aptly titled The Myth of Separation. In all his books, tapes, and public addresses, Barton relies heavily on selected quotations from America’s founders.

Recently Robert Alley, professor emeritus at Richmond University and an expert on James Madison, questioned a Barton quote attributed to Madison. When Alley’s research revealed that Madison had probably never uttered the remark in question, Barton retracted it. In an astounding move, Barton also issued a published retraction of 11 other quotes, listing 10 as questionable and two, including the Madison quote, as false.[7] However, the flap does not seem to have slowed Barton’s juggernaut.

David Barton’s response:

August 30, 2003
Barry Hankins
J. M. Dawson Institute
Baylor University
Waco, TX 76798

Mr. Hankins:

I recently was given an article you had authored, “Separation of Church and State is not Just for Liberals.” The copy I received was undated; perhaps it is an older article; nevertheless, since I was a subject of your pen (and since you never took the time to consult me either to confirm or deny what you alleged about me), I thought I would present you with a few facts concerning the misrepresentations you made about me on page 1 of that article:

1. To my knowledge, the only time I have acknowledged or read anything that Robert Alley has written was his attack on me for speaking at Gov. George Allen’s Inauguration in January 1994. It may come as a complete surprise to you to learn that I neither read nor follow anything Robert Alley may or may not say about me, nor have I read any article by him about Madison or his writings.

2. Since I do not read Alley’s materials nor do I concern myself with his writings, he clearly had no influence on our publication of the “Questionable Quotes” list. Consider: we listed over a dozen questionable quotes but Alley apparently mentioned only the Madison quote; and you assert that was the reason we issued our much more extensive list? Ridiculous! In fact, to our knowledge, my article about the uncertainty of the Madison quote predated his; we did not change our position in response to anything he wrote; rather, I publicly announced that I would no longer use the Madison quote (and others) not because it was inaccurate but rather because I had determined to raise the scholarship of the debate from an academic level to the higher level of legal documentation known as “best evidence” – a level of documentation that most of those in your camp have yet to embrace.

(For example, In Search of Christian America, written by three PhDs from your viewpoint, purports to search the Founding Era (1760-1805) for evidences of official acknowledgments of Christianity and concludes that there is a lack of such evidence. However, of the hundreds of sources cited to reach that conclusion, some 80 percent were taken from sources published after 1950 – more than a century-and-a-half after the period they purport to investigate! Such disparate and dissimilar sources would be unacceptable in a court of law.)

3. Alley can neither claim that Madison “never” uttered the “quote in question” about the Ten Commandments nor that it was “false.” As you yourself know, Madison’s “Detached Memoranda” (surely one of your favorite documents) was not “discovered” until 1946. More Madison letters previously unknown are found regularly, often in the estates of recently deceased individuals who held private collections or inherited family heirlooms received directly from Madison’s hand. Furthermore, much of what is known about Madison and his diverse and often changing viewpoints frequently comes from Madison’s contemporaries rather than from his own writings.

For example, more of Madison’s succinct statements against slavery are available through his personal interviews with Harriet Martineau (published in the early 1800s) than from his own writings. Alley can no more claim that the Madison quote does not exist than I can claim that it does. However, I can show that the Madison “quote in question” has been in circulation for generations, and I can document it (as I did) to non-modern works and works by credentialed historians. Quite simply, neither I nor Alley can say whether or not the Madison quote is false; however, I simply decided that I would no longer quote academics, historians, or doctorates of history to establish what the Founders said (as you regularly do) but instead I would cite only primary source documentation that meets a legal standard of evidence. (I continue to challenge your side to meet the same standard.)

4. Your claim that “The flap does not seem to have slowed Barton’s juggernaut” is baseless and irrelevant simply because there was no flap other than what you attempted to concoct. Furthermore, the specific work you so recklessly demean (The Myth of Separation) provided over 750 footnoted citations. Therefore, for us to drop a dozen quotes from that work represented a trivially small percentage and no historical conclusion was changed.

For example, rather than continuing to use the uncertain James Madison quote on the Ten Commandments, I replaced it with irrefutably-documented statements by other Founders on the same subject – such as the Ten Commandments quote by John Adams (by the way, Adams – unlike Madison – actually signed the Bill of Rights and is an equally competent legal authority on the subject). As a result of my decision to elevate the level of documentation, we replaced The Myth of Separation with Original Intent – a work with over 1,400 footnotes (rather than the 750 in Myth), and a work that not only meets legal standards of scrutiny but that also arrives at the identical historical conclusions reached in The Myth of Separation.

5. On the other hand, I notice that in books from those of your perspective, few footnotes are presented. For example, in The Godless Constitution – an allegedly “scholarly” university text written by two prominent PhDs – no footnotes are provided. As they openly concede, “we have dispensed with the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes.” While a work such as this with no footnotes is probably acceptable to you simply because of its conclusions, it would not pass legal muster for best evidence; yet my work which does pass the standards of legal scrutiny is completely unacceptable to you. Ironically you frequently embrace and laud the types of works that fail to meet the legal standard of “best evidence” while attacking and demeaning the ones that do.

I recognize that there can be honest differences of opinions between well-intentioned individuals; and I whole-heartedly support your right to free speech — including your right to make uninformed statements, present incomplete and inaccurate information, and offer complete mischaracterizations and misportrayals — as you have done in the part of your article addressing me. Regrettably, the section of your article about me neither meets the standards of basic journalism (where an individual attacked in an article is called and asked to respond to charges) nor of academic scholarship (where footnotes and documentation are provided).

In your defense, I did note that you provided one footnote to document my “false” quotes; however, the source of that documentation was actually an attack piece written against me by one of your closest allies — not quite an unbiased objective source! However, objective truth was probably never the goal of your article.

An old lawyers’ adage admonishes: “When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.” You seem to have chosen the latter course of action.

David Barton

[For more information on this issue please see “Unconfirmed Quotations”]

The Bible, Slavery, and America’s Founders

America’s Founding Fathers are seen by some people today as unjust and hypocrites, for while they talked of liberty and equality, they at the same time were enslaving hundreds of thousands of Africans. Some allege that the Founders bear most of the blame for the evils of slavery. Consequently, many today have little respect for the Founders and turn their ear from listening to anything they may have to say. And, in their view, to speak of America as founded as a Christian nation is unthinkable (for how could a Christian nation tolerate slavery?).

It is certainly true that during most of America’s history most blacks have not had the same opportunities and protections as whites. From the time of colonization until the Civil War most Africans in America (especially those living in the South) were enslaved, and the 100 years following emancipation were marked with segregation and racism. Only in the last 30 years has there been closer to equal opportunities, though we still need continued advancement in equality among the races and race relations. But is the charge against the Founders justified? Are they to bear most of the blame for the evils of slavery? Can we speak of America as founded as a Christian nation, while at it’s founding it allowed slavery?

Understanding the answer to these questions is important for the future of liberty in America and advancement of racial equality. The secular view of history taught in government schools today does not provide an adequate answer. We must view these important concerns from a Biblical and providential perspective.

America’s Founders were predominantly Christians and had a Biblical worldview. If that was so, some say, how could they allow slavery, for isn’t slavery sin? As the Bible reveals to man what is sin, we need to examine what it has to say about slavery.

The Bible and Slavery The Bible teaches that slavery, in one form or another (including spiritual, mental, and physical), is always the fruit of disobedience to God and His law/word. (This is not to say that the enslavement of any one person, or group of people, is due to their sin, for many have been enslaved unjustly, like Joseph and numerous Christians throughout history.) Personal and civil liberty is the result of applying the truth of the Scriptures. As a person or nation more fully applies the principles of Christianity, there will be increasing freedom in every realm of life. Sanctification for a person, or nation, is a gradual process. The fruit of changed thinking and action, which comes from rooting sin out of our lives, may take time to see. This certainly applies historically in removing slavery from the Christian world.

Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. Slavery was not a part of God’s original created order, and as God’s created order has gradually been re-established since the time of Christ, slavery has gradually been eliminated. Christian nations (those based upon Biblical principles) have led the way in the abolition of slavery. America was at the forefront of this fight. After independence, great steps were taken down the path of ending slavery – probably more than had been done by any other nation up until that time in history (though certainly more could have been done). Many who had settled in America had already been moving toward these ends. Unfortunately, the generations following the Founders did not continue to move forward in a united fashion. A great conflict was the outcome of this failure.

When God gave the law to Moses, slavery was a part of the world, and so the law of God recognized slavery. But this does not mean that slavery was God’s original intention. The law of Moses was given to fallen man. Some of the ordinances deal with things not intended for the original creation order, such as slavery and divorce. These will be eliminated completely only when sin is eliminated from the earth. God’s laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved. God desires all men and nations to be liberated. This begins internally and will be manifested externally to the extent internal change occurs. The Biblical slave laws reflect God’s redemptive desire, for men and nations.

Types of Slavery Permitted by the Bible

The Mosaic law permitted some types of slavery. These include:

  1. Voluntary servitude by the sons of Israel (indentured servants) Those who needed assistance, could not pay their debts, or needed protection from another were allowed under Biblical law to become indentured servants (see Ex. 21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18). They were dependent on their master instead of the state. This was a way to aid the poor and give them an opportunity to get back on their feet. It was not to be a permanent subsidy. Many early settlers to America came as indentured servants. These servants were well treated and when released, given generous pay.
  2. Voluntary permanent slaves If indentured servants so chose, they could remain a slave (Ex. 21:2-6; Deut.. 15:16-17). Their ear was pierced to indicate this permanent subjection. The law recognized that some people want the security of enslavement. Today, there are some people who would rather be dependent upon government to provide their needs (and with that provision accepting their commands) than do what is necessary to live free from its provision and direction. Some even act in a manner that puts them in jail, desiring the care and provision they get more than personal freedom.
  3. Thief or criminal making restitution A thief who could not, or did not, make restitution was sold as a slave: “If a man steals . . . he shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (Ex. 22:1,3). The servitude ceased when enough work was done to pay for the amount due in restitution.
  4. Pagans could be permanent slaves Leviticus 25:44-46 states: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have – you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen [brother], the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another. In the Sabbath year all Hebrew debtors/slaves were released from their debts.. This was not so for foreigners (Deut. 15:3). Theologian R.J. Rushdoony writes, “since unbelievers are by nature slaves, they could be held as life-long slaves” 1 without piercing the ear to indicate their voluntary servitude (Lev. 25:44-46). This passage in Leviticus says that pagans could be permanent slaves and could be bequeathed to the children of the Hebrews. However, there are Biblical laws concerning slaves that are given for their protection and eventual redemption. Slaves could become part of the covenant and part of the family, even receiving an inheritance. Under the new covenant, a way was made to set slaves free internally, which should then be following by external preparation enabling those who were slaves to live at liberty, being self-governed under God.

Involuntary Servitude is Not Biblical

Exodus 21:16 says: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” Deuteronomy 24:7 states: “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.”

Kidnapping and enforced slavery are forbidden and punishable by death. This was true for any man (Ex. 21:16), as well as for the Israelites (Deut. 24:7). This was stealing a man’s freedom. While aspects of slavery are Biblical (for punishment and restitution for theft, or for those who prefer the security of becoming a permanent bondservant), the Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude.

Any slave that ran away from his master (thus expressing his desire for freedom) was to be welcomed by the Israelites, not mistreated, and not returned. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 states:

You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him. This implied slaves must be treated justly, plus they had a degree of liberty. Other slave laws confirm this. In addition, such action was a fulfillment of the law of love in both the Old and New Testaments. The law of God declares: “. . . you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:17-18). Leviticus 19:33-34 clearly reveals that this applies to strangers and aliens as well: “The stranger, . . . you shall not do him wrong.. . . . you shall love him as yourself.”

It was forbidden to take the life or liberty of any other man. Rushdoony writes:

Thus, the only kind of slavery permitted is voluntary slavery, as Deuteronomy 23:15,16 makes very clear. Biblical law permits voluntary slavery because it recognizes that some people are not able to maintain a position of independence. To attach themselves voluntarily to a capable man and to serve him, protected by law, is thus a legitimate way of life, although a lesser one. The master then assumes the role of the benefactor, the bestower of welfare, rather that the state, and the slave is protected by the law of the state. A runaway slave thus cannot be restored to his master: he is free to go. The exception is the thief or criminal who is working out his restitution. The Code of Hammurabi decreed death for men who harbored a runaway slave; the Biblical law provided for the freedom of the slave. 2 Rushdoony also says that the selling of slaves was forbidden. Since Israelites were voluntary slaves, and since not even a foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master (Deut. 23:15, 16), slavery was on a different basis under the law than in non-Biblical cultures. The slave was a member of the household, with rights therein. A slave-market could not exist in Israel. The slave who was working out a restitution for theft had no incentive to escape, for to do so would make him an incorrigible criminal and liable to death. 3

When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13).

Laws related to slaves There are a number of laws in the Bible related to slavery. They include:

  1. Hebrew slaves (indentured servants) were freed after 6 years. If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment (Ex. 21:2). If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. And when you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed (Deut. 15:12-13). Hebrew slaves were to be set free after six years. If the man was married when he came, his wife was to go with him (Ex. 21:3). This law did not apply to non-Hebrew slaves (see point 4 under “Types of slavery permitted by the Bible” above), though, as mentioned, any slave showing a desire for freedom was to be safely harbored if they ran away. In violation of this law, many Christian slaves in America were not given the option of freedom after six years (and many escaped slaves were forcefully returned). To comply with the spirit and law of the Old and New Testament, non-Christian slaves should have been introduced by their master to Christianity, equipped to live in liberty, and then given the opportunity to choose to live free. Christianity would have prepared them to live in freedom.
  2. Freed slaves were released with liberal pay. When these slaves were set free they were not to be sent away empty handed. They were to be furnished liberally from the flocks, threshing floor, and wine vat (Deut. 15:12-15).
  3. Slaves were to be responsible. We have mentioned that some people prefer the security of enslavement to the uncertainty of living free. People who live free have certain responsibilities they must maintain. They cannot have the fruit of freedom without the responsibilities of freedom. It is within this context that the following law can be understood: “If he [a Hebrew slave] comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.” (Ex. 21:3-4)
  4. Rushdoony comments: “The bondservant, however, could not have the best of both worlds, the world of freedom and the world of servitude. A wife meant responsibility: to marry, a man had to have a dowry as evidence of his ability to head a household. A man could not gain the benefit of freedom, a wife, and at the same time gain the benefit of security under a master.” 4 Marrying as a slave required no responsibility of provision or need of a dowry. He gained the benefits of marriage without the responsibilities associated with it. Rushdoony continues: “If he married while a bondservant, or a slave, he knew that in so doing he was abandoning either freedom or his family. He either remained permanently a slave with his family and had his ear pierced as a sign of subordination (like a woman), or he left his family. If he walked out and left his family, he could, if he earned enough, redeem his family from bondage. The law here is humane and also unsentimental. It recognizes that some people are by nature slaves and will always be so. It both requires that they be dealt with in a godly manner and also that the slave recognize his position and accept it with grace. Socialism, on the contrary, tries to give the slave all the advantages of his security together with the benefits of freedom, and, in the process, destroys both the free and the enslaved.” 5
  5. Runaway slaves were to go free. As mentioned earlier, Deuteronomy 23:15-16 says that a runaway slave was to go free. He was to be welcomed to live in any of the towns of Israel he chose. The Israelites were not to mistreat him. Rushdoony says that, “Since the slave was, except where debt and theft were concerned, a slave by nature and by choice, a fugitive slave went free, and the return of such fugitives was forbidden (Deut. 23:15,16).” This aspect of Biblical law was violated by American slavery and the United States Constitution (see Art. IV, Sec. 2, Par. 3). “Christians cannot become slaves voluntarily; they are not to become the slaves of men (1 Cor. 7:23), nor ‘entangled again with the yoke of bondage’ (Gal. 5:1).”6 Those who became Christians while slaves were to become free if they could (1 Cor. 7:21). If they could not, they were to exemplify the character of Christ (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-2). Eventually, Christianity would overthrow slavery, not so much by denouncing it, but by promoting the equality of man under God, and teaching the principles of liberty and the brotherhood of mankind under Christ. It would be the responsibility of Christians, especially those who found themselves in a place of owning slaves (for example, many Christian Americans in the past inherited slaves) to teach such ideas, and then act accordingly. Many Christians in early America did just this. Phyllis Wheatley was introduced to Christianity by her masters, educated, and given her freedom. Many American Christians, in both North and South, at the time of the Civil War did much to educate slaves Biblically. Stonewall Jackson, who never owned slaves himself and was against slavery, conducted many classes in his church to educate slaves.
  6. Excessive punishment of slaves was forbidden. A slave could be punished by striking with a rod (Ex. 21:20-21), but if the punishment was excessive, the slave was to be given his freedom (Ex. 21:26-27; Lev. 24:17). This included knocking out the tooth or damaging the eye. This applied to indentured servants as well as other slaves. Since the owner would lose his investment in such a situation, there was a financial incentive for just treatment. Just treatment of slaves was required of the masters. Paul writes: “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.” (Col. 4:1)
  7. Slaves could be brought into the covenant. Slaves could be circumcised (brought into the covenant) and then eat of the Passover meal (Ex. 12:43-44; Gen. 17:12-13). Slaves could also eat of holy things (Lev. 22:10-11).
  8. Slaves had some rights and position in the home and could share in the inheritance. (See Gen. 24:2 and Prov. 17:2.)
  9. Slaves were to rest on the Sabbath like everyone else. The Fourth Commandment applied to all (Ex. 20:8-11).

Female slave laws were for their protection. Exodus 21:4-11 gives some laws about female slaves, which served for their protection. These Hebrew female slaves were without family to assist them in their need or to help to provide security for them. These slaves laws were a way to protect them from abuse not faced by males and to keep them from being turned out into the street, where much harm could come to them.

Examination of the Biblical view of slavery enables us to more effectively address the assertion that slavery was America’s original sin. In light of the Scriptures we cannot say that slavery, in a broad and general sense, is sin. But this brief look at the Biblical slave laws does reveal how fallen man’s example of slavery has violated God’s laws, and America’s form of slavery in particular violated various aspects of the law, as well as the general spirit of liberty instituted by Christ.

The Christian foundation and environment of America caused most people to seek to view life from a Biblical perspective. Concerning slavery, they would ask “Is it Biblical?” While most of the Founders saw it was God’s desire to eliminate the institution, others attempted to justify it. At the time of the Civil War some people justified Southern slavery by appealing to the Bible. However, through this brief review of the Old Testament slave laws we have seen that American slavery violated some of these laws, not to mention the spirit of liberty instituted by the coming of Christ.

Slavery and the New Testament When Paul wrote how slaves and masters were to act (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; Col. 3:22-25; Titus 2:9-10), he was not endorsing involuntary slavery or the Roman slave system. He was addressing the attitudes, actions, and matters of the heart of those Christians who found themselves in slavery or as slave owners. This encompassed many people, for half the population of Rome and a large proportion of the Roman Empire were slaves. Many people were converted to Christianity while slaves or slave owners, and many Christians were enslaved.

It is in this context that we can better understand the example of Paul, Onesimus, and Philemon. Onesimus, a slave of Philemon who apparently stole some money from his master and ran away, encountered Paul in Rome and became a Christian. Paul sent him back to his master carrying the letter to Philemon. Author of the famous Bible Handbook, Henry Halley writes:

The Bible gives no hint as to how the master received his returning slave. But there is a tradition that says his master did receive him, and took Paul’s veiled hint and gave the slave his liberty. That is the way the Gospel works. Christ in the heart of the slave made the slave recognize the social usages of his day, and go back to his master determined to be a good slave and live out his natural life as a slave. Christ in the heart of the master made the master recognize the slave as a Christian brother and give him his liberty. There is a tradition that Onesimus afterward became a bishop of Berea. 7

The Mosaic slave laws and the writings of Paul benefited and protected the slaves as best as possible in their situation. God’s desire for any who are enslaved is freedom (Luke 4:18; Gal. 5:1). Those who are set free in Christ then need to be prepared to walk in liberty. Pagan nations had a much different outlook toward slaves, believing slaves had no rights or privileges. Because of the restrictions and humane aspect of the Mosaic laws on slavery, it never existed on a large scale in Israel, and did not exhibit the cruelties seen in Egypt, Greece, Rome, Assyria and other nations.

Sinful man will always live in some form of bondage and slavery, as a slave to the state, to a lord or noble, or to other men. As a step in man’s freedom, God’s laws of slavery provided the best situation for those who find themselves in bondage. God’s ultimate desire is that all walk in the liberty of the gospel both internally and externally.

As the gospel principles of liberty have spread throughout history in all the nations, man has put aside the institution of overt slavery. However, since sinful man tends to live in bondage, different forms of slavery have replaced the more obvious system of past centuries. The state has assumed the role of master for many, providing aid and assistance, and with it more and more control, to those unable to provide for themselves. The only solution to slavery is the liberty of the gospel.

Brief History of Slavery Slavery has existed throughout the world since after the fall of man. Egypt and other ancient empires enslaved multitudes. Greece and Rome had many slaves, taken from nations they conquered. Slavery was a part of almost every culture. While some Christian nations had taken steps to end slavery, it was still an established part of most of the world when America began to be settled.

Many of the early settlers came to America as indentured servants, indebted to others for a brief period of time to pay for their passage. England at this time recognized the forced labor of the apprentice, the hired servant, convicts, and indentured servants. Some of these laborers were subject to whippings and other forms of punishment. These forms of servitude were limited in duration and “transmitted no claim to the servant’s children.” 8

According to Hugh Thomas in The Slave Trade, about 11,328,000 Africans were transported to the new world between 1440 and 1870. Of these about 4 million went to Brazil, 2.5 million to Spanish colonies, 2 million to the British West Indies, 1.6 million to the French West Indies, and 500,000 went to what became the United States of America. 9

A Dutch ship, seeking to unload its human cargo, brought the first slaves to Virginia in 1619. Over the next century a small number of slaves were brought to America. In 1700 there were not more than 20 to 30 thousand black slaves in all the colonies. There were some people who spoke against slavery (e.g. the Quakers and Mennonites) 10 and some political efforts to check slavery (as in laws of Massachusetts and Rhode Island), but these had little large scale effect. The colonies’ laws recognized and protected slave property. Efforts were made to restrict the slave trade in several colonies, but the British government overruled such efforts and the trade went on down to the Revolution.

When independence was declared from England, the legal status of slavery was firmly established in the colonies, though there were plenty of voices speaking out against it, and with independence those voices would increase.

America’s Founders and Slavery

Some people suggest today that all early Americans must have been despicable to allow such an evil as slavery. They say early America should be judged as evil and sinful, and anything they have to say should be discounted. But if we were to judge modern America by this same standard, it would be far more wicked – we are not merely enslaving people, but we are murdering tens of millions of innocent unborn children through abortion. These people claim that they would not have allowed slavery if they were alive then. They would speak out and take any measures necessary. But where is their outcry and action to end slavery in the Sudan today? (And slavery there is much worse than that in early America.)

Some say we should not listen to the Founders of America because they owned slaves, or at least allowed slavery to exist in the society. However, if we were to cut ourselves off from the history of nations that had slavery in the past we would have to have nothing to do with any people because almost every society has had slavery, including African Americans, for many African societies sold slaves to the Europeans; and up to ten percent of blacks in America owned slaves.

The Founders Believed Slavery Was Fundamentally Wrong

The overwhelming majority of early Americans and most of America’s leaders did not own slaves. Some did own slaves, which were often inherited (like George Washington at age eleven), but many of these people set them free after independence. Most Founders believed that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished. William Livingston, signer of the Constitution and Governor of New Jersey, wrote to an anti-slavery society in New York (John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the Continental Congress, was President of this society):

I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the anti-slavery society] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 11

John Quincy Adams, who worked tirelessly for years to end slavery, spoke of the anti-slavery views of the southern Founders, including Jefferson who owned slaves:

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.” 12

The Founding Fathers believed that blacks had the same God-given inalienable rights as any other peoples. James Otis of Massachusetts said in 1764 that “The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.” 13

There had always been free blacks in America who owned property, voted, and had the same rights as other citizens. 14 Most of the men who gave us the Declaration and the Constitution wanted to see slavery abolished. For example, George Washington wrote in a letter to Robert Morris:

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. 15

Charles Carroll, Signer of Declaration from Maryland, wrote:

Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 16

Benjamin Rush, Signer from Pennsylvania, stated:

Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 17

Father of American education, and contributor to the ideas in the Constitution, Noah Webster wrote:

Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery] – Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 18

Quotes from John Adams reveal his strong anti-slavery views:

Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. . . . I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in . . . abhorrence. 19 My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known. . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave. 20

When Benjamin Franklin served as President of the Pennsylvania Society of Promoting the Abolition of Slavery he declared:

“Slavery is . . . an atrocious debasement of human nature.” 21

Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration included a strong denunciation of slavery, declaring the king’s perpetuation of the slave trade and his vetoing of colonial anti-slavery measures as one reason the colonists were declaring their independence:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere. . . . Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. 22

Prior to independence, anti-slavery measures by the colonists were thwarted by the British government. Franklin wrote in 1773:

A disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. 23

The Founders took action against slavery

The founders did not just believe slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished, and they did not just speak against it, but they acted on their beliefs. During the Revolutionary War black slaves who fought won their freedom in every state except South Carolina and Georgia. 24

Many of the founders started and served in anti-slavery societies. Franklin and Rush founded the first such society in America in 1774. John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. Other Founding Fathers serving in anti-slavery societies included: William Livingston (Constitution signer), James Madison, Richard Bassett, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. 25

As the Founders worked to free themselves from enslavement to Britain, based upon laws of God and nature, they also spoke against slavery and took steps to stop it. Abolition grew as principled resistance to the tyranny of England grew, since both were based upon the same ideas. This worked itself out on a personal as well as policy level, as seen in the following incident in the life of William Whipple, signer of the Declaration of Independence from New Hampshire. Dwight writes:

When General Whipple set out to join the army, he took with him for his waiting servant, a colored man named Prince, one whom he had imported from Africa many years before. He was a slave whom his master highly valued. As he advanced on his journey, he said to Prince, “If we should be called into an engagement with the enemy, I expect you will behave like a man of courage, and fight like a brave soldier for your country.” Prince feelingly replied, “Sir, I have no inducement to fight, I have no country while I am a slave. If I had my freedom, I would endeavor to defend it to the last drop of my blood.” This reply of Prince produced the effect on his master’s heart which Prince desired. The general declared him free on the spot. 26

The Founders opposed slavery based upon the principle of the equality of all men. Throughout history many slaves have revolted but it was believed (even by those enslaved) that some people had the right to enslave others. The American slave protests were the first in history based on principles of God-endowed liberty for all. It was not the secularists who spoke out against slavery but the ministers and Christian statesmen.

Before independence, some states had tried to restrict slavery in different ways (e.g. Virginia had voted to end the slave trade in 1773), but the English government had not allowed it. Following independence and victory in the war, the rule of the mother country was removed, leaving freedom for each state to deal with the slavery problem. Within about 20 years of the 1783 Treaty of Peace with Britain, the northern states abolished slavery: Pennsylvania and Massachusetts in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804.

The Northwest Ordinance (1787, 1789), which governed the admission of new states into the union from the then northwest territories, forbid slavery. Thus, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery. This first federal act dealing with slavery was authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington.

Although no Southern state abolished slavery, there was much anti-slavery sentiment. Many anti-slavery societies were started, especially in the upper South. Many Southern states considered proposals abolishing slavery, for example, the Virginia legislature in 1778 and 1796. When none passed, many, like Washington, set their slaves free, making provision for their well being. Following independence, “Virginia changed her laws to make it easier for individuals to emancipate slaves,” 27 though over time the laws became more restrictive in Virginia.

While most states were moving toward freedom for slaves, the deep South (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina) was largely pro-slavery. Yet, even so, the Southern courts before around 1840 generally took the position that slavery violated the natural rights of blacks. For example, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in 1818:

Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature. It exists and can only exist, through municipal regulations, and in matters of doubt,…courts must lean in favorem vitae et libertatis [in favor of life and liberty]. 28

The same court ruled in 1820 that the slave “is still a human being, and possesses all those rights, of which he is not deprived by the positive provisions of the law.” 29

Free blacks were citizens and voted in most Northern states and Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. In Baltimore prior to 1800, more blacks voted than whites; but in 1801 and 1809, Maryland began to restrict black voting and in 1835 North Carolina prohibited it. Other states made similar restrictions, but a number of Northern states allowed blacks to vote and hold office. In Massachusetts this right was given nearly a decade before the American Revolution and was never taken away, either before or after the Civil War.

Slavery and the Constitution

The issue of slavery was considered at the Constitutional Convention. Though most delegates were opposed to slavery, they compromised on the issue when the representatives from Georgia and South Carolina threatened to walk out. The delegates realized slavery would continue in these states with or without the union. They saw a strong union of all the colonies was the best means of securing their liberty (which was by no means guaranteed to survive). They did not agree to abolish slavery as some wanted to do, but they did take the forward step of giving the Congress the power to end the slave trade after 20 years. 30No nation in Europe or elsewhere had agreed to such political action.

Even so, many warned of the dangers of allowing this evil to continue. George Mason of Virginia told the delegates:

Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of heaven upon a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. 31

Jefferson had written some time before this:

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever. 32

Constitutional Convention Delegate, Luther Martin, stated:

[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. 33

Some today misinterpret the Constitutional provision of counting the slaves as three-fifths for purposes of representation as pro-slavery or black dehumanization. But it was a political compromise between the north and the south.. The three-fifths provision applied only to slaves and not free blacks, who voted and had the same rights as whites (and in some southern states this meant being able to own slaves). While the Southern states wanted to count the slaves in their population to determine the number of congressmen from their states, slavery opponents pushed to keep the Southern states from having more representatives, and hence more power in congress.

The Constitution did provide that runaway slaves would be returned to their owners (We saw previously that returning runaway slaves is contrary to Biblical slave laws, unless these slaves were making restitution for a crime.) but the words slave and slavery were carefully avoided. “Many of the framers did not want to blemish the Constitution with that shameful term.” The initial language of this clause was “legally held to service or labor,” but this was deleted when it was objected that legally seemed to favor “the idea that slavery was legal in a moral view.” 34

While the Constitution did provide some protection for slavery, this document is not pro-slavery. It embraced the situation of all 13 states at that time, the Founders leaving most of the power to deal with this social evil in the hands of each state. Most saw that the principles of liberty contained in the Declaration could not support slavery and would eventually overthrow it.

As delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Luther Martin put it:

Slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression.35

We have seen that after independence the American Founders actually took steps to end slavery. Some could have done more, but as a whole they probably did more than any group of national leaders up until that time in history to deal with the evil of slavery. They took steps toward liberty for the enslaved and believed that the gradual march of liberty would continue, ultimately resulting in the complete death of slavery. The ideas they infused in the foundational civil documents upon which America was founded – such as Creator endowed rights and the equality of all men before the law – eventually prevailed and slavery was abolished. But not without great difficulty because the generations that followed failed to carry out the gradual abolition of slavery in America.

The View of Slavery Changes

Most of America’s Founders thought slavery would gradually be abolished. Roger Sherman said that “the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the U.S. and that the good sense of the several states would probably by degrees complete it.” 36 But it was not. Why?

  1. Succeeding generations did not have the character and worldview necessary to complete the task started by the Founders. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Each generation must take up the cause of liberty, which is the cause of God, and fight the battle. While the majority view of the Founders was that American slavery was a social evil that needed to be abolished, many in later generations attempted to justify slavery, often appealing to the Scriptures (though, I believe, in error at many points, as mentioned earlier).
  2. American slavery was not in alignment with Biblical slave laws and God’s desire for liberty for all mankind. This inconsistency produced an institution that proved too difficult to gradually and peacefully abolish. Some Founders (like Henry and Jefferson) could not see how a peaceful resolution was possible and gave the “necessary evil” argument. Henry said: “As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.” 37 Jefferson was opposed to slavery yet he thought that once the slaves gained freedom, a peaceful coexistence of whites and blacks would be very difficult to maintain. Jefferson predicted that if the slaves were freed and lived in America, “Deep-rooted prejudices entertained by the whites’ ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” 38 This is why many worked (especially many from Virginia, like James Monroe and James Madison) to set up a country in Africa (Liberia) where the freed slaves could live. Some at this time did not see integration as possible, and apart from the power of God, history has shown it is not possible, as there have been and are many ethnic wars. The church must lead the way in race relations, showing all believers are brothers in Christ, and all men have a common Creator.
  3. The invention of the cotton gin, which revived the economic benefit of slavery, also contributed to a shift in the thinking of many Americans. At the time of independence and the constitutional period most people viewed slavery as an evil that should and would be abolished. But by the 1830s, many people, including some Southern ministers, began to justify it. Some, like Calhoun, even said it was a positive thing. Others justified it by promoting the inequality of the races. Stephen Douglas argued that the Declaration only applied to whites, but Lincoln rejected that argument and sought to bring the nation back to the principles of the Declaration. In the end these principles prevailed.

The Civil War

It is not the intent of this article to examine the War between the States. 39 The causes behind the war were many. Certainly slavery was a part of the cause (and for a small number of wealthy and influential Southern slave owners, it was probably primary), but slavery was not the central issue for all people in the South. Most Southerners did not own slaves and most of those who did had only a small number. 40

States rights and perceived unconstitutional taxes were also motivations for secession. There were many abolitionists in the North, both Christian and non-Christian, who pushed for the war, seeing it as a means to end slavery. Though slavery was not initially the reason Lincoln sent troops into the South, he did come to believe that God wanted him to emancipate the slaves.

In all the complexities and tragedy of the war, God was at work fulfilling His providential purposes. Due to the sin of man, to his inability to deal with slavery in a Christian manner, and to other factors, a war erupted. Both good and bad in the root causes, produced good and bad fruit in the outcome of the war. 41

Though America’s Founders failed to accomplish all of their desires and wishes in dealing with the issue of slavery, the principles of equality and God-given rights they established in the American constitutional republic set into motion events leading to the end of slavery in the United States and throughout the world. That America was founded upon such Biblical principles is what made her a Christian nation, not that there was no sin in the Founders. It is because of the Christian foundations that America has become the most free, just, and prosperous nation in history. The Godly principles infused in her laws, institutions, and families have had immense impact in overthrowing tyranny, oppression, and slavery throughout the world.

Stephen McDowell, Author

Stephen McDowell is president of the Providence Foundation, a Christian educational organization whose mission is to spread liberty, justice, and prosperity among the nations by instructing individuals in a Biblical worldview.

Endnotes

1 R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, vol.1, p. 137.
2 Rushdoony, p. 286.
3 Rushdoony, pp. 485-486.
4 Rushdoony, p. 251.
5 Rushdoony, p. 251.
6 Rushdoony, p. 137.
7 Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965), p. 645.
8 Albert Bushnell Hart, The American Nation: A History (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1906), vol. 16, Slavery and Abolition, 1831-1841, p. 50.
9 “History of slavery is wide-ranging saga”, book review by Gregory Kane of The Slave Trade by Hugh Thomas (Simon and Schuster), in The Daily Progress, Charlottesville, Va., December 7, 1997.
10 The earliest known official protest against slavery in America was the Resolutions of Germantown, Pennsylvania Mennonites, February 18, 1688. See Documents of American History, Henry Steele Commager, editor (New York: F.S. Crofts & Co., 1944), 37-38.
11 William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, Carl E. Prince, editor (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988), Vol. V, p. 255, to the New York Manumission Society on June 26, 1786. In “The Founding Fathers and Slavery” by David Barton, unpublished paper, p. 5.
12 John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 50.
13 Rights of the Colonies, in Bernard Bailyn, ed., Pamphlets of the American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 439. In “Was the American Founding Unjust? The Case of Slavery,” by Thomas G. West, Principles, a quarterly review of The Claremont Institute, Spring/Summer 1992, p. 1.
14 Hart, p. 53.
15 Letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, in George Washington: A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), p. 319.
16 Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York & London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898), Vol. II, p. 321, to Robert Goodloe Harper, April 23, 1820. In Barton, p. 3.
17 Benjamin Rush, Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States Assembled at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24.. In Barton, p. 4.
18 Noah Webster, Effect of Slavery on Morals and Industry (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1793), p. 48. In Barton, p. 4.
19 Adams to Robert J. Evans, June 8, 1819, in Adrienne Koch and William Peden, eds., Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams (New York: Knopf, 1946), p. 209. In West, p. 2.
20 John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1854), Vol. IX, pp. 92-93, to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801. In Barton, p. 3.
21 “An Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery” (1789), in Franklin, Writings (New York: Library of America, 1987), p. 1154. In West, p. 2.
22 The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Adrienne Koch and William Peden, eds. (New York: Random House, 1944), p. 25.
23 Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, ed. (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1839), Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773.
24 Benjamin Quarles, The Negro and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), chaps. 4-6. In West, p. 2.
25 Barton, p. 5.
26 N. Dwight, The Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (New York: A.S. Barnes & Burr, 1860), p. 11.
27 West, p. 4.
28 Harry v. Decker & Hopkins (1818), in West, p. 4.
29 Mississippi v. Jones (1820), in West, p. 4.
30 Congress banned the exportation of slaves from any state in 1794, and in 1808 banned the importation of slaves. The individual states had passed similar legislation prior to 1808 as well. However, several Southern states continued to actively import and export slaves after their state ban went into effect.
31 Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell, America’s Providential History (Charlottesville, Va.: Providence Foundation, 1991), p. 227.
32 Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Trenton: Wilson & Blackwell, 1803), Query XVIII, pp. 221-222.
33 Luther Martin, The Genuine Information Delivered to the Legislature of the State of Maryland Relative to the Proceedings of the General Convention Lately Held at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Eleazor Oswald, 1788), p. 57. In Barton, p. 4.
34 West, p. 5. See Max Farrand, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937), vol. 2, p. 417 (remarks on August 25), and pp. 601 (report of Committee of Style), 628 (Sept. 15). See also Madison’s Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, August 25.
35 Luther Martin, Genuine Information (1788), in Herbert J. Storing, ed., The Complete Anti-Federalist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), vol. 2, p. 62. In West, p. 6..
36 Remarks at the Constitutional Convention, August 22, Farrand, vol. 2, pp.. 369-72. In West, pp. 7-8.
37 Henry to Robert Pleasants, Jan. 18, 1773, in Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds. The Founders’ Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), vol. 1, p. 517; Elliot, Debates, vol. 3, p. 590. In West, p. 6. Henry also pointed out that convenience contributed to the continuation of slavery. He said: “Is it not surprising that at a time when the rights of humanity are defined with precision in a country above all others fond of liberty ‹ that, in such an age, and in such a country, we find men, professing a religion the most humane and gentle, adopting a principle as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the Bible and destructive to liberty? Believe me, I honor the Quakers for their noble efforts to abolish slavery. Every thinking, honest man regrets it in speculation, yet how few in practice from conscientious motives. Would any man believe that I am master of slaves of my own purchase? I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. I will not, I cannot justify it. For however culpable my conduct, I will so far pay my devoir to virtue as to won the excellence and rectitude of her precepts, and to lament my own non-conformity to them.” In John Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise; or, Who Has the Right to Vote (Philadelphia: Merrihew & Son, 1865), pp. 31-32.
38 Jefferson’s Notes, Query XIV, p. 188.
39 See America’s Providential History, chapter 16 for more on a providential view of the war.
40 See Hart, pp. 67 ff. Hart records that in 1860 only about 5% of the white population made a substantial profit of slave-keeping (a direct profit; many others benefited from the commerce associated with slavery). About 2% of this number (0.1% of the total white population) were large plantation owners who exerted much political influence. Some people have pointed out that only 3% of Southerners owned slaves. While this is technically true in some measure, it is misleading. The 3% reflects ownership by the head of the household and does not include all its inhabitants. Taking this into account, at the time of the Civil War about 19% of the population lived in households with slaves; and this was 19% of total population which included a large number of slaves. When you consider that in 6 Southern states (Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina), there were almost as many or more slaves than whites, this 19% figure actually represents 35%-45% of the white population (in those states) having a direct relation to a home that had slaves.
41 See America’s Providential History, chapter 16 for some positive and negative effects of the war.

Impeachment of Federal Judges

The Founders’ intent for impeachment was to protect the fundamental principle of “the consent of the governed.” The Constitution carries no title but “We the People,” and impeachment removes from office those officials who ignore that standard. (Recall that the Constitution does not guarantee a federal judge his position for life, but only for the duration of “good behavior.” Art. III, Sec. 1)

For this reason impeachment was used whenever judges disregarded public interests, affronted the will of the people, or introduced arbitrary power by seizing the role of policy-maker. Previous generations used this tool far more frequently than today’s generation; and because the grounds for impeachment were deliberately kept broad, articles of impeachment have described everything from drunkenness and profanity to judicial high-handedness and bribery as reasons for removal from the bench. (Sixty-one federal judges or Supreme Court Justices have been investigated for impeachment, of whom thirteen have been impeached and seven convicted.)

Today’s judiciary, not having experienced any serious threat of impeachment as judges in earlier generations, repeatedly flaunts its contempt for the will of the people. It recently has overturned direct elections in Washington, New York, California, Arkansas, Texas, Missouri, etc., simply because it preferred a different outcome. This is not to suggest that the results of all citizen elections are final and infallible, for it is the duty of the Court to protect the Constitution. However, the above elections violated at most the judiciary’s ideological leanings rather than any manifest provision of the Constitution (e.g., English as a State’s official language, ending government assistance for illegal immigrants, enacting term-limits, prohibiting physician-assisted suicides).

Examples of Judicial Abuses

While most are aware of the 9th Circuit’s recent decision that saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance threatens our American form of government, there are numerous additional examples, some staggeringly unbelievable. For example, in Jane Doe v. Santa Fe, a federal judge ruled that graduation prayers must not include any mention of “Jesus” or other “specific deities” and that any student offering such a prayer would face immediate arrest and up to six months in jail. The judge threatened “violators” by saying they would wish they “had died as a child” once his court finished with them.

In a Texas county where conservatives narrowly won multiple seats in an election, a federal judge reversed that outcome by arbitrarily throwing out the 800 votes cast by U.S. military personnel, saying they had no right to vote in local elections.

A federal judge in Nashville reviews the verdict of any jury in Tennessee that awards the death penalty. This judge has openly declared his personal opposition to the death penalty and has set aside every jury decision on this issue, despite the Constitution’s explicit language to the contrary. The judge even allows nine years to pass, on average, before overturning the jury’s sentence, thus disregarding the Constitution’s guarantee to a speedy trial.

After citizens in a statewide election voted down a proposed tax-increase in Missouri, a federal judge, in direct violation of Article I of the Constitution, unilaterally set aside the election results and instead decreed that the tax be levied in order to finance his own personal plan for education in the State. Interestingly, this judge’s plan (which funded the “Taj Majal” of public education) proved to be a dismal failure – at the continuing economic expense of the entire State.

There are many other examples; today’s judiciary is now so arrogant that the Supreme Court’s own Justices have described it as “a super board of education for every school district in the nation,” as amateur psychologists on a “psycho-journey,” and as “a national theology board.”

The Supreme Court versus Congress

Even though the Constitution gave the lawmaking powers to the Congress, courts have become the predominant policy making body in the nation. In fact, on public tours of the Supreme Court, one often hears the ridiculous claim that “this is the building from which all the laws in the land emanate.” The Supreme Court, fully believing its own propaganda, regularly strikes down or rewrites the laws of Congress to conform to its own predilections and edicts.

For example, in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to correct an earlier Supreme Court decision that weakened a long-standing First Amendment protection for religious groups. That Congressional act reinstituted protection declaring that a government entity must not interfere with a religious body unless it had “a compelling state interest” for doing so. When a Catholic church in Boerne, Texas, sought to accommodate its burgeoning membership but was denied a building permit to expand its facilities, the church invoked relief under RFRA, claiming the city had no “compelling state interest” in denying the church expansion. The Court ruled otherwise, striking down Congress’ attempt to protect religious bodies from government intrusion. While most decried this decision for weakening the rights of religious bodies, there was a far greater question at stake.

Congress invoked Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution in passing RFRA to protect religious freedoms from further governmental encroachment. Yet even though the Congress had acted on the power explicitly given it in the Constitution, the Court struck down the law, refusing to be corrected by Congress and warning that Congress should not attempt to correct a Court ruling. Significantly, Congress cited the Constitution as its authority for passing RFRA, but the Court did not cite the Constitution as its authority for striking RFRA down. The Court instead pointed to its own previous decisions, thus elevating its rulings higher than the Constitution itself. As it explained, “Any suggestion that Congress has a substantive, non-remedial power under the Fourteenth Amendment is not supported by our case law.” The Court then rebuked Congress, warning that its judicial edicts must be treated “with the respect due them.” In short, we the Court demand that you the Congress adhere to our opinions regardless of what the Constitution says.

Obviously, the Supreme Court considers both itself and its decisions supreme over Congress. However, the Constitution disagrees – it deliberately empowers Congress with greater power. For example, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to set the salaries for judges, determine the size of the Judiciary, establish the scope of the Judiciary’s jurisdiction and the types of cases which come before it. Furthermore, judges cannot serve without the approval of Congress, and Congress may remove judges with whom it is dissatisfied. These are just some of the “constitutional arms” for Congress’ “powers of self-defense” (Federalist 73, Alexander Hamilton).

The Constitution clearly places many of the operations of the Judiciary under the oversight of Congress – a power not granted reciprocally to the Judiciary. This is made clear in the Federalist Papers (described by James Madison as “the most authentic exposition of the heart of the federal Constitution”), which confirm that subjugating the Judiciary to Congress was deliberate and intentional. Federalist #51 declares:

The legislative authority necessarily predominates.

Federalist #78 then proclaims:

The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.

Furthermore, Federalist #49 declares that Congress – not the Court – is “the confidential guardians of [the people’s] rights and liberties.” Why? Because the Legislature – not the unelected judiciary – is closest to the people and most responsive to them. In fact, the Court’s own history proves that it is not a proficient guardian of the people’s rights. For example, after the Civil War, Congress passed civil rights laws forbidding segregation, but the Court struck down these laws and instead instituted “separate but equal” in Plessey v. Ferguson. (While the Court eventually ended this racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, that decision was merely the Court’s reversal of its own segregation standard previously established in Plessey.)

Moreover, had it been up to the Court, slavery would have never ended: in 1857, the Court declared it unconstitutional for the other branches to end slavery or to free slaves. Fortunately, Congress ignored that decision by declaring freedom for slaves in 1862 and President Lincoln also ignored that decision by issuing the “Emancipation Proclamation” in 1863. All substantive progress in civil rights after the Civil War was accomplished only after Congress used Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to remove Reconstruction issues from the Court’s reach. Indeed, history demonstrates that the Court is less than a faithful guardian of the people’s rights, violating the people’s liberties as often as it protects them. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out:

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. . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

Today, the Court claims that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution – that Congress is incapable of determining constitutionality. However, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed. For example, James Madison declared:

[T]he meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority.

Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin similarly attested:

A knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the Judges than to the Legislature.

The Founders consistently opposed the Court being the final word on constitutionality. For example, Thomas Jefferson declared:

[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. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

He further explained that if the Court was left unchecked:

The Constitution . . . [would be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

Allowing the Court to enlarge its own sphere of power beyond what the Constitution authorizes, permitting the Court to usurp the powers of Congress, and tolerating the Courts’ disregard of constitutional separation of powers moves America ever further from being a representative republic and ever closer toward the oligarchy against which Jefferson warned. The Court must be resisted in these attempts.

Impeachment: The Founders’ Solution

As noted earlier, judges in previous generations who usurped powers from Congress or the people faced impeachment. But today’s critics claim that the use of impeachment would either make the judiciary a “political” branch (as if it were not already a political branch) or that it would violate the “independence of the judiciary.” Yet, as Thomas Jefferson so accurately cautioned,

It should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics that whatever power . . . is independent is absolute also. . . . Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass.

No judge should ever be so independent that he is unaccountable to the Congress, and thereby the people. As Justice James Iredell (placed on the Court by President George Washington) so clearly explained:

Every government requires it [impeachment]. Every man ought to be amenable for his conduct.

Iredell further noted that some officials will behave themselves only under “the very terror of punishment” that impeachment provides. Recent events suggest he was right.

In 1996, six members of the Supreme Court voted to overturn the Colorado election forbidding special (rather than just equal) rights for homosexuals. Following that flagrant display of contempt for the will of Colorado voters, there was a national call for the impeachment of those six Justices. After this clamor for their removal, those same six Justices suddenly became ardent defenders of the people’s elections and in a subsequent decision unexpectedly and unanimously chastised a lower court that had overturned a statewide election in Arizona. (Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson on multiple occasions called impeachment a “scarecrow” – something used to frighten predators – and the threat of impeachment certainly had that effect on the Supreme Court.)

Similarly, after a federal judge overturned a binding referendum by the voters of California (“Proposition 209”), national leaders called for the impeachment of that judge. Later, the 9th Circuit ordered the results of the election reinstated and criticized that judge for ignoring the will of the people. Yet, this same 9th Circuit Court had itself shortly before overturned at least three similar elections. Why the flip-flop? The “scarecrow” had been forcefully raised by Congress to make judges accountable for their decisions by returning to the original constitutional uses of impeachment.

It is true that impeachment is a cumbersome process, and achieving a conviction is difficult. However, on most occasions, just the threat of impeachment produces results. In fact, there are several examples of federal judges correcting their own decisions after hearing Congressional calls for their impeachment; and an actual impeachment sends an even more powerful message to all other wayward leaning judges.

Although Congress is ultimately responsible for the discipline of judges, far too many of our Congressmen (like far too many of our citizens) have no understanding of the proper use of impeachment. However, a wise political axiom declares that “Congress sees the light when it feels the heat,” and this is especially true on this issue. As citizens, we need to educate ourselves on the proper use of judicial impeachment, and then we need to educate our Representatives, reminding them of the need for judicial reform and alerting them to those judges showing a pattern of abuse. The time for encouraging judicial accountability is once again ripe. This is a golden opportunity for citizens to weigh in and make a difference.

Copyright © 2002 David Barton, WallBuilders

(An excellent tool for educating yourself and your Congressional representative is the book Restraining Judicial Activisim . This work documents both the Founders writings on this issue and how impeachment was used in America in previous generations. Get a copy for yourself and an extra copy for your Representative and Senators!)

 

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

Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act

Congressman Walter Jones from North Carolina’s 3rd District has introduced H.R. 235, the “Houses of Worship  Free Speech Restoration Act.” This bill would amend the IRS Code of 1986 to restore the ability of churches and other houses of worship to freely participate in political campaigns.

According to Congressman Jones:

“In 1954, then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson offered an amendment to a revenue bill that would permanently extend the stranglehold of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) into our nation’s churches, synagogues and mosques. Since that time, the IRS has turned the 501(c)(3) code-section on its head in an attempt to punish pastors, priests and rabbis for nothing more than communicating the principles of faith during an election period. If passed, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act would restore the rights of all religious organizations to determine for themselves what they can and cannot teach from their pulpits, or communicate to their congregation and the public without fear that their tax status may be in jeopardy. It is time to restore freedom to our Nation’s pulpits.”

houses-of-worship-free-speech-restoration-actTo contact your Representative or Senator: From a constitutional perspective, it is unconscionable that the current policy penalizing the free speech of religious institutions has remained intact and unchallenged for this long. The government has long recognized that institutions of faith and houses of worship have provided vital services to our communities and our nation. In fact, our public policy has been to honor the valuable contributions of these organizations with an exemption from taxes both for the organizations themselves and for the individuals and groups who support them. Regrettably, because of a simple appropriations rider in 1954, our public policy changed to recognizing the valuable contributions of houses of worship only if they gave up their constitutional right to free speech. (What an amazing exchange: we will honor your charitable contributions but only if you will give up your constitutional rights!) This obviously represents bad public policy and unjustly muzzles thousands of churches across America by preventing them from exercising their fundamental right to free speech. Free speech is most valuable when it is exercised during the elections of our government leaders.

  1. If you do not know your U. S. Congressman, go to https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative and type in yo ur zip code to learn the name of your Representative.
  2. Call the U.S. Capitol at (202) 224-3121. When the Capitol switchboard operator answers, ask for your Senator or Representative by name. When that office answers, ask to speak to your Congressman or Senator. If he is available, he will speak with you; if he is unavailable, simply tell his staff your thoughts on H.R. 235 and how you would like him to vote.
  3. If you wish to write and communicate the same message, the address is:

Name of your Representative

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC, 20515

 

Name of your Senator

U.S. Senate

Washington, DC, 20510

(To access information (bill text, sponsors, status, etc.) and track the progress of the “Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act,” go to https://clerk.house.gov/Votes and type in “HR 235” to see how your Congressman voted on a similar bill on October 2, 2002, click here. WallBuilders offers The Role of Pastors and Christians in Civil Government, which documents  the historic role people of faith played in our government.)

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

Echoes of 1860: Is “Life” a Question of State’s Rights?

Much like the election of 1860, the 2008 presidential election generated a spirited debate over the correct relationship between the state and federal governments. The 1860 election debated the relationship of “states’ rights” to the issue of liberty; the 2008 election resurrected the issue of “states’ rights” but instead in the areas of life and family. Several of the 2008 presidential candidates declared themselves to be pro-life and pro-marriage but, citing federalism and “states’ rights,” they oppose either a Human Life or Marriage Amendment to the federal Constitution, claiming that such issues are to be decided by the state rather than the federal government. Yet a candidate’s position on such issues actually identifies their understanding of inalienable rights rather than their commitment to federalism.

In the original governing principles set forth in the Declaration (and then subsequently incorporated into the Constitution through Article VII), the right to life is one of three specifically identified inalienable rights; additional inalienable rights were subsequently enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The original documents – both the Declaration and the Constitution – make clear that the primary purpose of government, at all times and in all situations, is to protect those few inalienable rights.

Some candidates believed that the right to life is inalienable only to the degree that a specific state agrees – that if a state does not believe that the right to life is inalienable, then the federal government should not force the state to protect that right. Yet protection for the few specifically enumerated inalienable rights must always surpass what any particular state wishes – and this is the proper constitutional position on all inalienable rights, whether of life, private property, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of religious expression, etc. It is the duty of all government – including state governments – to protect inalienable rights. In fact, if the philosophy originally set forth in the Declaration of Independence and subsequently secured in the Constitution is rejected – the belief that there is a God, that He gives inalienable rights to man, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights at all times (even when the states refuse to do so) – then there is no longer a unique American philosophy of government that will distinguish us from the rest of the world.

Understanding this, voices across the nation therefore asserted that what the state of Connecticut did in weakening property rights vis a vi the Kelo decision was intolerable because our founding documents specifically protected the inalienable right of private property through the Fifth Amendment; and they likewise asserted that what Washington, D. C. was doing with gun bans was wrong because it similarly violated the inalienable right to keep and bear arms secured to the people through the Second Amendment. Why, then, do they now believe that it is improper for the federal government to tell states that they must observe the inalienable right to life and traditional family set forth with equal force in the very same documents?

Some candidates even declared that because they are strict constructionists, they oppose amendments to the Constitution (a strict constructionist is one who supports interpreting the Constitution according to its original intent). Yet, since the Founders specifically included Article V in the Constitution to specify how the Constitution might be amended, then a strict constructionist must also support the part of the Constitution providing for its own amendment. In fact, refusing to consider a constitutional amendment does not reflect strict constructionism but rather a rejection of Article V of the Constitution.

The Founders wisely raised the bar so high as to make it is extremely difficult to pass any amendment, requiring a two-thirds approval of Congress and three-fourths approval of the states before any change could occur. Consequently, while there have been over 10,000 amendments to the Constitution proposed since 1789, only twenty-seven have been able to meet the constitutional standard. Of those twenty-seven, twelve were passed by the Founders themselves (the original “strict constructionists”) in only twenty years; in the subsequent two-hundred years, the nation has made just fifteen changes.

Federal constitutional amendments should be rare, but that does not mean they should be non-existent. States cannot be allowed to pick and choose which inalienable rights they will protect (although under the Constitution they are completely competent to determine virtually all other issues). The Constitution was written to preserve American culture and society, not to cause citizens to stand idly by while the culture is destroyed – especially when they have in their hands the means to preserve it through a constitutional amendment in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.

Some voices naively assert that simply eradicating abortion at the federal level and returning the issue to the states will correct the problem, but they are completely wrong. When the federal courts get out of the abortion issue and return it to the states, 20 states (based on both pro-life and pro-abortion estimates) will continue their current abortion practices, and those states include many with the largest population (e.g., California, New York, Illinois, etc.). Citizens from the other 30 states will therefore travel to one of those 20 states to get an abortion; so while the number of abortions will undoubtedly go down when the issue is returned to the states, it will come nowhere close to ending. Additionally, stopping abortion at the federal level will do nothing to correct the legal rulings generated in the state courts over the past 35 years as those state courts infused federal court positions into their own state case law. State courts will remain hostile to state attempts to restrict abortion because state case law is now as infused with the broad “health” exceptions, etc., as were the federal decisions.

A parallel legal analogy to today’s life and marriage protection concerns is seen in the 1860 slavery issue. At that time, even though the right to liberty was an inalienable right guaranteed in the founding documents, slavery was so deeply imbedded in the nation that the mere federal removal of itself from that issue vis a vi several federal statutes passed from 1861-1865 did little or nothing to change the slave culture in any of the states, either North or South – and those federal statutes certainly did nothing to change the bad court rulings that had occurred at the state level over the previous century.

Historically, the only manner in which bad case law can be completely eradicated from the law books (and thus completely terminate a long-standing harmful national practice that has permeated the states) is through a constitutional amendment – and a number of constitutional amendments have been passed to do just that (13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, etc.). In fact, had there been no constitutional amendments to secure the inalienable right to liberty that had been so egregiously violated by so many states, then there likely would still be slavery in America today as one generation, or family, or judicial system transmitted its errant beliefs to the next. So, too, with abortion.

The federal government should never have intruded itself into the abortion issue through the multiple Supreme Court decisions that opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box; however, the federal government did intrude itself. As a result, the abortion culture is now deeply implanted in America, and there are those who are as committed to that practice today as there were those who were committed to slavery a century-and-a-half ago. And abortion (like slavery before it) has become one of the nation’s biggest economic businesses; it therefore will not be eradicated from the nation by mere statutory action at the state level (or vice versa).

The Founding Fathers established federalism to preserve states’ rights, but they also placed the protection of inalienable rights far above the level of states’ rights. Candidates who desire to lead the nation should follow the Framers’ example and conform to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, protecting life and marriage through the constitutional process those early leaders wisely provided.

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

American Voters and the Abortion Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significantly, polling reveals that liberals are much more focused on abortion as a single issue than are Christians. A 2005 survey affirmed that among liberals, “no other issue rivals abortion in importance,” but that among Evangelicals, “three-quarters . . . view abortion as very important, [and] nearly as many place great importance on court rulings on the rights of detained terrorist suspects (69%) and whether to permit religious displays on government property (68%).”21 Therefore, while the 45 percent identified by a Fox News poll is a significant number, that high number really has no meaning unless those who hold pro-life values vote in high percentages .

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

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.24

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

Endnotes

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

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

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

4 Numbers provided by the House Pro-Life Caucus.

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

6 In the 2004 elections, a total of 125,736,000 votes were cast; twenty-three percent of voters were “Evangelicals,” thus translating into 28.9 million votes. See sources at New York Times,“Religious Voting Data Show Some Shift, Observers Say,”; and U. S. Census Bureau, “Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2004”.

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

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

9 Numbers provided by the House Pro-Life Caucus.

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

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

12 American Family Association, “Loretta Sanchez of California Amendment; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004”; University of Maryland, “CRS
Report for Congress: Abortion Services and Military Medical Facilities”, pp. 17-18; National Women’s Health Network, “The Women’s Health Activist: The Hyde Amendment’s Prohibition of Federal Funding for Abortion — 30 Years is Enough”; National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, “The Hyde Amendment: Fact Sheet”; Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, “US ‘Mexico City’ Policy: Abortion funding in foreign countries,” last updated April 27, 2007 .

13 United States Senate, “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress-2nd Session” (at https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002); United States Senate, “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress-1st Session” (at https://www.senate.gov/
legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245).

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

15 In the 2006 elections, a total of 85,251,089 votes were cast; twenty-four percent of voters were “Evangelicals,” thus translating into 20.5 million votes. See sources at George Mason University, “United States Elections Project: 2006 Voting-Age and Voting- Eligible Population Estimates”; New York Times, “Religious Voting Data Show Some Shift, Observers Say”.

16 Numbers provided by the House Pro-Life Caucus.

17 See for example: Wikipedia.com, “List of Freshmen Class Members of the 110th United States Congress” (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_
of_freshman_class_members_of_the_110th_United_States_Congress).

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

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

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

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

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

23 Numbers from a study by San Francisco-based Community Marketing Inc. reported in the Los Angeles Times online blog on August 8, 2007 (at https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/08/
gay-power.html).

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

Meet The ACLU

The ACLU aggressively pursues an agenda in many different areas that seeks to undermine the values and beliefs of most Americans in those areas. (Unless noted otherwise in the footnotes, the sources are from the ACLU’s website: www.aclu.org

Criminal Justice Issues

The ACLU opposes:

  • The use of drug-sniffing dogs1
  • Attempts to strengthen DUI alcohol laws2
  • Laws restricting areas where the sexual offenders of children can live3
  • Life sentences for juveniles convicted of extremely violent crimes4
  • The “Three Strikes” law mandating harsher sentences for those with three felony convictions5
  • Withholding voting rights for felons6

The ACLU opposes the death penalty, and:

  • Claims: “The death penalty is contrary to fundamental notions of human rights. The United States is the only major country of the Western world that tolerates the death penalty.”17
  • Seeks to halt death penalty executions,8 claiming that “death by lethal injection is extraordinarily painful and [can] constitute cruel and unusual punishment.”9

Illegal Drug Issues

The ACLU opposes:

  • Mandatory sentencing laws for crack-cocaine possession10
  • Shutting down Methadone clinics11
  • Laws stipulating where half-way houses may be located12
  • Drug testing of welfare recipients13
  • Federal faith-based drug treatment programs14
  • Federal laws banning student loans to convicted drug addicts15

The ACLU supports:

  • “Medical” marijuana laws16

Abortion Issues

The ACLU supports:

  • Abortion and abortion-on-demand17
  • Increased funding for pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood18
  • Euthanasia19

The ACLU opposes:

  • Abstinence-only sex education for students20
  • Conscience protection rights for medical providers21
  • Informed consent and “Women’s Right to Know” laws22
  • Pro-life state license plates23

Immigration & Illegal Alien Issues

The ACLU supports:

  • Government services for illegal aliens24

The ACLU opposes:

  • Federal immigration laws targeting border security and preventing entrance of illegal aliens205 as well as the enforcement of those laws26
  • Denying drivers licenses to illegal aliens27
  • Federal laws identifying citizenship status of those receiving treatment at medical facilities28

Homosexual Issues

The ACLU supports:

  • Homosexuality29
  • Gay marriage30 and benefits for gay “families”31
  • Adoptions by gays,32 gays as foster parents,33 “parental” rights for gay “parents,”34 and gay parent family training35
  • Gay clubs on school campuses,36 gay campus publications and articles on campus,37 and forcing straight students to attend gay sensitivity training38
  • Gays in the military39
  • Pro-gay state license plates40

The ACLU opposes:

  • Marriage between only a man and a woman41
  • A school competition asking “students to explain why preserving marriage between men and women is vital to society and why unborn children merit respect and protection.”42

The ACLU supports:

  • Bigamy and polygamy43
  • Pedophilia and legalizing sex between children and adults44
  • Transgender rights45

Religious Expression Issues

The ACLU opposes:

  • Ten Commandments displays46
  • Use of government facilities by the Boy Scouts47
  • Religious symbols in public parks48
  • Prayers at military academies49

At the federal level, the ACLU opposes:

  • Keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance50
  • Keeping the national motto (“In God We Trust”) on currency51
  • Faith-based programs52
  • The observance of religious holidays53

At the state level, the ACLU opposes:

  • The mention of God in a state motto54
  • Prayers to open legislatures55
  • Moment-of-silence laws at schools56
  • Religious sales tax exemptions57
  • Educational choice and vouchers58
  • Prayer in judicial arenas59

At the local level, the ACLU opposes:

  • Character cities60
  • Mayor’s prayer breakfasts61
  • City council prayers62
  • School board prayers63
  • Nativity scenes64
  • Religious symbols in city seals65
  • Voluntary distribution of Gideon Bibles66

In schools, the ACLU opposes:

  • Graduation prayers67
  • Athletic prayers68
  • Intelligent Design or any mention of creation or a Creator69
  • Prayers at school70 or at school events71
  • School choirs singing religious songs72

Miscellaneous Issues

  • Opposes library policies blocking access of minors to sexual content, gambling, and illegal activities73
  • Opposes denying visas to foreigners who oppose the United States government74
  • Opposes one federal agency from sharing with another federal agency the information that it has on Arabs in America75
  • Supports anti-American foreign terrorists captured on the battlefield having the same constitutional protections as U. S. citizens,76 even though the guarantees in the U. S. Constitution apply only to American citizens
  • Supports activists disrupting military funerals and confronting the distraught family members with offensive and inappropriate language77
  • Opposes banning convicted sex offenders from having access to parks where children play78
  • Supports the notion that the “separation of church and state” trumps students’ freedom of speech79
  • Supports prison inmates being permitted to view pornography80

Endnotes

1 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Illinois Disappointed with High Court Ruling on Drug Dog Searches,” January 24, 2005 ; ACLU.org, “Nine Mile Falls School District Abandons Drug-Sniffing Dog Searches,” March 30, 2006.

2 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics,” January 9, 2006.

3 ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review Iowa’s Sex Offender Residency Restriction,” September 29, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Washington Files Lawsuit over Issaquah Housing Ordinance” August 31, 2005.

4 ACLU.org, “Children Sentenced to Life Without Parole Bring Plea to Human Rights Body,” February 22, 2006.

5 ACLU.org, “After High Court Upholds Harsh ‘Three Strikes’ Sentencing Law,” March 5, 2003.

6 ACLU.org, “ACLU of WA Supports New Legislation to Restore Voting Rights to Ex-Felons,” February 24, 2003.

7 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Massachusetts Decries Federal Imposition of Death Penalty Charge in Local Murder Case,” December 23, 2003.

8 ACLU.org, “ACLU Says California’s Use of Paralytic Drug During Executions is Unconstitutional,” January 13, 2005; ACLU.org, “Kansas Supreme Court Strikes Down Death Penalty Law,” December 21, 2004; ACLU.org, “NYCLU Hails New York Appeals Decision Invalidating State Death Penalty,” June 24, 2004; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Massachusetts Decries Federal Imposition of Death Penalty Charge in Local Murder Case,” December 23, 2003; ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues Ohio Officials to Expose Hidden Procedures in Execution of Death Row Inmates,” September 25, 2003.

9 ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Maryland’s Death Penalty,” January 20, 2006; ACLU.org, “Tennessee’s Use of Lethal Injection Chemical Blocks Public’s First Amendment Right to Know, Says ACLU,” June 8, 2005.

10 ACLU.org, “ACLU Says Mandatory Minimums are Discriminatory and Urges Inter-American Commission to Condemn Unfair Practice,” March 3, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU and Sentencing Experts Urge Federal Court to Uphold Judges’ Right to Reject 100-to-1 Crack/Powder Ratio,” January 20, 2006.

11 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Virginia Offers Legal Aid to Methadone Clinics Barred From Opening Under New Law,” March 3, 2005.

12 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Florida Asks Court to Strike Down Ban on Residential Housing for Recovering Addicts,” March 7, 2003.

13 ACLU.org, “Settlement Reached in ACLU of Michigan Lawsuit Over Mandatory Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients,” December 18, 2003.

14 ACLU.org, “ACLU Decries House Legislation that Earmarks $100 Million For Unproven Faith-Based Drug Treatment Programs,” July 10, 2003.

15 ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Federal Law That Refuses Financial Aid to Students With Drug Convictions,” March 22, 2006.

16 ACLU.org, “Round Two Begins in Legal Fight to Force Feds to Honor States’ Medical Marijuana Laws,” January 31, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Alaska Calls on Attorney General to Clarify State’s Commitment to Uphold Medical Marijuana Statute,” June 16, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Oregon Urges State Officials to Immediately Resume Medical Marijuana Card Program,” June 9, 2005.

17 ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Defeat of Abortion Ban in Mississippi,” March 28, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls on South Dakotans to Join the Effort to Stop Extreme Abortion Ban,” March 24, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU Says South Dakota’s Extreme Abortion Ban Will Endanger Women’s Health and Lives,” March 6, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Call On U.S. Supreme Court to Hold Women’s Health Paramount,” February 21, 2006; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Hail Two Appeals Court Rulings Holding Federal Abortion Ban Unconstitutional,” January 31, 2006; ACLU.org, “Planned Parenthood and ACLU Ask Supreme Court to Protect Women’s Health in First Abortion Case Before the Roberts Court,” November 30, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Decision Allowing Access to Reproductive Healthcare Services for MO Prison Inmate,” October 17, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Ask Appeals Court to Uphold Ruling Striking Down Federal Abortion Ban,” October 6, 2005; ACLU.org, “Federal Court Strikes Michigan Abortion Ban for Third Time; Reproductive Rights Groups Hail the Decision,” September 15, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU Praises Court Decision Striking Arizona Jail Policy Denying Inmates Access to Timely, Safe and Legal Abortions,” August 25, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Hail First Appeals Court Ruling Holding Federal Abortion Ban Unconstitutional,” July 8, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU and Planned Parenthood Applaud Court Decision Striking Idaho’s Third Attempt at Restricting Teenagers’ Access to Abortion,” July 1, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU Launches Web Site for Reproductive Rights Activists,” June 23, 2005; ACLU.org, “Groups Ask Court to Block Michigan’s Abortion Ban,” June 14, 2005; ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls Upon Congress to Protect the Health and Reproductive Rights of Women in the Military,”; ACLU.org, “ACLU Confident the U.S. Supreme Court Will Uphold Lower Court Decision Striking New Hampshire Law Restricting Teenagers’ Access to Abortion”; ACLU.org, “ACLU Awarded 2005 Christopher Tietze Humanitarian Award for Its Work on Challenge to the Federal Abortion Ban”; ACLU.org, “Planned Parenthood and ACLU Applaud Decision by U.S. Supreme Court Refusing to Review Idaho Law Restricting Teenagers’ Access to Abortion”; ACLU.com, “ACLU Denounces Teen Endangerment Act”; ACLU-Mn.org, “Michigan Abortion Ban Put on Hold While Challenge Proceeds”; ACLU.org, “As House Convenes Hearings, ACLU Says Teen Endangerment Act Puts Vulnerable Lives at Risk”; CLRP.org, “Women’s Health Care Providers Challenge MI Law Banning Virtually All Abortions”; ACLU.org, “ACLU and National Abortion Federation Vow to Defend Federal Abortion Ban Victory As DOJ Pursues Appeal”; ACLU.org, “Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down New Hampshire Law Restricting Teens’ Access to Abortion”; ACLU.org, “Federal Abortion Ban Struck Down Today in Nebraska”; ACLU.org, “Federal Abortion Ban Struck Down Today in New York”; ACLU.org, “ACLU Warns Legislation Would Put Lives of Young Women at Risk”; ACLU.org, “Planned Parenthood and ACLU Hail Appeals Court Decision Striking Down Idaho’s Extreme Parental Consent Law”; ACLU.org, “Closing Arguments in Federal Abortion Ban Trial Heard Today in New York”; ACLU.org, “ACLU Says Adults Helping Frightened Teens Should Not Become Outlaws”; ACLU.org, “Reproductive Rights Groups Hail First Ruling To Permanently Block Federal Abortion Ban”.

18 ACLU.org, “ACLU Hails Amendment to Increase Funding to Prevent Unplanned Pregnancies” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/24612prs20060316.html).

19 ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Federal Court Decision Upholding Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law” (at https://www.aclu.org/disability/gen/10634prs20020417.html).

20 ACLU.org, “ACLU Hails Rhode Island Department of Education Efforts to Stop the Use of Harmful “‘Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage’ Curriculum in Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/24721prs20060322.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Announces Settlement in Challenge to Government-Funded Religion in the Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program the “‘Silver Ring Thing'” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/24246prs20060223.html); “ACLU Announces Nationwide Action Aimed at Combating Dangerous Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Curricula in the States” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/20117prs20050921.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Federal Government’s Decision to Suspend Public Funding of Religion by Nationwide Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program” (at https://www.aclu-mass.org/news/08.22.05%20SilverRing.pdf); LAACLU.org, “ACLU Troubled by Court’s Refusal to Hold Louisiana Governor’s Program on Abstinence in Contempt for Continuing to Preach with Taxpayer Dollars” (at https://www.laaclu.org/News/2005/June24GPADecision.htm); ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Misuse of Taxpayer Dollars to Fund Religion in Nationwide Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12602prs20050516.html); LAACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Court to Stop Louisiana Governor’s Program on Abstinence From Continuing to Preach with Taxpayer Dollars” (at https://www.laaclu.org/News/2005/March24AbstinenceHearing.htm); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Court to Hold Louisiana’s Abstinence-Only Program in Contempt” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12754prs20050120.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls On Lawmakers to Stop Spending Taxpayer Dollars on Dangerous Abstinence-Only Sex Education” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12740prs20041201.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Louisiana to Remove Religious Content from Abstinence-Only Website” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/12734prs20041117.html); ACLU.org, “NYCLU Criticizes Ban on Condom Demonstrations in Sex Education Classes in New York” (at https://www.aclu.org/hiv/prevention/11572prs20040827.html).

21 ACLU.org, “ACLU Condemns Passage of Measure That Allows Religiously Affiliated Health Care Institutions to Jeopardize Women’s Health” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12737prs20041120.html).

22 ACLU.org, “Planned Parenthood and ACLU Hail Florida Appeals Court Decision Striking Down Law that Would Have Forced Physicians to Give Patients Irrelevant Information” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/medical/12731prs20041013.html).

23 ACLU.org, “ACLU Troubled By Appeals Court Decision Allowing Anti-Choice License Plate in Tennessee” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/24696prs20060317.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Appeals Court To Uphold Ruling Blocking Anti-Choice License Plate in TN” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/21253prs20051102.html); ACLU.org, “Tennessee Court Blocks Anti-Choice License Plate; ACLU and Planned Parenthood Say Decision Protects Free Speech” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12711prs20040924.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Planned Parenthood Ask Tennessee Court to Block Anti-Choice License Plate” (at https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12709prs20040923.html).

24 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “Ohio’s Proposed Immigration Plan Will Disadvantage Community” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/24486prs20060307.html) ACLU.org, “Leaving Immigrants Out of Census Will Result in Funding Shortfalls, ACLU Says” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/24486prs20060307.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Indiana Urges Rejection of Anti-Immigrant Bill” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/23963prs20060127.html).

25 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls Flawed House Border Security Bill An Assault on Privacy” (at https://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/22437prs20051208.html).

26 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “Community Members Express Concerns Over Orange County Plan to Involve Local Police in Federal Immigration Enforcement” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/23230prs20051216.html).

27 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “ACLU of Rhode Island Sues DMV Over Driver’s License Procedures For Immigrants” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11746prs20050523.html).

28 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Rhode Island Hospitals to Protect Patients’ Privacy” (at https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11817prs20040921.html).

29 ACLU.org, “New Report Challenges Rhode Island Drunk Driving Statistics ACLU.org, “About Us” (at https://www.aclu.org/about/index.html).

30 ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York’s High Court to End Unfairness Against Gay Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24354prs20060303.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Tennessee Files Appeal Over Passage of Anti-Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24349prs20060223.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Promises to Appeal Marriage Case for Same-Sex Couples to New York’s Highest Court” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24175prs20060216.html); ACLU.org, “Oral Arguments Held in Federal Appeals Court: ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Court to Uphold Prior Ruling Striking Down Extreme Antigay Nebraska Law Banning All Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24136prs20060213.html); ACLU.org, “Six Same-Sex Couples Urge Florida Supreme Court to Strike Initiative Threatening Families of Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24103prs20060208.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Pennsylvania Calls Proposed Constitutional Amendment Anti-Family and Discriminatory” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24079prs20060124.html); ACLU.org, “Maryland Court Says State Cannot Bar Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/23558prs20060120.html); ACLU.org, “Religious and Civil Rights Groups Support Same-Sex Couples in Legal Battle to Marry” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/23411prs20060110.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Utah Files Friend-of-the-Court Brief in Support of Domestic Partner Benefits for Salt Lake City Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21623prs20051111.html); ACLU.org, “Senate Panel Must Rebuff Discriminatory Amendment to Constitution, ACLU Says Measure Must be Stopped Again” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/21213prs20051109.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU, NCLR, and Lambda Legal Urge California Appeals Court to Affirm Decision Ending Unfairness Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/21204prs20051109.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Federal Appeals Court to Uphold Ruling Striking Down Extreme Nebraska Law Banning All Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21251prs20051101.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls on Lawmakers to Reject Discriminatory Marriage Amendment Again” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/21165prs20051020.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York Appeals Court to Strike Down Law Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21150prs20051017.html); ACLU.org, “Proponents of Anti-Gay Initiative Concede It Would Ban Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership Laws” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21139prs20051012.html); ACLU.org, “Six Same-Sex Couples File Challenge to a Florida Anti-Gay Initiative Threatening all Protections for Families of Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/19955prs20050921.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Massachusetts Praises Legislators for Voting Down Discriminatory Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/20044prs20050914.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Maryland Court to Strike Down Law Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/19936prs20050830.html); ACLU.org, “Maryland Religious Leaders Join Together to Support Marriage for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/19866prs20050829.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York Appeals Court to End Unfairness Against Gay Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12202prs20050519.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Court Strikes Down Nebraska’s Anti-Gay-Union Law Banning Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12201prs20050512.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Tennessee Files Lawsuit Challenging State Amendment Banning Marriages for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12233prs20050421.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds California Judge’s Decision Ending Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu-mn.org/16Mar20052.html); “Massachusetts ACLU and Town Clerks Challenge Governor’s Discriminatory Ban on Marriage Licenses for Non-Resident Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12138prs20050311.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Washington Supreme Court To Uphold Marriage Equality” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12144prs20050308.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Decision by New York Trial Judge Striking Down Laws Banning Same-Sex Couples from Marrying” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12432prs20050204.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Criticizes Reintroduction of Federal Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12431prs20050124.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges California Trial Court to End Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12446prs20041222.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU to Ask the Oregon Supreme Court to Provide Same-Sex Couples With Protections of Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12443prs20041215.html); ACLU.org, “New York Trial Court Decision Denying Marriage for Same-Sex Couples Advances ACLU Lawsuit to Appeals Court” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12456prs20041207.html); ACLU.org, “New CD Marry Me Supports the ACLU’s Efforts to Win Marriage for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/12427pr
s20041112.html); ACLU.org, “Following Passage of Gay Marriage Bans in 11 States, ACLU Vows to Continue Striving for Equality” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12430prs20041103.html); ACLU.org, “Prominent Legal Scholars Join ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Georgia Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12420prs20041020.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Federal Court To Strike Down Nebraska Law Banning Recognition of Gay Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12417prs20041015.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Disappointed with Arkansas Supreme Court’s Decision on Misleading “Marriage” Ballot Initiative” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12422prs20041007.html).

31 ACLU.org, “Unanimous Alaska Supreme Court Says It Is Unconstitutional to Deny Equal Benefits to Lesbian and Gay State Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21248prs20051028.html). ACLU.org, “Michigan Marriage Amendment Does Not Reach the Workplace, Judge Rules” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/20055prs20050927.html?ht); ACLU.org, “ACLU Sets Record Straight on Costs of Domestic Partner Benefits” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/19859prs20050714.html); ACLU.org, “California Supreme Court Clears the Way for Comprehensive Domestic Partnership Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12248prs20050629.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Launches Marriage Campaign to Move Americans to Treat Families of Same-Sex Couples More Fairly” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/12210prs20050516.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Seeks Health Insurance and Family Leave for Lesbian and Gay Wisconsin State Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12232prs20050420.html); ACLUFL.org, “ACLU Says Florida’s Proposed Marriage Ban Threatens Health Benefits for Thousands of Families” (at https://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=961); ACLU-SC.org, “ACLU Cheers Decision by California Appeals Court Removing Legal Challenge to Domestic Partnership Law” (at https://www.aclu-sc.org/News/Releases/2005/100848/); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Michigan Files Lawsuit of Behalf of 21 Couples Who May Lose Same-Sex Partner Benefits Under Proposal 2” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12192prs20050321.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Files Discrimination Lawsuit on Behalf of Couple Kicked Out of Health Care Center Because They Are Lesbian” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12133prs20050224.html); ACLU.org, “NYCLU Files Same-Sex Benefits Lawsuit on Behalf of Rochester Woman” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12436prs20050113.html); ACLU.org, “Montana High Court Says University System Must Provide Gay Employees with Domestic Partner Benefits” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12451prs20041230.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Ends Discrimination Lawsuit Against the University of Pittsburgh Following Decision to Provide Equal Benefits to Gay Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12404prs20041005.html).

32 ACLU.org, “ACLU and NCLR Halt Legal Action After Promise from California Adoption Agency that It Won’t Discriminate” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/20088prs20051005.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Disappointed the Supreme Court Will Not Hear an Appeal in Case Challenging Florida’s Anti-Gay Adoption Law” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12438prs20050110.html); ACLU.org, “Child Welfare League of America Backs ACLU in Challenging Florida Gay Adoption Ban” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12454prs20041209.html).

33 ACLU.org, “Missouri Judge Rules That Lesbian Can Be Foster Parent” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/24195prs20060217.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Arkansas Supreme Court to Uphold Ruling” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/23094prs20051219.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Argues Challenge to Missouri’s Anti-Gay Foster Care Ban” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/21258prs20051103.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Missouri Judge to Let Lesbian Become Foster Parent” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/19858prs20050721.html). ACLU.org, “Lesbian Challenges Missouri Policy Barring Gay People from Foster Parenting” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12196prs20050502.html); ACLU.org, “Arkansas Anti-Gay Foster Care Ban Overturned” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12448prs20041229.html); ACLU.org, “Trial Concludes in ACLU Challenge to Arkansas Anti-Gay Foster Care Ban” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12444prs20041220.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Resumes Challenge to Arkansas Anti-Gay Foster Care Policy” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12403prs20041005.html).

34 ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Child Custody Award For Surviving Lesbian Mom in West Virginia” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12242prs20050617.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges West Virginia High Court Not to Take Four-Year-Old From His Surviving Lesbian Mom” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12433prs20041206.html).

35 ACLU.org, “Just in Time for Mother’s Day, ACLU Launches Toolkit for LGBT Parents” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12197prs20050503.html).

36 ACLU.org, “ACLU Files Federal Lawsuit Against White County, Georgia School District for Illegally Blocking Gay-Straight Alliance Club” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/24284prs20060227.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Florida Warns School Board Not to Deny Students’ Right to Form Gay-Straight Alliances” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/24119prs20060206.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Judge Rules That High Schools Cannot Out Lesbian and Gay Students” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/22068prs20051201.html); ACLU.org, “Following ACLU Lawsuit, Colorado Springs High School Ends Second-Class Status for Gay-Straight Alliance” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/21730prs20051122.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Judge to Reopen Kentucky Gay-Straight Alliance Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12240prs20050706.html). ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Georgia Students’ Gay-Straight Alliance Victory” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12180prs20050322.html).

37 ACLU.org, “As a Result of Lawsuit, School Agrees to Allow Publication of Articles on Sexual Orientation” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/21200prs20051104.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Alabama Condemns Proposed Bill that Would Ban State Funds for Lesbian and Gay Books” (at https://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/11527prs20041202.html).

38 ACLU.org, “ACLU Hails Federal Court Ruling on School Trainings Aimed at Reducing Anti-Gay Harassment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/24215prs20060218.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Court to Uphold Kentucky School’s Training Aimed at Reducing Anti-Gay Harassment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/23156prs20051220.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Tells Federal Court That Mandatory Anti-Gay Harassment Training Does Not Violate Students’ Freedom of Religion” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12236prs20050428.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Court to Let Students Join in Kentucky Anti-Gay Harassment Training Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12149prs20050401.html).

39 ACLU.org, “Law Schools Shouldn’t Be Forced to Accommodate Military Recruiters, Says ACLU” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/rumsfeldv.fair041152/22304prs20051206.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Expresses Disappointment Over Supreme Court Ruling in Military Recruitment Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/rumsfeldv.fair041152/24377prs20060306.html).

40 ACLU.org, “ACLU Persuades Utah to Approve Personalized License Plates with Gay-Positive Messages” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/20186prs20050727.html).

41 ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York’s High Court to End Unfairness Against Gay Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24354prs20060303.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Tennessee Files Appeal Over Passage of Anti-Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24349prs20060223.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Promises to Appeal Marriage Case for Same-Sex Couples to New York’s Highest Court” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24175prs20060216.html); ACLU.org, “Oral Arguments Held in Federal Appeals Court: ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Court to Uphold Prior Ruling Striking Down Extreme Antigay Nebraska Law Banning All Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24136prs20060213.html); ACLU.org, “Six Same-Sex Couples Urge Florida Supreme Court to Strike Initiative Threatening Families of Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24103prs20060208.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Pennsylvania Calls Proposed Constitutional Amendment Anti-Family and Discriminatory” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/24079prs20060124.html); ACLU.org, “Maryland Court Says State Cannot Bar Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/23558prs20060120.html); ACLU.org, “Religious and Civil Rights Groups Support Same-Sex Couples in Legal Battle to Marry” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/23411prs20060110.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Utah Files Friend-of-the-Court Brief in Support of Domestic Partner Benefits for Salt Lake City Employees” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21623prs20051111.html); ACLU.org, “Senate Panel Must Rebuff Discriminatory Amendment to Constitution” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/21213prs20051109.html; ACLU.org, “ACLU, NCLR, and Lambda Legal Urge California Appeals Court to Affirm Decision Ending Unfairness Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/21204prs20051109.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Federal Appeals Court to Uphold Ruling Striking Down Extreme Nebraska Law Banning All Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21251prs20051101.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Calls on Lawmakers to Reject Discriminatory Marriage Amendment Again” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/21165prs20051020.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York Appeals Court to Strike Down Law Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21150prs20051017.html); ACLU.org, “Proponents of Anti-Gay Initiative Concede It Would Ban Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership Laws” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/21139prs20051012.html); ACLU.org, “Six Same-Sex Couples File Challenge to a Florida Anti-Gay Initiative Threatening all Protections for Families of Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/19955prs20050921.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Massachusetts Praises Legislators for Voting Down Discriminatory Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/20044prs20050914.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Maryland Court to Strike Down Law Barring Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Protections” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/19936prs20050830.html); ACLU.org, “Maryland Religious Leaders Join Together to Support Marriage for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/19866prs20050829.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges New York Appeals Court to End Unfairness Against Gay Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12202prs20050519.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Court Strikes Down Nebraska’s Anti-Gay-Union Law Banning Protections for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12201prs20050512.html); ACLU.org, ACLU of Tennessee Files Lawsuit Challenging State Amendment Banning Marriages for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12233prs20050421.html); ACLU-MN.org, “ACLU Applauds California Judge’s Decision Ending Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu-mn.org/16Mar20052.html); ACLU.org, “Massachusetts ACLU and Town Clerks Challenge Governor’s Discriminatory Ban on Marriage Licenses for Non-Resident Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12138prs20050311.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Washington Supreme Court To Uphold Marriage Equality” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12144prs20050308.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Decision by New York Trial Judge Striking Down Laws Banning Same-Sex Couples from Marrying” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12432prs20050204.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Criticizes Reintroduction of Federal Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12431prs20050124.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges California Trial Court to End Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12446prs20041222.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU to Ask the Oregon Supreme Court to Provide Same-Sex Couples With Protections of Marriage” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12443prs20041215.html); ACLU.org, “New York Trial Court Decision Denying Marriage for Same-Sex Couples Advances ACLU Lawsuit to Appeals Court” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12456prs20041207.html); ACLU.org, “New CD Marry Me Supports the ACLU’s Efforts to Win Marriage for Same-Sex Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/relatedinformation_press_releases.html); ACLU.org, “Following Passage of Gay Marriage Bans in 11 States, ACLU Vows to Continue Striving for Equality” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12430prs20041103.html); ACLU.org, “Prominent Legal Scholars Join ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Georgia Marriage Amendment” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12420prs20041020.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Urge Federal Court To Strike Down Nebraska Law Banning Recognition of Gay Couples” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12417prs20041015.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Disappointed with Arkansas Supreme Court’s Decision on Misleading “Marriage” Ballot Initiative” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12422prs20041007.html).

42 ACLU.org, “Civil Rights Groups in New Mexico Denounce High School Contest Soliciting Anti-Gay, Anti-Choice Student Essays” (at https://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/gen/21792prs20051122.html).

43 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html).

44 GETACLU.org, “The ACLU needs to get A CLU” (at https://www.getaclu.org/).

45 ACLU.org, “Federal Court Rules Transgender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Library of Congress Can Proceed” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/24851prs20060331.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU and Lambda Legal Challenge Law Barring Transgender People Access to Medical Treatment in Prison” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/23913prs20060124.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Army Veteran Against Library of Congress for Transgender Discrimination” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/12256prs20050602.html).

46 ACLU.org, “Georgia County Agrees to Remove Ten Commandments Display from Courthouse” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/20163prs20050719.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Ohio Victorious in Another Ten Commandments Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16351prs20040714.html); ACLU.org, “Supreme Court Agrees to Review Two Challenges to Government-Endorsed Ten Commandments Displays” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2004/13970prs20041012.html); ACLU.org, “Citing Religious Freedom, Appeals Court Bars Government Placement of Ten Commandments Monument in Nebraska Park” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16107prs20040218.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Appeals Court Hears ACLU Argument Against Government Endorsement of Ten Commandments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16203prs20030407.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Appeals Court Rejects KY’s Ten Commandments Monument as Government-Endorsed Religion” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16153prs20021009.html); ACLU.org, “High Court Again Refuses to Review Ban on Government Endorsement of Ten Commandments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16175prs20020225.html); ACLU.org, “Acting on Behalf of Concerned Residents and Clergy, ACLU of TN Challenges Posting of Ten Commandments in County Buildings” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16054prs20020129.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Kentucky Files Lawsuit Over Government-Endorsed Ten Commandments Postings in Four Counties” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16045prs20011127.html); ACLU.org, “County Officials in IA Agree to Remove Ten Commandments from Courthouse Grounds” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16126prs20010315.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Montana Settles Lawsuit Over Ten Commandments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16298prs20001012.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of GA Sues Local Officials Over Ten Commandments Image in County Seal” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16292prs20000515.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Illinois Lauds Officials’ Decision to Remove Religious Postings in Harrisburg Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16168prs19991207.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Action Prompts School Board to Abandon Posting of Ten Commandments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16109prs19991124.html); ACLU.org, “Commandments Come Down In West Virginia School” (at https://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12801prs19990827.html).

47 ACLU-IL.org, “Prominent Chicago Religious Leaders Applaud Court Order Ending Pentagon’s Special Funding for Boy Scout Jamboree” (at https://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/000286.shtml; ACLU.org, “Pentagon Agrees to End Direct Sponsorship of Boy Scout Troops in Response to Religious Discrimination Charge” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16382prs20041115.html); ACLU.org, “In Final Chapter of San Diego Park Lease Case, Court Rules Against Boy Scouts on All Issues” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12115prs20040414.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of San Diego Secures Landmark Settlement in Boy Scout Lease Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/11950prs20040108.html).

48 ACLU.org, “San Diego Ends Nine-Year Effort To Keep Christian Cross in a Public Park” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16058prs19990903.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Appeals Court Upholds ACLU Charge That Cross in Mojave Federal Preserve Violates Constitution” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16225prs20040607.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues Federal Government Over Christian Cross in Mojave National Preserve” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16319prs20010322.html).

49 ACLU.org, “School-Sponsored Prayers at VA Military Institute Wrongly Entangle Government and Religion, Court Declares” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16120prs20020124.html); ACLU.org, “Supreme Court Lets Ban on Coerced Prayer at Virginia Military Institute Stand” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2003/13910prs20040426.html).

50 ACLU.org, “ACLU Praises Appeals Court Decision Striking Down Pennsylvania’s Mandatory Pledge of Allegiance Law” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16350prs20040819.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Ruling Removing the Phrase “Under God” From Pledge of Allegiance Recited in Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/2003/13914prs20040324.html).

51 AFA.net, “Judge OKs Controversial “‘In God We Trust’ Poster” (at https://www.afa.net/journal/february/religiona.asp); see also https://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0104a/12/a2.html)

52 “ACLU Calls On Providence Police Department To Halt Faith-Based “Prayer” Program” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16310prs20001128.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Decries House Legislation that Earmarks $100 Million For Unproven Faith-Based Drug Treatment Programs” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16078prs20030710.html).

53 ACLU.org, “ACLU Files Challenge to Religion-Themed Post Office in Connecticut Town” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16343prs20031003.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues Over Ohio School District’s Policy on Religious Holidays” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16111prs19990825.html).

54 ACLU.org, “Ohio Appeals Court Strikes Down Christian State Motto as Unconstitutional” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16291prs20000425.html).

55 ACLU.org, “Indiana Court Upholds Challenge to House’s Exclusionary Sectarian Prayers” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22088prs20051130.html).

56 ACLU.org, “U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Strike Down Virginia’s “‘Minute of Silence’ Law” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16043prs20010831.html).

57 ACLU.org, “High Court Rejects Sales Tax Appeal on Religious Goods” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16165prs19991012.html).

58 ACLU.org, “Parents, Educators Denounce Florida Voucher Scheme, Say Program Hurts Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16266prs20050606.html); ACLU.org, “Maine Civil Liberties Union Urges High Court to Keep Government Out of Religion Business” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16255prs20050324.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Appeals Court Decision Striking Down Florida School Voucher Program” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16349prs20040816.html); ACLU.org, “High Court Hears Arguments on Ohio Vouchers” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16124prs20020219.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Denounces Voucher, Block Grant Schemes; Says Congress Should Reject Divisive Amendments” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16328prs20010521.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Michigan Celebrates Sound Defeat of Voucher Program” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16309prs20001108.html); ACLU.org, “New ACLU Report Says CA’s Proposed Voucher Program Leaves Neediest Behind” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/vouchers/16297prs20001011.html).

59 ACLU.org, “ACLU Lawsuit Seeks to End West Virginia Judge’s Courtroom Prayer Sessions” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16290prs20000511.html).

60 ACLU.org, “ACLU Warns Against “Character Cities” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16134prs19990902.html).

61 ACLU.org, “Five Georgia Residents Sue to Block Extremist City-Sponsored Prayer Breakfast” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16041prs20020103.html).

62 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Virginia Defends Fredericksburg’s Decision to Ban Sectarian Prayers at Open City Council Meetings” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/24227prs20060216.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of San Diego Challenges Sectarian Prayers at City Council Meetings on Behalf of Resident” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16234prs20040505.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Sectarian Invocation at San Diego County Board of Supervisors Meetings” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16285prs20000629.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Court Says that Virginia County’s Prayer Policy Violates Religious Freedom Rules” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16100prs20031113.html).

63 ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues PA School District to Stop Official Prayers at Graduation and School Board Meetings” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16269prs20050526.html); ACLU.org, “Louisiana School Board Repeatedly Defied Federal Court Order, Charges ACLU” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16261prs20050405.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Asks Virginia School Boards Not to Open Meetings with Prayer” (at https://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12795prs19991001.html).

64 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Rhode Island Sues On Behalf of Town Resident’s Objection to City Hall Religious Display” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16093prs20031222.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Monitoring New Rule Regarding Nativity Scene Display in Iowa Town” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16092prs20031203.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Montana Challenges County Creche Display” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16139prs19991221.html).

65 ACLU.org, “The Fish Must Go: Court Rules Missouri Must Remove Religious Symbol from City Logo” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16114prs19990709.html).

66 ACLU.org, “Missouri School District Agrees to Stop Distributing Bibles to Students” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16228prs20040603.html).

67 ACLU.org, “As Graduation Approaches, Colorado Family Asks Court to End School-Sponsored Religious Exercises” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16048prs20020523.html); ACLU.org, “Louisiana Family Seeks ACLU Help in Ending Sponsored Prayers in Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16159prs20020517.html); ACLU.org, “ICLU Brings Lawsuit On Behalf of Students Required to Sing Lord’s Prayer at Graduation” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16044prs20020401.html; ACLU.org, “ACLU of Nebraska Sues Over Graduation Prayer” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16053prs20011129.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU of Illinois Hails Judge’s Decision Blocking School-Sanctioned Prayer at Graduation Ceremony” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16327prs20010517.html); ACLU.org, “Supreme Court Sets Aside Appeals Court Ruling in Jacksonville School Prayer Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16300prs20001002.html).

68 ACLU.org, “ACLU Supports Parents in Demanding that Coach Stop Leading Prayer Before Football Games” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16307prs20001030.html); ACLU.org, “Warning of Legal Consequences, ACLU Urges South Carolina School to End Prayer Broadcasts” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16301prs20000901.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Hails “‘Total Victory’ for Religious Liberty In High Court’s Rejection of School Stadium Prayers” (at https://www.aclu.org/scotus/1999/16294prs20000619.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Sues Ohio School District Over Football Team Prayers” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16123prs19990628.html).

69 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Ohio Demands Schools Stop Teaching Intelligent Design as Science” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/24147prs20060214.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds Decision in “‘Intelligent Design’ Case” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/23144prs20051220.html); ACLU.org, “ACLU Applauds School Board Vote to Remove Evolution Disclaimers From Science Textbooks” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20126prs20050714.html); ACLU.org, “Federal Judge Orders Georgia School District to Remove Evolution Disclaimers” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16376prs20050113.html); ACLU.org, “Pennsylvania Parents File First-Ever Challenge to “Intelligent Design” Instruction in Public Schools” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16372prs20041214.html); ACLU.org, “Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html). ACLU.org, “ACLU Urges Kansas Public Schools to Reject Religion-Based Evolution Teachings in Science Classes” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16121prs19990813.html).

70 ACLU.org, “In Victory for Religious Liberty, Unanimous Appeals Court Finds LA’s School Prayer Law Unconstitutional” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16155prs20011212.html).

71 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Nebraska Files Complaint Against School Official Who Lead Prayers at Assembly” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16320prs20010321.html); ACLU.org, “In Long-Awaited Victory, High Court Vacates Alabama Decision Allowing Public School Prayer” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16286prs20000626.html).

72 ACLU.org, “ACLU of Ohio Demands Cancellation of Government-Sponsored “‘Faith-Based’ Concert” (at https://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/16348prs20040816.html).

73 ACLU.org, “Following ACLU Action, Rhode Island Public Libraries Agree to Give Patrons Increased Access to Internet” (at https://www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorship/20153prs20051007.html).

74 ACLU.org, “ACLU Challenges Patriot Act Provision Used to Exclude Prominent Swiss Scholar from the United States” (at https://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23908prs20060125.html); ACLU.org, “U.S. Scholars and Writers Say Government Should End Censorship at the Border” (at https://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23908prs20060125.html).

75 ACLU.org, “After Latest Data Release Controversy, ACLU Urges Census Bureau to Create Privacy Advisory Committee” (at https://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15739prs20040805.html); ACLU.org, “Request Follows Report that Bureau Shared Data on People of Arab Descent With Homeland Security Officials” (at https://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15739prs20040805.html).

76 USAToday.com, “ACLU: FBI ruse used in Guantanamo abuse (at https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-21-gitmo-probe_x.htm).

77 Washingtonpost.com, “ACLU Challenges Ky. Funeral Protest Law” (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006
050101936.html).

78 Chicago Tribune, “Sex Offenders Sue Over City’s Ban” (at https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606010152jun01,
1,5132453.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed); ACLU Indiana, “Legal Docket: Doe v. City of Plainfield” (at https://www.iclu.org/subpage.asp?p=32).

79 Amarillo Globe-News, “Court of appeals dismisses school prayer case”.

80 ABC News, “ACLU wants porn to be allowed for South Carolina inmates” (at https://abc7.com/archive/8162220/).

 

The Bible and Taxes

Capital Gains Taxes

The Capital Gains Tax, which is a tax on profits, actually penalizes a person for success. With this, the more profit you make the more you have to pay. (The more profit a person makes the higher tax rate they pay on that profit/windfall from an investment). However, in the Bible, those who earn more profit are rewarded. The parables of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) and of the minas (Luke 19:12-27) conflict with the notion of a tax on capital gains. “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.” In other words, the Bible implies that those who invest well with what they have will receive more.

Wages

The parable of the landowner and laborers (Matthew 20:1-16) is applicable to the employer/employee relationship and the issue of wages. The landowner hires workers at different times of the day and yet pays each worker the same amount at the end of the day. When the workers hired first complain, the landowner replies, “Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?” (“things” is translated as “money” in some versions) There is an implication that the landowner had the right to determine the wages of his workers, as well as an implication that the workers could accept or reject the landowner’s offer of work. James 5:4 balances this by stating that the Lord hears the cries of the laborers who are cheated out of their due wages.

Income Taxes

The current income tax structure in the United States mandates a higher tax rate or percentage the more a person makes. This tax system is contradicted by scripture, especially Exodus 30:11-15, which provided a “half a shekel” tax for everyone numbered. Verse 15 states: “The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel.” In addition, the Biblical Tithe is not applied progressively, rather it is applied equally to everyone. (“And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s. It is holy to the Lord. . . .And concerning the tithe of the herd or the flock, of whatever passes under the rod, the tenth one shall be holy to the Lord.” Leviticus 27:30,32)

Inheritance Taxes

The Bible speaks to the issue of inheritance numerous times. Proverbs 13:22 states “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” (This is not likely with the Estate Tax which can take up to 55% of an estate. Thus leaving 45% to the children. When the children pass it on to the grandchildren, up to 55% of the remaining 45% can be taken. Thus only 27% of the original is passed on to the “children’s children”). Ezekiel 46:18 states that “the prince shall not take any of the people’s inheritance by evicting them from their property; he shall provide an inheritance for his sons from his own property, so that none of My people may be scattered from his property.” Other scriptures that deal with inheritance are Proverbs 19:14, I Chronicles 28:8, and Ezra 9:12.