I recommend a general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow. John Jay, Original Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court

No people ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the Great Disposer of Events and of the Destiny of Nations than the people of the United States. And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land. James Madison

Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society. George Washington

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

These quotes, coupled with the numerous others already presented in this chapter, overwhelmingly confirm the blatant inaccuracy of the Court’s assertion that the government remains secular. The crowning irony of this case was that the Court upheld the menorah while striking down the crèche, thus evoking this strong criticism in the dissent:

The Supreme Court of the United States has concluded that the First Amendment creates classes of religions based on the relative numbers of their adherents. Those religions enjoying the largest following must be consigned to the status of least-favored faiths so as to avoid any possible risk of offending members of minority religions. The decision in this case clearly illustrates that when the standard of original intent is abandoned, Court decisions lack what Justice William Rehnquist termed “unified and principled results” demonstrated by the fact that within only a five-year period, the Court had completely reversed itself on the issue of crèches. As Justice Antonin Scalia accurately observed:

We have been able to chart a course that preserved the autonomy and freedom of religious bodies while avoiding any semblance of established religion. This is a “tight rope” and one we have successfully traversed.

Justice Brennan continued that praise:

The line we must draw between the permissible and the impermissible is one which accords with history and faithfully reflects the understanding of the Founding Fathers. However, not only were these self-commendations and self-serving, as already demonstrated, they also were false. Yet, this case introduced a further step in the continuing rewriting of the First Amendment when Justice William Douglas claimed that its purpose was to enhance non-religion and to promote pluralism:

One of the mandates of the First Amendment is to promote a viable, pluralistic society one which acknowledges no religion or system of belief above any other and to keep government neutral, not only between sects, but also between believers and nonbelievers. It is unquestionably true that our Founders did respect many major religions. For example, while describing a federal parade in Philadelphia, Benjamin Rush commented:

The rabbi of the Jews locked in the arms of two ministers of the Gospel was a most delightful sight. There could not have been a happier emblem. George Washington’s letter to the Hebrew congregation of Savannah showed similar warmth:

May the same wonderworking Deity, who long since delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors and planted them in the promised land, whose Providential agency has lately been conspicuous in establishing these United States as an independent nation, still continue to water them with the dews of Heaven and to make the inhabitants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people whose God is Jehovah.

Of the Hebrews, John Adams had declared:

I will insist that the Hebrew have done more to civilize men than any other nation. They preserve and propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty Sovereign of the Universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization.

The legislature used general terms and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts, under those circumstances, to say that, however broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute. Previous courts had long applied this principle to cases on the First Amendment, consistently finding that the Founders’ sole intent was to prevent the federal establishment of a single denomination of Christianity. However, the nation now finds itself under the “absurd results” stemming from the Courts’ ignoring the Founders’ massive documentation concerning the purpose of the First Amendment. Our Founders never envisioned that the First Amendment would become a weapon to excise Christian or traditional religious expressions from the public arena.

Eight of the Supreme Court’s contemporary landmark religious liberty cases will be reviewed in this chapter; each will demonstrate that the absurd results feared by previous Courts have now become commonplace. As the Court’s rulings in these eight cases are reviewed, rebuttals to the Court’s rulings will also be presented. These rebuttals will be taken from two sources: one, the statements and declarations of the Founding Fathers, and two, the dissents of other Justices, thus presenting the other side of the Court’s decision. According to the following proverb, such an examination is vital to determining truth: He who states his case first seems right until his rival comes and cross-examines him. Proverbs 18:17 Amplified Bible

Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight. Proverbs 18:17 Living bible

Through the “cross-examination” provided both by the dissents and by the Founders’ declarations, it will quickly become evident how extensively contemporary Courts not only have abandoned but also have contradicted the original intent of the First Amendment. McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948

This case, decided the year following the Everson decision which introduced the separation phrase, was typical of an issue frequently raised in subsequent cases: can voluntary religious activities be unconstitutional? The controversy in this case was over elective classes offered in Illinois schools. The Court delineated the facts:

I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship. Of Paine’s views, John Adams wrote: The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard scoundrel, rogue Paine say what he will. In fact, when asked about several of Thomas Paine’s disciples coming to America, Adams replied:

The German letter proposing to introduce into this country a company of schoolmasters, painters, poets, &c., all of them disciples of Mr. Thomas Paine, will require no answer. I had rather countenance allow the introduction of Ariel and Caliban two evil spirits in Shakespearean plays with a troop of spirits. Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him: When I heard you had turned your mind to a defense of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.

The people of New England, if you will allow me to use a Scripture phrase, are fast returning to their first love. Will you excite among them the spirit of angry controversy at a time when they are hastening to amity and peace? I am told that some of our newspapers have announced your intention to publish an additional pamphlet upon the principles of your Age of Reason. Do you think that your pen, or the pen of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine’s Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”; Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine’s work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”; John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”; John Quincy Adams accused Paine of having departed from the fundamental principles that produced strong representative government; and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation a full-length rebuttal to Paine’s work.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor. Now, therefore, I do recommend that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue.

During his Presidency, Washington remained just as outspoken about the importance of religion to government as he had been while he was Commander- in-Chief. For example, in October 1789, he declared: While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support. And on March 11, 1792, he explained: I am sure there never was a people who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that Agency which was so often manifested during our revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.

Washington, in addition to helping America traverse many stressful situations, had personally observed many others throughout the world. For example, the French Revolution, with its proponents of amorality and atheism, had produced a bloodbath and display of horrors in France during his Presidency. In the midst of this embarrassing French spectacle, his “Farewell Address” on September 17, 1796, delivered an articulate warning which summarized what had made the American experiment so successful:

There is no soldier so undaunted as the pious man, no army so formidable as those who are superior to the fear of death. There is nothing more awful to think of than that those whose trade is war should be despisers of the name of the Lord of hosts and that they should expose themselves to the imminent danger of being immediately sent from cursing and cruelty on earth to the blaspheming rage and despairing horror of the infernal pit. Let therefore everyone who offers himself as a champion in his country’s cause be persuaded to reverence the name and walk in the fear of the Prince of the kings of the earth; and then he may with the most unshaken firmness expect the issue God’s protection either in victory or death.

On June 30, Congress passed the Articles of War to govern the Continental Army. In it, Congress directed that: It is earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers diligently to attend Divine service; and all officers and soldiers who shall behave indecently or irreverently at any place of Divine worship, shall be brought before a court-martial. While calling both the nation and its army to pray, Congress did not neglect its own spiritual duties.

On July 19, 1775, it voted: Agreed, that the Congress meet here tomorrow morning at half after 9 o’clock in order to attend Divine service at Mr. Duché’s Church; and that in the afternoon they meet here to go from this place and attend Divine service at Doctor Allison’s church. Despite the continuing hostility and armed conflicts, no official separation had occurred between America and Great Britain; the Patriots yet remained British citizens. In July 1775, in another attempt to achieve a peaceful reconciliation, Congress approved “The Olive Branch Petition” which, in a completely conciliatory and submissive tone, pleaded for a full review of the unlawful policies being imposed upon them. By November, word returned that not only had the King and Parliament refused to give any hearing to their request, they had instead imposed a complete embargo against all the Colonies. As word of this rejected reconciliation attempt spread among the people and as the British continued their military operations against the Colonists public emotions and anger heightened, bringing action both at the State and national level.

For example, on the State level, the Massachusetts legislature acted to form its own navy. Even the naval emblems approved by the legislature on April 29, 1776, reflected the religious tone evident throughout the State: Resolved, that the uniform of the officers be green, and that they furnish themselves accordingly, and the colors be a white flag with a green pine tree and an inscription, “Appeal to Heaven.” At the national level, on March 13, 1776, William Livingston prepared a Congressional proclamation for a national day of prayer and fasting. Congress designated May 17, 1776, as the day for its observance. That proclamation declared:

These, and numerous similar documents, establish that Christianity was the prominent influence in the early growth and orderly development of civil government in the New World. The Founding of Education in America Many settlers to America had suffered persecution for their Christian beliefs at the hands of other “Christians” many of the civil abuses of Europe inexcusably occurred under the banner of Christianity – the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc.. When Europe finally began to move away from such abuses, it did so because of the efforts of leaders like Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, John Huss, William Tyndale, and others.

These individuals believed that it was the Biblical illiteracy of the people which had permitted so many civil abuses to occur; that is, since the common man was not permitted to read the Scriptures for himself, his knowledge of rights and wrongs was limited to what his civil leaders told him. The American settlers, having been exposed to the Reformation teachings, believed that the proper protection from civil abuses in America could be achieved by eliminating Biblical illiteracy.

In this way, the citizens themselves rather than just their leaders could measure the acts of their civil government compared to the teachings of the Bible. Consequently, one of the first laws providing public education for all children the “Old Deluder Satan Law,” passed in Massachusetts in 1642 and in Connecticut in 1647 was a calculated attempt to prevent the abuse of power which can be imposed on a Biblically-illiterate people. That public school law explained not only why students needed an education but also how it was to be accomplished: It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former time.

It is therefore ordered that after the Lord hath increased the settlement to that after the Lord hath increased the settlement to the number of fifty householders, they shall then forthwith appoint one within their town, to teach all such children as shall resort to him, to write and read. And it is further ordered, that where any town shall increase to the number of one hundred families or householders, they shall set up a grammar school to instruct youths, so far as they may be fitted for the university.

Justice James Wilson agreed that responsibility was the central issue: What is meant by the liberty of the press is that there should be no antecedent restraint upon it; but that every author is responsible when he attacks the security or welfare of the government, or the safety, character, and property of the individual. The exercise of any freedom without responsibility more often than not leads to licentiousness, and often to tyranny. As illustrated by the following statements, this was never intended: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” That this Amendment was intended to secure to every citizen an absolute right to speak, or write, or print, whatever he might please without any responsibility, public or private, therefore, is a supposition too wild to be indulged by any rational man. This would allow every citizen a right to destroy at his pleasure the reputation, the peace, the property, and even the personal safety of every other citizen. Joseph Story, U. S. Supreme Court Justice; A Father Of American Jurisprudence

If a printer offends you, attack him in your paper, because he can defend himself with the same weapons with which you wound him; type against type is fair play; but to attack a man who has neither types nor printing press, or who does not know anything about the manual of using them, is cowardly in the highest degree. Benjamin Rush, Signer Of The Declaration “Every citizen might freely speak, write, and print, on any subject, but is responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” Without such a check, the press, in the hands of evil and designing men, would become a most formidable engine instrument as mighty for mischief as for good.

James Kent, A Father Of American Jurisprudence While the issue of the press is really a side note to the central issue of the Kneeland case, it nonetheless underscores the fact that too often today the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and speech have been misinterpreted to protect irresponsible and even irrational exercises of personal vindictive prerogatives. Without the requirement of accountability, Justice Joseph Story warned that the press would “become the scourge of the republic, first denouncing the principles of liberty, and then, by rendering the most virtuous patriots odious through the terrors of the press, introducing despotism in its worst form.” John M’Creery’s Lessee v. Allender, 1799 Supreme Court of Maryland Thomas M’Creery emigrated from Ireland to the United States where, upon his death, he left his American estate to a relative in Ireland.

The historical “straying” from the Founders’ original meaning for the First Amendment has been greatly facilitated by an overused, misused, and even regularly abused historical phrase: “the separation of church and state.” Although these words are familiar to virtually the entire nation, few Americans know their history; where did this phrase originate?

“Separation of church and state” the expression Justice William Rehnquist described as “a misleading metaphor” appeared in an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The election of President Jefferson   America’s first AntiFederalist President elated many Baptists since that denomination was, by and large, strongly AntiFederalist. This political disposition by the Baptists was understandable; from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who had not only championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia 3 but who also advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him: Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States.

We have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment: Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, and that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific.

The North Carolina constitution similarly prohibited from office those who denied “the truth of the Protestant religion” or who held “religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State.” However, as already noted, this was not a rejection of Roman Catholics in general, just of those who embraced doctrines “subversive of a free government established by the people.” In fact, when the people of North Carolina later amended their constitution, they maintained the clause excluding from office those who held “religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State,” but they changed “Protestant” to “Christian,” thus acknowledging that many American Catholics did not embrace this doctrine.

However, returning to the issue of religion in the federal Constitution, the first ten amendments were enacted solely to limit the jurisdiction of the federal government. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that the States had the legitimate power to prescribe State religious establishments. Therefore, the sole purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent the federal government from usurping this specific State power. Strikingly, however, although the States reserved this power, none of the State constitutions from the time of the American Revolution or thereafter established any single State denomination; most provided equal protection for all.

For example, in the framing of the Massachusetts constitution, John Adams explained that “the debates were managed by persons of various denominations” and that the “delegates did not conceive themselves to be vested with power to set up one denomination of Christians above another.”  Numerous other States enacted similar provisions. Notice and every denomination of Christians shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sector denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

There shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in preference to another.

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

And each and every society or denomination of Christians in this State shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights, and privileges.

Summarizing this tone, in 1793, Zephaniah Swift author of America’s first law textbook explained: Christians of different denominations ought to consider that the law knows no distinction among them; that they are all established upon the broad basis of equal liberty, that they have a right to think, speak, and worship as they please, and that no sect has power to injure and oppress another. When they reflect that they are equally under the protection of the law, all will revere and love the constitution, and feel interested in the support of the government. No denomination can pride themselves in the enjoyment of superior and exclusive powers and immunities.