In nine western states, courts ruled it constitutional for public schools to require a three week indoctrination to the Islamic faith in which all junior high students must pretend they are Muslims and offer prayers to Allah (they are further encouraged to take Islamic names, call each other by those names, wear Islamic garb, participate in Jihad games, and read the Koran during those three weeks); yet the same court ruled it unconstitutional for those students voluntarily to mention “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. EKLUND v. BYRON U.S.D., 2005 and NEWDOW v. U. S. CONGRESS, 2002.

It is unconstitutional to use a school PA system to inform students of a national crisis and ask that they pray for the victims. Furthermore, it is unconstitutional for students to engage in student led, student initiated discussions of religion during classroom activities, and a federally selected monitor may be appointed in order to ensure compliance with student religious speech prohibitions. CHANDLER v. JAMES, 1997. If students are slain in a school shooting and fellow students create a memorial to their fallen friends, it is unconstitutional for that memorial to include any religious element or acknowledgment among the personal remembrances of students. FLEMING v. JEFFERSON COUNTY SCH. DIST., 2002. Classic historic paintings may be displayed in schools unless they depict something religious. WASHEGESIC v. BLOOMINGDALE PUBLIC SCH., 1993;  SKLAR v. HARRISON COUNTY SCH. BD., 2006.

It is unconstitutional even to see the Ten Commandments at school since students might voluntarily read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them. STONE v. GRAHAM, 1980; see also RING v. GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCH. DIST., 1980; DOE v. HARLAN COUNTY SCH. DIST., 2000; BAKER v. ADAMS COUNTY, 2004; MCCREARY COUNTY v. ACLU, 2005. It is unconstitutional for a graduating valedictorian to include personal comments about his or her own faith in their own celebratory speech; therefore, a student’s valedictory address may be reviewed and censored by school officials prior to being delivered. FURLEY v. ALEDO I.S.D., 1999; COLE v. OROVILLE UNION HIGH SCH. DIST., 2000; LASSONDE v. PLEASANTON U.S.D., 2003; ASHBY v. ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY SCH. BD., 2004

If a school Baccalaureate is held in a religious building, it is unconstitutional for public school officials who attend that meeting to be publicly recognized or honored. DOE v. SANTA FE I.S.D., 1995 It is unconstitutional for a school graduation ceremony to contain an opening or closing prayer, even if it is the decision of the graduating class. GRAHAM v. CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCH. DIST., 1985; KAY v. DOUGLAS SCH. DIST., 1986; LEE v. WEISMAN, 1992; GEARON v. LOUDOUN COUNTY SCH. BD., 1993; HARRIS v. JOINT SCH. DIST., 1994; DEVENEY v. BD. OF EDUC., KANAWHA COUNTY, 2002

In 1959, Eisenhower presented a second civil rights bill to Congress. That bill was met with unyielding opposition in the House by Democratic Representative Howard Smith of Virginia, Chairman of the House Rules Committee. In fact, Smith would actually disappear from Congress for weeks on end in order to keep his committee from acting on the civil rights bill. But as had happened in the Senate with the earlier Eisenhower civil rights bill, a few House Democrats were willing to join with the Republicans to get that bill beyond Smith’s committee. 435 Democrat Emanuel Celler of New York, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, exerted extraordinary effort to move the bill forward, even though he was strongly opposed by other members within his own party. When the bill finally passed the House and arrived in the Senate, it was gutted by Democrats before being passed into law, once again preventing the federal government from intervening on behalf of black Americans whose civil rights were being violated in the South.

When Democrat John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960, he was less willing than Eisenhower to utilize executive orders to promote civil rights. In fact, Kennedy delayed for more than two years the signing of an executive order to integrate public housing. However, following the violent racial discord in Birmingham in 1963 when Democratic Governor George Wallace prevented blacks from entering public schools, Kennedy sent a major civil rights bill to Congress a bill based on the President Kennedy worked for the passage of Eisenhower’s civil rights legislation findings of Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Commission. Kennedy worked aggressively for the passage of that civil rights bill but was tragically assassinated before he could see its success.

Kennedy’s Democratic successor Lyndon Johnson picked up the civil rights measure, but like his predecessors, he faced stiff opposition from his own party. In fact, Democratic Senators Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Richard Russell of Georgia led the opposition against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, including lengthy and extended filibuster speeches. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen resurrected language proposed by Eisenhower’s Attorney General in 1960, thereby breaking the filibuster of the civil rights bill and allowing Johnson to sign into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

These failures by McClellan to obey Lincoln’s wishes are perhaps explained by the fact that this Democratic Union General held opinions about slavery and blacks that were not much better than those of the Democrats in the South against whom he was fighting. For example, when southern slaves escaped from their masters and fled to his Union troops for protection, General McClellan unlike other Union Generals originally refused to receive those black refugees; instead, he ordered them back to the South back to the slave masters from whom they had escaped. Gen. George B. McClellan. Lincoln twice replaced Gen. McClellan

General McClellan’s pro southern sympathetic behavior was in direct contrast with that of other northern military leaders. One example was Col. Fletcher Webster son of the anti slavery statesman Daniel Webster who organized the 12th Massachusetts, a regiment that adopted the popular abolitionist anthem “John Brown’s Body” as its regimental song. That unit saw some of the fiercest action in the War, and Fletcher Webster, leader of that hard fighting abolitionist unit, gave his own life in the fight against slavery, being shot down at the Second Battle of Bull Run. McClellan was clearly out of step with many other Union military leaders; and not surprisingly, the anti black tone of this northern Democrat shone through in his presidential campaign.

For example, in an 1864 campaign piece for General McClellan, he urged citizens to vote for him because as he explained “Our bloody civil war has now lasted nearly four years under the mismanagement of Abraham Lincoln. Nearly one million white men have been sacrificed.” Notice another of his complaints:

“He Lincoln has declared his intention to convert it the Civil War into a war for forcible abolition and Negro equality, social abolitionist martyr Col. Fletcher Webster democrat McClellan’s 1864 election piece complaining about “negro equality” and political.” According to McClellan, since white lives were being lost, and since Republicans were seeking both abolition and Negro quality, McClellan argues that he, as a Democrat, should be elected to halt those policies.

Republicans also took clear positions on civil rights issues in that 1864 presidential campaign positions that, obviously, were opposite to those of the Democrats. And although Republicans had already achieved great progress on civil rights in the few years they had controlled Congress, more was needed. As Republican Frederick Douglass explained:

We have the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1863. It was a vast and glorious step in the right direction. But unhappily, excellent as that paper is and much as it has accomplished temporarily it settles nothing. It is still open to decision by courts, canons agency interpretations, and Congress.

Understanding that something was needed that was more far reaching than just the Emancipation Proclamation or the various civil rights laws, the 1864 Republican platform therefore called for a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery completely; work was begun in Congress almost immediately on that amendment. That same year, President Lincoln won re election to a second term.

In 1865 the Civil War finally came to a close; the nation of slaveholding States had been defeated. President Lincoln and the black troops of the 29th Connecticut Regiment visited Richmond, the former capital of the republicans issue a call for the constitutional abolition of slavery Confederate States of America. An officer in that black regiment recorded the scene:

As the President passed along the street, the colored people waved their handkerchiefs, hats, and bonnets, and expressed their gratitude by shouting repeatedly, “Thank God for His goodness; we have seen His salvation.” The white soldiers caught the sound and swelled the numbers, cheering as they marched along. All could see the President, he was so tall. One woman, standing in a doorway as he passed along, shouted, “Thank you, dear Jesus, for this sight of the great conqueror.” No wonder tears came to his President Lincoln’s eyes when he looked on the poor colored people who were once slaves, and heard the blessing uttered from thankful hearts and thanksgiving to God and Jesus. Thousands of colored men in Richmond would have laid down their lives for President Lincoln. Marching into Richmond president Lincoln in Richmond president Lincoln walking through Richmond, greeted by grateful African Americans.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law establishing how territories could become States in the new United States forbade slavery in any of the federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States. Even though some slave States were dividing their own State to form new slave States from the old ones such as Kentucky being formed out of Virginia, or Tennessee from North Carolina on the federal level, progress was being made toward ending slavery and achieving full civil rights for black Americans.

Another important event in black political history occurred three years later. In 1792 according to the website of the Democratic National Committee the Democratic Party was started by Thomas Jefferson. The Democratic Party definitely played a role in black political history a role that will be examined shortly. In 1808, Congress continued its fight against slavery by abolishing the slave trade.

A famous sermon commemorating the abolition of the slave trade was given by the Rev. Absalom Jones, the first black bishop of the Episcopal Church in America. His sermon was delivered in the famous St. Thomas’ Church. St. Thomas’ Church the first black church in Philadelphia was built in 1792 under the leadership of three famous Americans. One was the Rev. Absalom Jones; another was Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer modern democrats consider Jefferson their founder St. Thomas’ church of the Declaration of Independence and a co-founder of the first abolition society in America; and the third was the Rev. Richard Allen, a famous black minister who regularly preached at a large white mega church before he started his famous Bethel Church and birthed the AME denomination.

These three remarkable Americans helped build the church where this famous sermon on Congress’s abolition of the slave trade was preached. That sermon was powerful, and Bishop Jones began it with a Scripture: exodus iii. 7, 8: “And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; and I am come down to deliver them.”

These words, my brethren, contain a short account of some of the circumstances which preceded the deliverance of the children of Israel from their captivity and bondage. They mention, in the first place, their affliction. This consisted in their privation of liberty. Our text mentions, in the second place, that in this situation they were not forgotten by the God of their fathers and the Father of the human race. Our text tells us that He saw their affliction and heard their cry. And was so much moved with what He saw and what He heard that He came down from heaven in His own person in order to deliver them.

Morris objected to counting slaves because he did not want to reward slave holders and increase their power. Another ardent anti slavery delegate at the Constitutional Convention, Luther Martin, similarly explained: No principle can justify taking slaves into computation in apportioning calculating the number of representatives a State should have in the government; it involves the absurdity of increasing the power of a State in making laws for freeman in proportion as that State violates the rights of freedom. It encourages the slave trade and makes it the interest of the States to continue that infamous vile traffic so that slaves could not be taken into account as men or citizens.

Several other Founders including James Wilson and Elbridge Gerry even used the slave holders own arguments against them. For example, Luther Martin proposed: Governor Morris Luther Martin If they were to be taken into account as “property,” then what peculiar circumstance should render this “property” entitled to the high privilege of conferring consequence and power in the government to its possessors rather than any other property that is, why should slaves, as “property,” be taken into account rather than horses, cattle, mules, or any other type of property?

These anti-slavery Founders argued that if the South was going to count its “property” in order to get more pro slavery representation in Congress, then the North would count its “property” to get more anti-slavery representation in Congress. Of course, the South objected just as strongly to this proposal as the North had objected to counting slaves. The final compromise was that only sixty percent of slaves that is, three-fifths of slaves would be counted to calculate the number of southern representatives to Congress.

In other words, it would take 50,000 slaves rather than just 30,000 before slaveholding States could get an additional representative in Congress, thus greatly reducing the number of representatives to Congress from States with extraordinarily large slave populations. This, then, is the Three fifths Clause it had nothing to do with the worth of any individual; in fact, Free Blacks in the North and the South often were extended the full rights of a citizen and regularly voted both in the North and the South.

The Three Fifths Clause had to do only with representation: it was an anti slavery provision designed to limit the number of pro slavery representatives in Congress. This is why Frederick Douglass could therefore emphatically declare that the Constitution all of the Constitution was anti-slavery.

David Barton tells us  that virtue. . . . Finally, . . . in the elegant and expressive language are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, shall be with you, to whose most gracious protection I now commend you, humbly imploring Almighty Goodness that He will be your guardian and your guide, your protector and the rock of your defence, your Savior and your God. you are the redeemed of the Lord, that you are bought with a price, even the inestimable price of the precious blood of the Son of God. Adore Jehovah, therefore, as your God and your Judge. Love, fear, and serve Him as your Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. Acquaint yourselves with Him in His word and holy ordinances. . . . [G]o forth into the world firmly resolved neither to be allured by its vanities nor contaminated by its vices, but to run with patience and perseverance, with firmness and [cheerfulness], the glorious career of religion, honor, and of St. Paul, “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things think on these things” – and do them, and the God of peace 53

This Founding Father and signer of the Constitution delivered sermons from the Bible at public school graduations!

On the far right of the picture is Jacob Broom. Surprisingly, all that can be seen of him in the picture is the top of his head. The reason for this is that he is one of the few Founding Fathers who never had a portrait made. We do know that he was a part of the Constitutional Convention; we do know that he signed the Constitution; but we don’t know what he looked like; and the painting therefore omits his face.

One other thing that we do know about Jacob Broom is that he was a devout Christian and raised his children in the Christian faith. One evidence of this is seen in a letter which he wrote to his son, James, in 1794.

David Barton shows us that fifty-five Founding Fathers served at the Convention which produced the Constitution, and thirty-nine of them eventually signed that document. And, as in the painting of the signers of the Declaration, many of their faces and names are unfamiliar today. Let’s rediscover something about some of those in the picture.

Begin with Abraham Baldwin. Not only was he the chief founder of the University of Georgia, but in his time he was one of America’s youngest theologians. At the age of twenty-one, he was offered a Professorship of Divinity at Yale University, and throughout the American Revolution he served as a military chaplain. Constitution signer Abraham Baldwin was not only a Christian but also a minister of the Gospel.

The man seated at the table is Roger Sherman. He holds a unique position among the Founding Fathers in that he is the only Founder to sign all four of America’s founding documents: the Articles of Association in 1774, the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Articles of Confederation in 1778, and the U. S. Constitution in 1787.

During the Constitutional Convention, Roger Sherman was instrumental in resolving the conflict over representation between the big States and the small States. Sherman’s solution, now enshrined in the Constitution, was that Congress should be made up of two bodies: a Senate wherein each State, whether large or small, would have equal strength and an equal vote (favorable to the small States); and a House, wherein each State’s strength would be determined by its population (favorable to the big States). After the Constitution was ratified, Sherman became a member of the first Congress where he helped frame the Bill of Rights.

 In addition to being a leading statesman, Roger Sherman was also a theologian. In fact, a creed he personally wrote was adopted by his church. Notice his doctrinal position:

 I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him. . . . That He made man at first perfectly holy; that the first man sinned, and as he was the public head of his posterity, they all became sinners in consequence of his first transgression, are wholly indisposed to that which is good and inclined to evil, and on account of sin are liable to all the miseries of this life, to death, and to the pains of hell forever. I believe that God . . . did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer. . . . I believe a visible church to be a congregation of those who make a credible profession of their faith in Christ, and obedience to Him, joined by the bond of the covenant. . . . I believe that the sacraments of the New Testament are baptism and the Lord’s supper. . . . I believe that the souls of believers are at their death made perfectly holy, and immediately taken to glory: that at the end of this world there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a final judgment of all mankind, when the righteous shall be publicly acquitted by Christ the Judge and admitted to everlasting life and glory, and the wicked be sentenced to everlasting punishment. 52

Government education leaders believed that if public education ever became so secular that it did not inculcate religion, morality, and knowledge – if public schools did not teach the Bible, inculcate the principles of Christianity, and incorporate the daily worship of God – then the nation would be better off if the State gave all its schools back to the church.

An indication of how long religious lessons remained a part of public education in America is seen in two textbooks used in Dallas Public Schools: a Bible Study Course of the Old Testament and a Bible Study Course of the New Testament † (both were credit courses for graduation used until 1974, and were also used in other major school districts across the nation, including Indianapolis, St. Louis, Little Rock, etc.). “Lesson 1” in the New Testament course begins by having students read John 1 and then answer questions such as:

 “Where was Christ before he was born on earth?”

“What titles does John apply to Christ in this chapter?”

 “For what purpose was John sent by God?”

 “Name five things the angel told Mary concerning her child Jesus?”

 “What does the word Jesus mean?”

 There are hundreds of similar questions throughout the course. At the end of each lesson is memory work. For example, in Lesson 1:

Memorize the pre-existence of Christ: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.” [john 1:1,3] 

Such public school textbooks were reflective of the requirements of the original 1789 federal law that schools address “religion, morality, and knowledge.” Religious principles were universally considered to be an inseparable part of a sound public education, whether at the elementary or the university level. 

In fact, at the university level in 1860, 262 out of 288 college presidents were ministers of the Gospel – as were more than a third of all university faculty members. 61 And in 1890, James Angell, President of the University of Vermont and the University of Michigan, reported that over 90 percent of the State universities conducted chapel services; at half, chapel attendance was compulsory; and a quarter required regular church attendance in addition to chapel attendance. 62 Well into the 20th century, this remained the practice of State universities – a practice that was simply the continuation of the philosophy of education that had caused America to become the most successful and prosperous nation in the history of the world.

Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville also reported the same fact about the religious aspect of American public education. His famous work, originally called The Republic of the United States of America and Its Political Institutions, Reviewed and Examined, 44 is today known as Democracy in America. His observations in that work fully confirm the religious nature of American public education.

 Another famous early law was “The Northwest Ordinance” – the first federal law to address education. Significantly, that law was passed at the same time and by the identical Founding Fathers who drafted the First Amendment – the very Amendment that courts now interpret as prohibiting the presence of religious activities in public education. Even today, that law is still considered one of the four organic – or fundamental – American laws on which all others are to be based.

 Article III of that federal law (signed by President George Washington) directly linked religion and public education together, declaring: Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

alexis de tocqueville and his famous book about america 

The Founders believed – and in this first federal education law acknowledged – that schools and education systems were a proper means to encourage the “religion, morality, and knowledge” that was so “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.” The framers of our government did not believe that encouraging religion in schools was unconstitutional; rather, they believed just the opposite; only in recent decades have courts ruled otherwise.

 The effect of that first federal law was quite evident in early State constitutions, for compliance with that law was a pre-requisite for the admission of a territory as a State into the Union. 49 Therefore, when Ohio adopted its first State constitution in 1802, that document declared:

 Religion, morality, and knowledge, being essentially necessary to the good government, and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision. The same provision was present in the constitutions of State after State, including Mississippi, Kansas, Nebraska, and many others. In fact, that provision is still found in numerous State constitutions today.

 An 1893 book documenting American educational history further confirms the inclusion of “religion, morality, and knowledge” throughout our educational system. That book was prepared as part of the international celebration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus Day in 1892, an event celebrated that year with a huge international festival in Chicago. Many of the trades and professions represented at that american education inculcated religion, morality, and knowledge 

columbus landing in  the western world in 1492 

festival prepared records of their progress over the previous four centuries, and it was the Kansas teachers’ association that prepared a review of the history of education in America. 

That historical overview first observed that American education was “[n]urtured in the lap of the church,” 56 and then noted that as the nation grew and the number of inhabitants in America increased, “the church reluctantly relinquished her claim upon the elementary schools.” Yet, despite the fact that the jurisdictional authority over education had been partially shifted and was being shared with the State, the philosophy of education remained unchanged. In fact, the State superintendent of public instruction even warned:

 [I]f the study of the Bible is to be excluded from all State schools – if the inculcation of the principles of Christianity is to have no place in the daily program – if the worship of God is to form no part of the general exercises of these public elementary schools – then the good of the State would be better served by restoring all schools to church control.

 Ironically, the charge of the harmfulness of Christianity to a society is not new; when that claim was raised two hundred years ago, signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon responded forcefully: 

Let us try it by its fruits. Let us compare the temper and character of real Christians with those of infidels and see which of them best merits the approbation of an honest and impartial judge. Let us take in every circumstance that will contribute to make the comparison just and fair and see what will be the result. . . . In which of the two is to be found the greatest integrity and uprightness in their conduct between man and man? the most unfeigned good-will? and the most active beneficence to others? 

Is it the unbeliever or the Christian who clothes the naked and deals his bread to the hungry? Ask the many and noble ancient structures raised for the relief of the diseased and the poor to whom they owe their establishment and supports. 

The results, or what Witherspoon called the “fruits,” do indeed speak for themselves. While Christianity certainly does not make men perfect, yet – as is demonstrable both historically and statistically – it does tend to restrain their inherent destructive behavior. As Ben Franklin once reminded religious critic Thomas Paine:

 If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it? Clearly, the plan of the early colonists to prevent civil atrocities by inculcating a knowledge of the Scriptures in all citizens was not only laudable in theory but also sound in practice.

Having set forth the purpose of the law and the evil it was designed to prevent, the law then required that public schools be started in each community so that American students would receive a sound academic education based on God’s Word. This Bible-centered emphasis in education was common in subsequent education laws as well – a fact confirmed by the records of foreign visitors to America. 

Foreign observers often would travel to America to investigate what had caused her remarkable progress and rapid rise. As they traveled throughout the colonies, they would document various customs and practices and then return to their native countries to publish the results of their investigations. 

One such foreign visitor was Briton Edward Kendall. As he traveled from region to region, he documented the diverse aspects of American life – from courts of justice to Indian missions, from prison systems to theaters and public entertainments. While in Connecticut, Kendall examined American education and found the State’s illiteracy law of interest – particularly the opening declaration of that law:

This [legislature] observing that not withstanding our former orders made for the education of children . . . there are many persons unable to read the English tongue, and thereby incapable of reading the Holy Word of God or the good laws of this [State]. . . . 

The Connecticut legislature had been concerned about illiteracy because if a child could not read, then he would not know the Word of God or the laws of the State. Therefore, if the legislature enacted a law that contradicted the Word of God, and if citizens were illiterate and uneducated about the proper role of civil government as set forth in the Scriptures, they might not prevent the passage of that inappropriate law.