While knowing and applying Biblical guidelines certainly did not prevent all atrocities, it indisputably reduced them. Despite the fact that critics point to a few genuine atrocities perpetrated, or even allegedly perpetrated, in the name of Christianity (e.g., the witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts, and across the rest of the world; the expulsion and torture of Moors; the Inquisition; and even the World War II Holocaust (which some Jews attribute to Christians since Hitler was at one time a member of a Christian church), it is nevertheless irrefutable that those without Christian influence have committed countless more atrocities.

(Despite the fact that some Holocaust survivors believe Hitler to have been a Christian, recent documentation made available from the OSS (the noted intelligence agency of World War II), proves that Hitler was anti-Christian and that the Nazis engaged in a systematic campaign to eradicate European Christianity. 30 Furthermore, Hitler killed more than twice as many Gentiles as Jews, and both he and the Nazi party were linked to anti-Biblical occultism.

 If one tabulates the loss of lives occasioned by “Christian” conduct (excluding Hitler, since it is proved that he was anti-Christian), the total which may be laid at the doorstep of Christianity over the past two thousand years is well under 5 million; however, the number of lives lost at the hands of non- and anti-Christian leaders in just the 20th century alone is over one-hundred million. Consider the 62 million killed during the 20th century by Soviet Communists; the 35 million by Communist Chinese; the 1.7 million by the Vietnamese Communists; the 1 million in the Polish Ethnic Cleansing; the 1 million in Yugoslavia; the  1.7 million in North Korea, 33 etc. – all non- or anti-Christian regimes.

 Furthermore, consider the deaths perpetrated by individual anti-Christian leaders. For example, Joseph Stalin was responsible for the murder of 42.7 million; Mao Tse-tung, 37.8 million; Hitler, 20.9 million; Vladimir Lenin, 4 million; Tojo Hideki, 4 million; Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge, 1 million; Yahya Khan, 1.5 million; 34 and numerous other anti-Christian leaders could be listed. Therefore, while the lives lost at the hands of Christians in the past two thousand years regrettably may number in the millions, the number lost at the hands of anti-Christians is more than 20 times greater, and in only five percent of the time (i.e., in just the past one hundred years).

 Furthermore, the lives lost under the guise of “Christianity” should be categorized in greater detail. For example, historian Daniel Dorchester pointed out that although inhumanities have occurred in the name of Christianity, very few have occurred under the banner of American Christianity: 

These “dreadful and disgusting inhumanities” were perpetrated by whom? Refined nd cultivated Europeans. . . . Such are the facts of modern history which should moderate our denunciations and charges of severity, brutality and arrow-mindedness against the colonial forefathers, who, it clearly appears, were much in advance of their times.

 Perhaps the single most famous American atrocity perpetrated in the name of Christianity was the Massachusetts witch trials. In that episode spanning 4 months, some 21 deaths occurred. (Incidentally, that number is surpassed by the recent shootings at public schools in Columbine, Colorado, and West Paducah, Kentucky, and by the church shooting in Wedgewood, Texas, in which anti-religious individuals killed more than were put to death in the notorious 1692 episode. 36 And while some 21 individuals were victims of the American witch trials, about half-a-million were put to death in the European witch trials. 37 Therefore, America – despite its faults – was still far better than the “civilized” Old World at the same time. Nevertheless, textbooks often dwell upon that single American atrocity while ignoring anti-Christian atrocities much larger in scope.) The Massachusetts witch trials were brought to a close when Christian leaders such as Rev. Increase Mather and Thomas Brattle invoked Christian teachings, thus convincing Governor Phipps to end the trials.

 This educational philosophy promoting religious principles had not been introduced by the Founding Fathers (even though they strongly promoted it); that philosophy of education had been introduced a century-and-a-half earlier through America’s educational laws. 

America’s first public education law had resulted from the experiences of the early settlers who arrived in America. They were not only acutely aware of the broader civil atrocities in Europe that had preceded them (such as the Inquisition and the tortures during the Crusades – atrocities too often perpetrated under the banner of Christianity) but many had also personally experienced harsh persecution simply for practicing their faith. † America’s early immigrants were convinced that the widespread illiteracy and lack of Biblical knowledge that characterized Europe had been at the root of these atrocities.

 † Official state – or church – sanctioned persecution against those Christians not of the established church occurred across the centuries under both Catholic and Protestant regimes. The earliest persecution waged against non-conforming Christians was by Catholics through Papal inquisitions well before the emergence of Protestantism. Several Catholic Popes both practiced and endorsed tyrannical persecutions, officially condoning the killings of dissenters and burnings at the stake. Such actions even predated Pope Lucius III’s 1184 AD establishment of an official Catholic office of the Inquisition. (It was not until 1962 that Pope John XXIII closed that office.) Pope Gregory IX and several subsequent Popes had declared the Bible off-limits to anyone but priests, and Popes such as Pius V and Sixtus V had actually served as chief inquisitors before their ascension to the papacy.

 The Protestant Reformation of the 15th century was a movement that originated when some Catholic priests advocated adherence to the Scriptures rather than the Pope as the primary authority for Christian life and living. These reformers placed an emphasis on every individual Christian’s reading, studying, and knowing the Bible personally, and on each believer’s praying directly to and having direct access to God (a doctrine called “the priesthood of the believer”). The reaction to the Reformation by many church and state leaders was often bloody, reflecting their intent to eradicate religious opposition through the most oppressive measures. 

For example, Henry VIII declared himself the head of the church in England and began eradicating those of differing beliefs: Dutch Anabaptists were burned at the stake; other religious leaders were charged with treason and executed; and Henry seized the property of churches not affiliated with the Church of England. Subsequent kings, including King James, conducted similar purges, mutilating, anging, or disemboweling religious non-conformists up until (and after) the time that the non-conformist Pilgrims and Puritans left for America in search of religious freedom.

English Catholic leaders such as Queen Mary also conducted purges, including the execution of John Rogers, who had assisted in the publication of Tyndale’s English translations of the Scriptures. Following the Reformation, Protestants became a target for Catholic officials, who focused their attention on the eradication or suppression of Protestantism. For example, Spain attacked England with the Spanish Armada to effect a forcible conversion of Protestants to Catholicism; and in Germany, the Catholic attacks on Protestants led to the Thirty-Years War. Such efforts almost completely eradicated Protestantism in several nations, including Italy, Spain, and France. 

It was from this history of persecution that so many religious settlers came to America; America became a land to receive the persecuted from across the world. For example, the Pilgrims came to America in 1620 to escape the hounding persecution of England’s King James, and a decade later the Puritans (some 20,000) also came to America after Puritan laymen in England received life sentences (as well as having their noses slit, ears cut off, and a brand placed on their foreheads). Similarly, in 1632, Catholics persecuted in England fled to America; in 1654 Jews persecuted by Catholics and facing the Inquisition in Portugal fled to America; in 1680, Quakers fled to America after some 10,000 had been imprisoned or tortured in England for their faith; in 1683, persecuted German Anabaptists (Mennonites, Moravians, Dunkers, etc.) fled to America; in 1685, Huguenots fled France (eventually some 400,000) to avoid death and persecution from Catholic leaders; in 1731, 20,000 Lutherans fled to America after being expelled from Austria; and the story of persecution has been often repeated across the pages of history. America indeed was (and still is) a place of asylum chosen by the Almighty for the benefit of those in the rest of the world who were persecuted for their faith in God.

 John Witherspoon may have trained more influential early American leaders than any other individual, for of the students that he personally instructed, one became a U. S. President, one a Vice-President, three became Supreme Court Justices, 13 were governors, and at least 20 became senators and 30 more became congressmen – not to mention several presidential cabinet members as well. 16 Dr. Witherspoon may rightly be called the educational father of many Founding Fathers.  

Princeton University

 Witherspoon personally instructed students: 

[H]e is the best friend to American liberty who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple [hesitate] not to call him an enemy to his country. Dr. Witherspoon understood that which was universally accepted by all knowledgeable individuals: government was merely a reflection of its citizens; if Americans became profane and immoral, their government would also become profane and immoral; and history has demonstrated conclusively that such governments do not survive. Consequently, it was simple logic that any true friend of America would promote religion and morality.  

Prominent American educators routinely equipped students with a Biblical foundation as part of academic instruction. In fact, so committed were they to inculcating these principles in all citizens. Famous Princeton alumnus Elias Boudinot (a President of Congress and a framer of the Bill of Rights in the first Congress) was one of many national leaders who endorsed this same truth when he declared: “If the moral character of a people once degenerates, their political character must soon follow.” 

Signer of the Declaration Samuel Adams agreed: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” Bill of Rights framer Fisher Ames echoed: “Our liberty depends on . . . morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart – and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.”

Signer of the Declaration Charles Carroll similarly pronounced: “Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure . . . are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” And President George Washington asserted: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.”

 Numerous other leaders and statesmen were equally adamant in proclaiming the principle that it was religion and morality, not constitutions and laws, that were the true foundation of successful American government that they even pioneered new educational venues, founding some of the first schools for women and for black Americans – something unprecedented at that time in world history.

For example, John Witherspoon personally trained a number of black American students at Princeton, 24 including John Chavis, 25 who went on to become a famous preacher and educator in North Carolina. And Francis Hopkinson and Benjamin Franklin (signers of the Declaration) were also instrumental in the early development of African American education, helping found a series of schools that trained African American students both in academics and in the principles of Christianity.

Furthermore, Benjamin Rush (also a signer of the Declaration) not only promoted African American education 28 but also helped open education for women and was closely involved with the first American school to educate women.  These Founding Fathers (and many others) pioneered for all children – regardless of race or gender – an education based on the inculcation of Biblical principles.

Indisputably, our early educational system was remarkable; and since an ancient axiom accurately notes, “The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next,” it is appropriate to examine closely the educational philosophy that produced the longest on-going constitutional republic in the history of the world. What was the educational philosophy of the schools from which our early leaders graduated?

 Harvard was one school that trained a number of those leaders, including signers of the Declaration such as John Adams, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, William Ellery, William Hooper, Robert Treat Paine, William Williams, and Elbridge Gerry; signers of the Constitution such as William Samuel Johnson and Rufus King; and other prominent leaders, including Fisher Ames (a framer of the Bill of Rights), William Cushing (an original justice on the U. S. Supreme Court), and Timothy Pickering (an American general during the Revolution and the Secretary of War for Presidents George Washington and John Adams).

Significantly, Harvard was established as a school to train ministers of the Gospel; and its educational philosophy was clearly set forth in Harvard University.

its two mottoes: “For Christ and the Church” and “For the Glory of Christ.” 9 Consistent with those two mottoes, Harvard admonished:

 Let every student be plainly instructed and . . . consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus, which is eternal life (john 17:3), and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.

 To help students place Christ as the “foundation of . . . knowledge and learning,” Harvard instituted specific educational practices, including:

 Everyone shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein.

 At Harvard – a school that trained a significant number of those who established our philosophy of government – academic endeavors were built upon the foundation of Biblical principles.

Yale was another popular school of that day and, like Harvard, it began as a school to train ministers of the Gospel. Yale produced signers of the eclaration such as Lyman Hall, Philip Livingston, Lewis Morris, and Oliver Wolcott; signers of the Constitution such as Abraham Baldwin, Jared Ingersoll, and William Livingston; and other prominent leaders, including Noah Webster (a famous educator and the author of the dictionary that still bears his name), Zephaniah Swift (author of the first American legal text), and James Kent (a leading judge, called the “Father of American Jurisprudence”). Yale admonished its students:

Above all, have an eye to the great end of all your studies, which is to obtain the clearest conceptions of Divine things and to lead you to a saving knowledge of God in his Son Jesus Christ.

its two mottoes: “For Christ and the Church” and “For the Glory of Christ.” 9 Consistent with those two mottoes, Harvard admonished: 

Let every student be plainly instructed and . . . consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus, which is eternal life (john 17:3), and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.

 To help students place Christ as the “foundation of . . . knowledge and learning,” Harvard instituted specific educational practices, including: 

Everyone shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein. At Harvard – a school that trained a significant number of those who established our philosophy of government – academic endeavors were built upon the foundation of Biblical principles. Yale was another popular school of that day and, like Harvard, it began as a school to train ministers of the Gospel. Yale produced signers of the eclaration such as Lyman Hall, Philip Livingston, Lewis Morris, and Oliver Wolcott; signers of the Constitution such as Abraham Baldwin, Jared Ingersoll, and William Livingston; and other prominent leaders, including Noah Webster (a famous educator and the author of the dictionary that still bears his name), Zephaniah Swift (author of the first American legal text), and James Kent (a leading judge, called the “Father of American Jurisprudence”). Yale admonished its students:

 Above all, have an eye to the great end of all your studies, which is to obtain the clearest conceptions of Divine things and to lead you to a saving knowledge of God in his Son Jesus Christ.

America is now entering its fifth century of educating students. For every generation throughout the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, providing and obtaining a good education has been a major emphasis; it was that way when the first colonists arrived here four centuries ago, and that goal remains unchanged today in the 21st century. But by what standard should a good education be measured? While some would measure it only by technological advances, it should also be measured by the content a student has learned – and by how well that student has been taught to think and to reason. Unfortunately, although the technological advances over the past fifty years have been significant, there is abundant evidence that the cognitive advances have lagged far behind.

Early Academic Standards

Consider, for example, some of the fourth grade questions from an 1862 geography test in Chicago public schools:

 How many degrees of longitude are there? 

How many degrees wide are the temperate zones? 

What is a watershed? 

While these questions were reflective of basic fourth grade knowledge in 1862, today this material is studied only in much higher grades – if at all.) Consider also the basic math content of previous generations. Ray’s Arithmetic was one of the most popular elementary math texts in early American schools; notice some of its questions:

 I insured 2/3 of a shop worth $3600, and 4/5 of a house worth $6000, paying $126: what was the rate of insurance?

 How much money must be given with nine $100 shares at 15% discount, in exchange for eight $100 bonds at 2% discount? 2

 These were elementary math problems during the 1860s!

 Consider also the math problems from an 1877 mental math text (that is, a text in which students solved the problems mentally – no pencil or paper allowed):

 A boat worth $864 – of which 1/8 belonged to A, 1/4 to B, and the rest to C – was lost; what loss did each sustain, it having been insured for $500?

 On a farm, there are 60 animals – horses, cows, and sheep; for each horse there are 3 cows, and for each cow there are 2 sheep: how many animals of each kind? 3

 If 7 men can do a piece of work in 4 days, in what time can it be done if 3 of the men leave when the work is half completed? 4

 These were mental math problems for elementary students in 1877!  Consider the questions in an 1882 history text:

 What is a “writ of habeas corpus?”

 What is a bill of attainder?

 What is an ex-post-facto law?

 Enumerate the powers denied to the several States.

 What are bills of credit? 5

 How many of today’s elementary students  or, for that matter, how many adults in this so-called modern and advanced age – could answer these questions from a century ago? 

One final example of the educational rigor of previous generations is illustrated by the Federalist Papers. 6 Written in 1787-1788 by three prominent Founding Fathers (James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay) to explain why a federal Constitution was needed, even today this work is still considered the single most authoritative source on the intent of the Constitution. 

A law professor in Alabama 7 currently requires his law students to read the Federalist Papers. And why not? Before those students can become attorneys, 

FEDERALIST PAPERS authors: james madison (l), john jay (c), alexander hamilton (r)

 they will swear an oath to uphold the Constitution; so why not learn about the intent of the document they will swear to uphold? Those law students – enrolled in graduate level studies – regularly complain to him about the difficulty of reading that work. He nods sympathetically and responds, “I understand. This book was not written for someone at your educational level; this book was written for the common, average, upstate New York farmer of 1787. Perhaps some day you will attain the educational level of those early New York farmers!” 

The Court will allow that prayer to be a typical nondenominational prayer, which can refer to God or the Almighty or that sort of thing. The prayer must not refer to . . . Jesus . . . or anyone else. And make no mistake, the Court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this Court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of Court. . . . Anybody who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this Court gets through with it. Died as a child? If you pray the wrong words in a prayer, you are going to wish that you “had died as a child when this court gets through” with you?

This ruling obviously angers most citizens, and the common response is, “What’s wrong with this judge? Can’t he read the Constitution? The Constitution says nothing about “separation of church and state”; that phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution; it was a policy enacted by the Supreme Court in 1947 in its efforts to compartmentalize faith and segregate it from public life. The Constitution specifically guarantees Americans the ‘free exercise of religion’! Can’t this judge read the Constitution?” Sentiments like this reflect a basic misunderstanding. Most citizens believe that the Constitution governs America, but it does not. In fact, while the Founding Fathers were framing the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention, there was a discussion over what the impact of the Constitution would be in limiting the misconduct of public officials. The discussion was best summed up by delegate John Francis Mercer, who declared: It is a great mistake to suppose that the paper we are to propose will govern the United States. In other words, it is a major error to believe that the Constitution governs America. He continued: It is the men whom it will bring into the government and interest [they have] in maintaining it that are to govern them. The paper will only mark out the mode and the form. Men are the substance and must do the business.

In short, the Constitution gives citizens the power to elect leaders; but if the wrong kind of leaders are elected, the Constitution will be absolutely worthless in their hands – as it was in the hands of the judge in Santa Fe, Texas, and so many other judges and elected officials. This same lesson had been taught in the Scriptures long before it was applied in America: was there any nation in the history of the world that had better civil laws than Israel? Certainly not, for God Almighty had given their laws. Yet, how good were their Godinspired, God-given laws when they had rulers such as Ahab and Jezebel, or Manasseh, or Jeroboam, or Rehoboam, or other wicked leaders? Despite the fact that their laws were from God Himself, those superb laws were completely disregarded under corrupt and deficient leaders. The Founders understood this, and one of the most frequently quoted Bible principles invoked by the Founders is the one set forth in Proverbs 29:2: When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.

The key to good government is not how good our documents are or how good our laws are; rather it is how good our leaders are. In America, whether the righteous rule, or whether the wicked rule depends totally upon the will of the voters: we have our choice. In recent years, Christian voters have not taken their voting stewardship seriously. In elections from 1992-2000, Christian voter turnout fell by forty percent. There are sixty million evangelicals in America, and in the 2000 presidential election, only fifteen million voted. In fact, twenty-four million of those sixty million evangelicals were not even registered to vote!

To have been given the power to determine the quality of our government and its leaders, and then not to use that power, is reminiscent of the servant who received a trust from the Master and decided not to do anything with it – not to get involved. None of the servants asked for the trust that they received from the Master; but the Master gave it to them anyway; and they became responsible to the Master for what they did with that trust – despite the fact they had not asked for it. Similarly, we did not ask to be born in America; we did not ask to be given a government of which we are the stewards; nevertheless, the Master has given it to us; and He will call us to account for our stewardship of this important trust.

A quote attributed to President Woodrow Wilson forcefully pronounces: A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we have come from, or what we have been about.

This is true with America today. We have forgotten where we have come from and what we have been about, and this is especially true when it comes to the role of the church – of ministers and Christians – in the civil arena. Strident voices both inside and outside the Christian community assert that Christians never have been involved in the civil arena and should not be now. Many Christians have even embraced this constricting mentality by adopting a compartmentalized view that allows them to express faith and values in church but then divorces those same faith and values from the civil arena. The teachings of the Bible reject this compartmentalized approach to life, and our history demonstrates that for generations Christians embraced a different viewpoint. An excellent indication of how much Americans have forgotten their own history occurs around the Fourth of July. If you ask most citizens why America separated from Great Britain, the overwhelming response will be “taxation without representation.” That answer is acceptable – as far as it goes, but taxation without representation was only one of twentyseven grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence; and it was actually one of the lesser of the twenty-seven complaints.

Listed in the Declaration eleven times more often than taxation without representation was the abuse of representative powers; the abuse of military powers was listed seven times as often; the abuse of judicial powers four times as often; and stirring up domestic insurrection twice as often. Taxation without representation was merely grievance number seventeen out of the twenty-seven, listed alongside Great Britain’s suppression of immigration and her interference with our foreign trade. The taxation issue was given little emphasis in the Declaration, yet it is the one issue that everyone knows about today. Why aren’t most Americans familiar with the rest? The reason is that in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, a new group of historical penmen began writing in America. They included Charles and Mary Beard, W. E. Woodward, Fairfax Downey, and many others. Apparently believing that the only motivating factor in life was money, they began to teach American history with that emphasis, introducing what is now called the “economic approach to American history,” authoring books such as The Economic Basis of Politics. They also presented the economic basis of the Constitution, the economic basis of the Revolution, and, in other words, economics became the basis. Since the sole economic clause in the Declaration was “taxation without representation,” this became the one clause that Americans have learned about in their history books for the past half-century.

Today, after two generations of having been taught that economics is the only thing that matters, behavior now seems to conform to that viewpoint. For example, forty-five percent of the evangelical Christians who voted in recent elections said that economic issues were more important than moral issues. And our national leaders too often today are judged not on the basis of their personal competency, moral character, or other leadership traits but rather on the basis of how the economy is doing, what the unemployment rate is, or how the Dow Jones Industrial Average is performing. Yet, a reading of American history textbooks prior to these recent writers – in fact, just a reading of the twenty-seven reasons given in the Declaration – will present a completely different view of history from that which is taught today. It will reveal that other more important issues motivated most individuals.

For example, in 1762 America’s very first missionary society was chartered: “The Society to Propagate the Gospel among Indians and Others in North America.” Americans thought this was a great idea but King George III apparently thought that it would compete with the work of the nationally established Church, so he vetoed the charter. This type of action by the King alarmed a number of the Founders who contended for religious liberties in America – including the ability to start their own missionary societies, Bible societies, or Sunday School societies. Consequently, Founding Fathers such as Charles Carroll of Carrollton and Samuel Adams, both of whom became signers of the Declaration, cited religious freedom as a reason they became involved in the American Revolution.

There was also the issue of slavery. In 1773, Pennsylvania passed a law to help bring slavery to an end, 6and other Colonies were also making attempts to end slavery, but King George III vetoed those American laws. The King was pro-slavery; the British Empire practiced slavery; and as long as America was part of the British Empire, it too would practice slavery. This position by the King was a source of great discontent for many Founders. Henry Laurens, a President of Congress during the American Revolution, protested against this British position: I abhor slavery. [But] I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British kings and parliaments . . . ages before my existence.

Noah Webster was one of the many Founders who became directly involved in education. He served not only as a soldier during the Revolution but also as a legislator and a judge afterwards. He was one of the first to call for a Constitutional Convention and was personally responsible for language in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. He helped establish Amherst College, became one of America’s most prolific textbook writers, and was titled “Schoolmaster to America” for his profound contributions to education.

One of his famous texts used in public school classrooms for generations was his History of the United States. In it, he told students: When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, “just men who will rule in the fear of God.” The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded.

While Webster’s description of the ills of government sounds like a contemporary news account, what he described was not a widespread problem in his day; he was simply pointing out what would occur if unprincipled, unGodly rulers were placed into office. Webster then concluded:

If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.

Although Webster warned that our form of government would not endure unless we kept God-fearing people of faith and character in office, doesn’t the security of our government really depend more upon the people rather than their leaders? After all, aren’t the people the most important element in a democracy?

This is part of our problem today: we think we are a democracy, but we are not. As evidence of this fact, recall that when we pledge allegiance to the American flag, we pledge allegiance to the republic – not the democracy – of the United States. America was founded as a republic, not a democracy; and while few today can define the difference between the two, there is a difference – a big difference.

A democracy is a form of government that has existed for millennia, and it was a form of government well known at the American Founding. Our Founding Fathers had an opportunity to establish a democracy and deliberately chose not to. They intentionally established America and each of the states as republican – not democratic – governments. In their minds, we were not, and were never to become a democracy. Confirming this, Bill of Rights framer Fisher Ames observed:

A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption, and carry desolation in their way.

Declaration signer Benjamin Rush similarly noted:

A simple democracy is the devil’s own government. And John Adams also cautioned:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Numerous other Founders issued similar declarations condemning democracies and praising republics. In fact, they so strongly opposed democracy as a form of government that when they created the federal Constitution, they included language in Article 4, Section 4 requiring that “each state maintain a republican form of government.”

The primary difference between a democracy and a republic is the fundamental source of its authority. In a democracy, the people are the highest source of authority; in America, however, there was a source of authority higher than the people, and it was that higher source which formed the basis of our government. As Noah Webster explained to students in a famous textbook: [O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.

In a democracy, whatever the people desire is what becomes policy. Therefore, if a majority of the people decide that murder is no longer a crime, in a democracy, murder will no longer be a crime. However, not so in the American republic: in our republic, murder will always be a crime, for murder is always a crime in the Word of God. It is this immutable foundation that has given our republic such enduring stability, for since man at his core does not change, he continues to need the same restraints today that he needed when the Bible was written thousands of years ago. It is the rights and wrongs revealed in the Bible that have provided the moral and institutional standards for our republic.

Numerous early law books affirmed this, including Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws. Blackstone’s principles formed the basis of American law from 1766 until 1920, and for decades, it was the final authority in the U. S. Supreme and lower courts. Blackstone’s Commentaries (highly recommended by numerous famous Americans, including James Madison, James Wilson, John Marshall, Charles Finney, Abraham Lincoln, etc.), taught that human laws could not contradict God’s direct decrees, and that only if God had not ruled in an area were men then free to set their own legislative policy. It explained: To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law. . . .

But with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by [the Scriptures] – such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries – here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose.

God’s Word also provided the basis for what are termed inalienable rights (rights bestowed by God on every individual, regardless of race, gender, or social station). Among man’s inalienable rights were those of life, liberty, property, religious freedom, self-protection, due process, sanctity of the home, as well as others listed throughout the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Significantly, our founding documents directly acknowledge:

(1) that God gave these rights to men (“all men . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”), and (2) that it is the purpose of government to protect these rights (“to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”). So crucial to the maintenance of America’s republican government was the knowledge of God’s standards and God-given rights, that Thomas Jefferson queried: [C]an the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis – a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God, that they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just – that His justice cannot sleep forever.

Since the basis of our American republic rests on God’s standards, the only way to preserve the nation’s foundation is for citizens to have a knowledge of those standards and place into office individuals who both understand those standards and will protect America’s foundation

– that is, for citizens to choose leaders who recognize inalienable rights and will prevent government encroachment upon them. It is for this reason that a republic is a much more difficult form of government to maintain than a democracy, for a republic requires more effort from the voters – not only must they understand their own government but they must also diligently investigate the beliefs of candidates before placing them into office. As John Adams explained:

We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our hands: we have a check upon two branches of the legislature. . . . It becomes necessary to every [citizen] then, to be in some degree a statesman: and to examine and judge for himself . . . [the] political principles and measures. Let us examine them with a sober . . . Christian spirit.

A democracy is the deterioration of a republic – it is a lazy man’s form of government. It requires no effort and no research of candidates or long-term issues; it is simply based on what a majority of the people feel at a given time and is primarily motivated by emotions and selfishness – by what is best for “me” rather than what is best for others and for the country.

An excellent illustration of the inherent deficiencies of a democracy is seen in what transpired around Jesus during the final week of his life here on earth. As he entered Jerusalem, a great crowd ushered him in, seeking to make him their king; the next week, however, the same crowd shouted, “Kill the bum! Give us the thief Barabbas instead!” What a change – make Him king one week and kill Him the next! That is a democracy – it fluctuates in direct response to the variable feelings of the people, and its policies are based on what they want at any given instant. A democracy is what Founding Father Benjamin Rush aptly called a “mobocracy.”

Yet, even after learning that the phrase is not part of the Constitution, many citizens nevertheless persist: “Well, even though the words aren’t there, isn’t that what the First Amendment really means? Wasn’t that the intent of those who framed that Amendment?”

The answer to that question is, “No; that was not their intent” – at least not in the way that we have come to know separation of church and state today.

What evidence proves this? The Founders’ own writings as well as the official documents surrounding the framing of the First Amendment – documents such as the Congressional Record.

The Congressional Record (required by the Constitution in Art. i, Sec. 5, ¶ 3) contains all the official words and acts that occur in congressional chambers. Those records therefore include the discussion of the ninety Founders in the first federal Congress who, from June 8 to September 25, 1789, framed the First Amendment. 2In those lengthy discussions that spanned months, the Founders repeatedly explained that they were seeking to prevent what they had experienced under Great Britain: the legal establishment by the national government of a single religious denomination in exclusion of all others (whether Catholic, Anglican, or any other). Very simply, their oft-repeated intent was that Congress could not officially establish any one denomination in America; or, in the wording proposed by James Madison, “nor shall any national religion be established.”

(Significantly, the word “religion” in the Founders’ First Amendment discussions was often used interchangeably with the word “denomination.” For example, the original version of the First Amendment introduced in the Senate on September 3, 1789, stated, “Congress shall not make any law establishing any religious denomination.” The second version stated, “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination.” The third version was very similar, declaring, “Con-gress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination in preference to another.” The final version passed on that day declared, “Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting thefree exercise thereof.” 24 Clearly, the word “religion” had been used interchangeably with “denomination” throughout their discussions, and this is why the First Amendment prohibited the national government from establishing any single “religion,” or denomination.) When the First Amendment was finally approved, it contained two separate clauses on religion, each with an independent scope of action. The first clause (called the Establishment Clause) prohibited the federal government from establishing a single national denomination; the second clause (called the Free Exercise Clause) prohibited the federal government from interfering with the people’s public religious expressions and acknowledgments. Significantly, both clauses restricted the actions of the federal government; neither restricted the actions of citizens. Very simply, the Founding Fathers did not want a single federal denomination to rule America (“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion . . .”), but they did expect basic Biblical principles and values to be present throughout public life and society (“. . . nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”).

Significantly, for over a century-and-a-half after the First Amendment was ratified, this was the only manner in which it was interpreted. Unfortunately, in recent decades activist courts have dramatically redefined the word “religion” in the First Amendment, giving it a definition found in no dictionary (except the Court’s own privatelywritten one). The result is that the First Amendment is now used to prohibit the very religious activities that the Founders themselves once encouraged under that same Amendment. One clear example of this is provided by Fisher Ames, the Founding Father who offered the final wording for the House version of the First Amendment. Ames, like so many other Framers, was committed to maintaining sound education in America. In his watchfulness over education, he noticed that many new children’s books, filled with character fables and moral lessons, were being introduced into the classroom. Ames did not object to the content of these new books, but he was alarmed that an unintended consequence would be that students would have less time to spend on the Bible. He therefore publicly urged:

Why then, if these [new] books for children must be retained – as they will be – should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Ames further noted that the Bible was the principal source of sound morals in America and therefore must never be separated from the classroom. Clearly, the use of the Bible in public school classrooms did not violate Fisher Ames’ view of the First Amendment – and he was one of the Framers most responsible for the wording of that Amendment. Ironically, the Amendment he helped write now prohibits the very activities he once encouraged under that same Amendment. Dr. Benjamin Rush provides another such example. Rush signed the Declaration of Independence, ratified the Constitution, and served in the presidential administrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson,and James Madison. He was also one of America’s leading educators, helping found five schools and universities, three of which still exist today. In fact, he was the first Founder to call for free public schools under the Constitution, for which he may properly be titled “The Father of the Public Schools under the Constitution.” In a famous 1791 educational policy paper, Rush offered numerous reasons why the Bible should never be taken out of American schools. He even warned:

In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, [if we remove the Bible from schools] I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them. Rush knew that if religious teachings were excluded from education, widespread misbehavior would result, and the increase in crime would become a national problem. Yet today the First Amendmentnow prohibits what it once protected: the inclusion of religious principles in public education.

Significantly, not just John Adams, but many other Founding Fathers and early American political leaders also declared that America was guided by or founded on Christian principles. Among those making such declarations were Elias Boudinot, a President of Congress during the Revolution; and signers of the Declaration Charles Carroll, John Hancock, Benjamin Rush, Stephen Hopkins, and Samuel Adams. Also citing Christian principles as foundational are Constitution signers George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Rufus King, John Dickinson, and Roger Sherman. Others making similar declarations about Christian principles in America include Samuel Chase, a signer of the Declaration and a U. S. Supreme Court Justice; original Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay; Justice Joseph Story; Justice James Kent; Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first legal text; and the U. S. Supreme Court itself, not to mention the U. S. Congress as well as numerous State Supreme Courts and State legislatures. Other famous Americans who claimed that America was a Christian nation or was built on Christian principles included leaders such as General William Eaton, leader of America’s first conflict following the American Revolution, and Daniel Webster, the great “Defender of the Constitution.” U. S. Presidents declaring that America was a Christian nation or that it was founded on Christian principles included John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln ,Woodrow Wilson, Zachary Taylor, Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson, William McKinley, Herbert Hoover, Teddy Roosevelt, and many others. Educational leaders who taught students in classic American textbooks that Christianity was the basis of our country and its government included notables such as Noah Webster, “The Schoolmaster to America,” Jedediah Morse, “The Father of American Geography,” and William McGuffey of the famous McGuffey Readers. All of these, and so many more Founding Fathers, leaders, educators, and official departments of government declared that America was a Christian nation or that it was influenced by or built on Christian principles by Christian leaders.

It was because of this strong Christian faith that the Founders were willing to welcome those of other faiths to America. The Founders knew the truth of Christianity; they believed that it would prevail on its own merits without the need for force or coercion. As Thomas Jefferson explained: Truth can stand by itself. . . . [W]hy subject [religious opinion] to coercion? To produce uniformity. . . . Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. . . . [I]f there be but one right [religion], and [Christianity] that one, we should wish to see the nine hundred and ninety-nine wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these,free inquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. Consequently, our Founding Fathers openly acknowledged and welcomed the presence of numerous religious groups in America, including Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews. In fact, John Randolph of Roanoke, an early member of Congress from Virginia who served with the Founding Fathers, said that he was personally “in favor of Mohamedanism.” (He was later converted to Christianity and discipled by Francis Scott Key, author of the “Star Spangled Banner.” Randolph then became a strong personal advocate for Christianity.) Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration who served in three presidential administrations, and one of the most evangelical Christians among the Founding Fathers, openly declared:

Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament. And while describing a federal parade in Philadelphia, Dr. 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 more happy emblem.