Judiciary Committee Passes Forbes’ Resolution to Reaffirm National Motto and Uphold Fundamental Rights

Washington, D.C., Mar 17 – Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04) announced today that the House Judiciary Committee has voted in favor of the “In God We Trust Resolution,” H. Con. Res. 13. The resolution, introduced by Forbes and supported by 64 bipartisan Members of Congress, reaffirms the national motto and supports and encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions. “Today, the House Judiciary Committee asked two simple questions: does the United States still have the right to trust in God, and if so, should it? If the answer is ‘yes’ to both questions, then the truths we declare to be ‘self evident’ and the rights we hold as ‘endowed by our Creator’ are indeed transcendent and cannot be taken away by any government. I applaud the Judiciary Committee for answering ‘yes’ and reaffirming not only our nation’s trust in God, but also our fundamental rights as Americans,” said Forbes. Forbes introduced the “In God We Trust Resolution” in response to a pattern of omitting God from our national heritage: · In 2007, a 17-year old Eagle Scout requested a flag and accompanying certificate in honor of his grandfather mentioning “love of God and country.” The certificate was initially censored until Members of Congress intervened. · Also in 2007, the U.S. Mint circulated an “unknown number” of one-dollar coins omitting the motto, “In God We Trust.” Though the motto was restored, it was relegated to tiny script on the edge of the coin rather than its previous place on the coin’s face. · In 2008, the new Capitol Visitors Center was stripped of the national motto until 108 lawmakers called on the Architect of the Capitol to restore the “In God We Trust” engraving in the main foyer. · The Department of Veterans Affairs temporarily banned flag folding recitations at military funerals that referenced God or religion, even if specifically requested by the family of the deceased. Members penned a letter to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs requesting a reversal of the policy. Soon after, the Department backed off of the ban. · The replica of the top of the Washington Monument contained inside was not properly displayed so that the inscription “Laus Deo,” which means “Praise be to God,” was not fully visible. Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus wrote the National Park Service, which issued a statement acknowledging the oversight and committing to redesign the display so that the Laus Deo inscription could be seen. “There is a small minority who believes America does not have the right to trust in God, who believes the United States should not affirm trust in God, and who actively seek to remove any recognition of that trust. The passage of this legislation today, along with recent federal court decisions, sends a message that ‘In God We Trust’ is not only written in the halls of our federal buildings, but it is a bedrock upon which our nation is built,” said Forbes. Congressman Forbes is founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, a bipartisan group of over 70 members of Congress whose purpose is to protect America’s religious heritage and the right of all Americans to pray according to their faith.

Contrary to the Textbooks: God was Never Missing in the History of our Country

By David Barton

American history today has become a dreary academic subject. Yet, most who are bored by American history view Bible history quite differently: they love the stories of David and Goliath, Daniel and the lion’s den, and Peter walking on the water. So it’s not that people don’t enjoy history, it’s just that they don’t respond favorably to the way American history is currently being taught.One reason Bible history is interesting and American history is not is that the Bible (as well as American education during its first three centuries) utilizes biographical history – that is, it presents history through the eyes and life experiences of those involved (i.e., the biographies) rather than through the recitation of a string of dates and places. It is the difference between reading the stories in Guideposts and the numbers in a phone book. Looking at history the way God presents it is exciting and informative; and in numerous verses, God even commends its study: “Remember the former things of old: for I am God” (Isaiah 46:9); and “Call to remembrance the former days” (Hebrews 10:32); etc. But why would God want us to know history? The Apostle Paul answers that question in 1 Corinthians 10:1: “All these things happened unto them for example; and they are written for our admonition” (see also Romans 15:4: “Those things written aforetime were written for our learning”). In short, we learn from history; and what we learn affects our behavior. American leaders long understood this Biblical truth. For example, Thomas Jefferson noted: “History, by apprizing them [students] of the past, will enable them to judge of the future.” And what can be learned by being “apprized of the past”? According to Benjamin Franklin: History will afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion from its usefulness to the public; the advantage of a religious character among private persons; the mischiefs of superstition; and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern. Franklin understood that history, when accurately presented, would demonstrate the need for Christianity because of both the societal and the individual benefits it produces. In fact, the presenting of an uncensored and unrevised history actually causes a recognition of the hand of God – for, in the words of the great statesman Daniel Webster: “History is God’s providence in human affairs.” Today, however, history is presented in such an edited, revised, and politically-correct manner that God’s hand is rarely visible – and even the historic role of famous Godly leaders in education, business, politics, and the military is now virtually unacknowledged. An obvious example of the secularization of history occurs each year around the Fourth of July. Americans are taught that “taxation without representation” was the reason America separated from Great Britain; yet “taxation without representation” was only reason number seventeen out of the twenty-seven reasons given in the Declaration of Independence – it was not even in the top half, yet it’s all that most ever hear. Never mentioned today are the numerous grievances condemning judicial activism – or those addressing moral or religious or other issues. What religious issues? In 1762, the king vetoed the charter for America’s first missionary society; he also suppressed other religious freedoms and even prevented Americans from printing an English language Bible. How did Americans respond? They took action; and almost unknown today is the fact that Declaration signers such as Samuel Adams and Charles Carroll cited religious freedom as the reason they became involved in the American Revolution. And significantly, even though Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin (two of the least religious signers) are typically the only signers studied today, almost half of the signers of the Declaration (24 of 56) held what today would be considered seminary or Bible school degrees. Clearly, for many Founders, religious issues were an important motivation behind their separation from Great Britain; but that motivation is largely ignored today. Moral issues are accorded the same silence. The greatest moral issue of that day was slavery; and after several of the American colonies moved toward abolishing slavery in 1773, the King, in 1774, vetoed those anti-slavery laws and continued slavery in America. Soon-to-be signers of the Declaration Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush promptly founded America’s first abolition society as a direct response against the king’s order. The desire to end slavery in America was a significant motivation not only for Franklin and Rush but also for a number of others; but the end of slavery in America could be achieved only if they separated from Great Britain – which they were willing to do (and six of the thirteen colonies began abolishing slavery following the separation). There were many other significant issues that led to our original Fourth of July; so why aren’t Americans familiar with the rest? Because in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, a group of secular-minded writers (including Charles and Mary Beard, W. E. Woodward, Fairfax Downey, and others) began penning works on American history that introduced a new paradigm. For this group, economics was the only issue of importance, so they began to write texts accordingly (their approach is now described as “the economic view of American history” and since the 1960s has been widely embraced throughout the education community). Consequently, since “taxation without representation” was the economic grievance in the Declaration, it became the sole clause that Americans studied. As a result, God is no longer visible in American history; and His absence is now construed as a mandate for secularism. Texts now forcefully assert that the American founding produced the first intentionally secular government in history – even though the Declaration officially acknowledges God in four separate clauses. (But who still teaches the Declaration – or even reads it?) Similarly, leaders such as John Hancock and John Adams receive credit as being the source of our independence, even though John Adams himself declared that the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew and the Rev. Dr. Samuel Cooper were two of the individuals “most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential” in the “awakening and revival of American principles and feelings” that led to American independence. Regrettably, God (and His servants) have largely disappeared from the presentation of American history in general and America’s founding in particular. As a further example, consider the legendary Minutemen: even though they are still honored in many texts, their leader, the Rev. Jonas Clark, is no longer mentioned – nor the fact that many of the Minutemen were deacons in his church. And the Rev. James Caldwell is no longer acknowledged as a key leader of military forces in New Jersey – nor the Rev. John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg (who led 300 men from his church against the British) as one of Washington’s most trusted generals. Regrettably, we no longer know much about the indispensable role of pastors and Christian leaders in the founding of our civil government. Americans have been subjected to “revisionism“ – defined by the dictionary as “the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view; especially a revision of historical events and movements.” Revisionism attempts to alter the way a people sees its history in order to cause a change in public policy. Consider how successful this has been. Under the economic view of American history, Americans now believe that the early colonists came to America seeking land and gold rather than for the reason most cited by the colonists: evangelization. And most now accept that the colonies were founded for trade, fishing, and other economic enterprises, even though more than half were founded by Gospel ministers for religious purposes (e.g., Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Georgia, etc.). And if religion is discussed in a text, it will be to present the 21 deaths during the Salem Witch Trials rather than the Great Awakenings, the Civil War revivals, or the turn-of-the-century revivals that led to widespread urban renewal and the end of child labor. Having now come to believe that economics is what created and made America great, it is not surprising that few Americans commented on the fact that, during the 2004 presidential debates, “jobs” and “economy” were mentioned hundreds of times but “marriage” less than a dozen. Nor is it surprising that over the past decade, 45 percent of evangelical Christians say that economic issues are more important than moral issues when it comes to voting. There is so much of our wholesome, God-centered American history that we no longer know today. This is especially true when it comes to the average American’s knowledge of African American history. Consider, for example, African American achievements during the American Revolution. Few today know that almost 5,000 of the patriots in the fledgling Continental Army were African Americans – that, for example, a hero of the Battle of Bunker Hill was African American Peter Salem. His heroic actions saved the lives of scores of Americans, and he was honored before General Washington for his courage. And Pastor Lemuel Haynes was involved in several major Revolutionary battles and became an ardent admirer of George Washington, regularly preaching sermons on Washington’s birthday. This patriot preacher was the first African American to be ordained by a mainstream Christian denomination (the Congregationalists, in 1785), to pastor a white congregation (a congregation in Connecticut), and to be awarded an honorary Master’s Degree (by Middlebury College, in 1804). Yet who today has heard of Lemuel Haynes? Or who has heard of James Armistead, the courageous spy at Yorktown whose remarkable service considerably shortened the War? Or Oliver Cromwell and Prince Whipple (depicted in several famous Revolutionary War paintings) who served directly under General Washington and the general staff? Or Jordan Freeman, the gallant soldier to whom a monument was erected for his heroic service at the Battle of Groton Heights? Then there is also African American church history – including the amazing story of the Rev. John Marrant, the first African American to evangelize successfully among American Indians; the Rev. Richard Allen, who gained his freedom from slavery, served in the American Revolution, became a preacher in a church of 2000 whites, and founded America’s first black denomination; and the Rev. Harry Hoosier, who delivered the first recorded Methodist sermon by an African American and drew crowds larger than the great Methodist Bishop Francis Asbury. And consider African American political history. Who today knows the story of the Rev. Hiram Rhodes Revels, the African American missionary who became the first black U. S. Senator? Or the Rev. Henry Highland Garnet, the first African American to deliver a sermon in Congress? Or Joseph Hayne Rainey, who overcame slavery to become the first African American elected to the U. S. Congress, even presiding over the U. S. House? (In the picture of the first seven African Americans elected to the federal Congress – all as Republicans – the Rev. Revels is the first from the left, and Rainey is second from the right.) Or who today has learned that nearly every southern Republican Party was started by African Americans – or that the first 190 African Americans elected to office in South Carolina (and the first 112 in Mississippi, the first 42 in Texas, the first 127 in Louisiana, etc.) were all Republicans, and many were ministers? I have spent years collecting thousands of original and priceless documents from American history in general and black history in particular; God’s fingerprints are evident throughout. I have been asked why I, as an Anglo, would spend so much time in the study of African American political history. The answer is simple: I am an American; and since the story of African American history is part of American history, it therefore is part of my own history. Furthermore, I am inspired by all stories of sacrifice, courage, and Godly character – regardless of skin color. The stories of African American heroes such as Phillis Wheatley, Francis Grimke, and John Roy Lynch are as thrilling to me as are the stories of Lewis & Clark, Helen Keller, and Alvin York. The reintroduction of a truthful and complete telling of American history is long overdue. Daniel Webster was right: “History is God’s providence in human affairs,” and it is time for Americans once again to become aware of the remarkable hand of God throughout our history. (By the way, our newest DVD, “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White,” available from www.wallbuilders.com, helps reintroduce the forgotten heroes and untold stories from our rich African American political history.)

Courtesy of http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=100

John Locke: Deist or Theologian?

Many law and history professors and uninformed historical writers commonly assert that John Locke was a secular political writer or a deist. Often, these claims are made without the logical effort of studying Locke or his writings directly. (Rather, the views of other writers who wrote about Locke are studied!) If you have such a professor, or hear such assertions, here are a few helpful questions that you can use:

Questions About John Locke that Demand An Answer

• In 1669, John Locke assisted in the drafting of the Carolina constitution under which no man could be a citizen unless he acknowledged God, was a member of a church, and used no “reproachful, reviling, or abusive language” against any religion. ¹‡ How can the constitutional requirement that no one can become a citizen (1) unless he acknowledges God; (2) be a member of a church; and (3) not attack religion, be considered a secular political philosophy?
• Many of Locke’s political ideas were specifically drawn from British theologian Richard Hooker (1554-1600), whom Locke quotes heavily in approbation throughout his own political writings. ²‡ If Locke draws so heavily from (and frequently cites) a theologian throughout his own political works, how can it be true that his political philosophies were totally secular?
• In his most famous political work, his Two Treatises of Government, Locke set forth the belief that successful governments could be built only upon the transcendent, unchanging principles of natural law that were a subset of God’s law. For example, he declared:
  

  [T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. ³

  [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made. ⁴

  ‡ How can Locke’s declaration that the laws of legislators must be conformable “to the will of God” and that human laws cannot contradict “any positive law of Scripture” be considered part of a secular political philosophy?

• Locke’s Two Treatises of Government were heavily relied upon by the American Founding Fathers. In fact, signer of the Declaration Richard Henry Lee declared that the Declaration itself was “copied from Locke’s Treatise on Government.” ⁵ Yet so heavily did Locke draw from the Bible in developing his political theories that in his first treatise on government, he invoked the Bible in one thousand three hundred and forty nine references; in his second treatise, he cited it one hundred and fifty seven times.‡ How can so many references to the Bible in Locke’s most famous political work be reconciled with the charge that his political philosophies were totally secular?
• While many today classify John Locke as a deist, secular thinker, or a forerunner of deism, ⁶ previous generations classified John Locke as a theologian. ⁷‡ How can the charge that Locke’s political philosophies were totally secular be squared with the fact that he was long considered a theologian?
• John Locke’s many writings included a verse-by-verse commentary on Paul’s Epistles. He also compiled a topical Bible, which he called a Common Place-Book to the Holy Bible, that listed the verses in the Bible, subject by subject. Then when anti-religious enlightenment thinkers attacked Christianity, Locke defended it in his book, The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures. And then when he was attacked for defending Christianity in that first work, he responded with the work, A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity. Still being attacked two years later, Locke wrote, A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity. 8 No wonder he was considered a theologian by his peers and by subsequent generations!‡ How can a theologian who wrote so many books on the writings and doctrines of the Bible and Christianity (and who frequently cited the Scriptures in his political writings) also be a writer whose political philosophies were totally secular?
• Significantly, when during the Founding Era it was charged that Locke was a secular writer, it drew a sharp response from law professor James Wilson – a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. Wilson declared:
  

  I am equally far from believing that Mr. Locke was a friend to infidelity [a disbelief in the Bible and in Christianity 9]. . . . The high reputation which he deservedly acquired for his enlightened attachment to the mild and tolerating doctrines of Christianity secured to him the esteem and confidence of those who were its friends. The same high and deserved reputation inspired others of very different views and characters . . . to diffuse a fascinating kind of lustre over their own tenets of a dark and sable hue. The consequence has been that the writings of Mr. Locke, one of the most able, most sincere, and most amiable assertors of Christianity and true philosophy, have been perverted to purposes which he would have deprecated and prevented [disapproved and opposed] had he discovered or foreseen them. ¹⁰

  ‡ How can the charge that political philosophies were totally secular be explained with the claim by such a prominent legal authorities that Locke was “one of the most able, most sincere, and most amiable assertors of Christianity”?

 

---

NOTES

[1] John Locke, A Collection of Several Pieces of Mr. John Locke Never Before Printed or Not Extant in His Works (London: J. Bettenham for R. Francklin, 1720), pp. 3, 41, 45, 46.

[2] Locke, Two Treatises, passim.

[3] John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (London: J. Whiston, etc., 1772), Book II, p. 285, Chapter XI, §135.

[4] John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (London: J. Whiston, etc., 1772), Book II, p. 285, Chapter XI, §135, n., quoting Hooker’s Eccl. Pol. 1. iii, sect. 9.

[5] Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 462, in a letter to James Madison on August 30, 1823.

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

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

[8] Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, 1911, s.v. “John Locke.”

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

[10] James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, pp. 67-68, “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation.”

Courtesy of Wallbuilders  at http://wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106

James Madison and the Importance of Religion in the Public Arena

David Barton – 09/2002

In recent days, Michael Newdow – infamous for his successful initiation of the ruling striking down “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance – has broadened his efforts and has filed suit against the use of chaplains in the U. S. House and Senate. In his public appearances defending this newest pursuit, Newdow cites James Madison’s quotes from his “Detached Memoranda” as his authority in opposing chaplains. Did Madison actually oppose chaplains in Congress? Yes, and no. Madison’s religious views and activities are numerous, as are his writings on religion. They are at times self-contradictory, and his statements about religion are such that opposing positions can each invoke Madison as its authority. An understanding of Madison’s religious views is complicated by the fact that his early actions were at direct variance with his later opinions. Consider six examples of his early actions. First, Madison was publicly outspoken about his personal Christian beliefs and convictions. For example, he encouraged his friend, William Bradford (who served as Attorney General under President Washington), to make sure of his own spiritual salvation: [A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.[1] Madison even desired that all public officials – including Bradford – would declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony: I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. [2] Second, Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that: It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other. [3] (emphasis added) Third, Madison’s proposed wording for the First Amendment demonstrates that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities. His proposal declared: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established. [4] (emphasis added) (Madison reemphasized that position throughout the debates. [5]) Fourth, in 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains. [6] Fifth, in 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible. [7] Sixth, throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. [8] These were the early actions of Madison. In later life Madison retreated from many of these positions, even declaring in his “Detached Memoranda” his belief that having paid chaplains and issuing presidential prayer proclamations were unconstitutional. Recent Courts have made a point of citing Madison’s “Detached Memoranda” in arguing against public religious expressions. [9] Significantly, the “Detached Memoranda” was “discovered” in 1946 in the papers of Madison biographer William Cabell Rives and was first published more than a century after Madison’s death by Elizabeth Fleet in the October 1946 William & Mary Quarterly. In that work, Madison expressed his opposition to many of his own earlier beliefs and practices and set forth a new set of beliefs formerly unknown even to his closest friends. Since Madison never made public or shared with his peers his sentiments found in the “Detached Memoranda,” and since his own public actions were at direct variance with this later writing, it is difficult to argue that it reflects the Founders’ intent toward religion. There were fifty-five individuals directly involved in framing the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention, and an additional ninety in the first federal Congress that framed the First Amendment and Bill of Rights. Allowing for the overlap of nineteen individuals who were both at the Constitutional Convention and a part of the first Congress, [10] there were one hundred and twenty-six individual participants in the framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The records of the Constitutional Convention demonstrate that James Madison was often out of step with these Founders. The other delegates rejected Madison’s Virginia plan in preference for Roger Sherman’s Connecticut plan and voted down 40 of Madison’s 71 proposals (60 percent). [11] Nevertheless, today Madison is cited as if he is the only authority among the Founding Fathers and the only expert on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Was Madison responsible for the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights? Definitely not. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, it was Virginian George Mason that advocated that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution, [12] but the other Virginians at the Convention – including James Madison – opposed any Bill of Rights and their position prevailed. [13] Consequently, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and others at the Convention refused to sign the new Constitution because of their fear of insufficiently bridled federal power. [14] Mason and the others returned to their home States to lobby against the ratification of the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was added. As a result of their voices (and numerous others who agreed with them), the ratification of the Constitution almost failed in Virginia, [15] Massachusetts, [16] New Hampshire, [17] and New York. [18] Rhode Island flatly refused to ratify it, [19] and North Carolina refused to do so until limitations were placed upon the federal government. [20] Although the Constitution was eventually ratified, a clear message had been delivered: there was strong sentiment demanding the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. When the Constitution was considered for ratification, the reports from June 2 through June 25, 1788, make clear that in Virginia, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph led the fight for the Bill of Rights, again over James Madison’s opposition. [21] Henry’s passionate speeches of June 5 and June 7 resulted in Virginia’s motion that a Bill of Rights be added to the federal Constitution; and on June 25, the Virginia Convention selected George Mason to chair a committee to prepare a proposed Bill of Rights, [22] with Patrick Henry and John Randolph as members. [23] Mason incorporated Henry’s arguments as the basis of Virginia’s proposal on religious liberty. [24] Although Madison had opposed a Bill of Rights, he understood the grim political reality that without one, it was unlikely the new Constitution would receive widespread public acceptance. [25] Consequently, he withdrew his opposition, and in the federal House of Representatives he introduced his own versions of the amendments offered by his State. Very little of Madison’s proposed religious wording made it into the final version of the First Amendment; and even a cursory examination of the Annals of Congress surrounding the formation of that Amendment quickly reveals the influence of Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire, John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and others on that Amendment. [26] The failure to rely on Founders other than Madison seems to imply that no other Founders were qualified to address First Amendment issues or that there exists no pertinent recorded statements from the other Founders. Both implications are wrong: numerous Founders played pivotal roles; and thousands of their writings do exist. However, if critics of public religious expression believe that only a Virginian may speak for the nation on the issue of religion (they usually cite either Madison or Jefferson), then why not George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights”? Or Richard Henry Lee who not only framed Virginia’s proposals but who also was a Member of the first federal Congress where he helped frame the Bill of Rights? Or why not George Washington? Perhaps the reason that these other Virginians are ignored (as are most of the other Framers) is because both their words and actions unequivocally contradict the image portrayed by the one-sided picture of Madison given by those who cite only his “Detached Memoranda.” George Washington provides a succinct illustration. During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible. [27] His “Inaugural Address” was filled with numerous religious references, [28] and following that address, he and the Congress “proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel, where Divine service was performed.” [29] Only weeks later, Washington signed his first major federal bill [30] – the Northwest Ordinance, drafted concurrently with the creation of the First Amendment. [31] That act stipulated that for a territory to become a State, the “schools and the means of education” in that territory must encourage the “religion, morality, and knowledge” that was “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.” [32] Conforming to this requirement, numerous subsequent State constitutions included that clause, [33] and it still appears in State constitutions today. [34] Furthermore, that law is listed in the current federal code, along with the Constitution, the Declaration, and the Articles of Confederation, as one of America’s four “organic” or foundational laws. [35] Finally, in his “Farewell Address,” Washington reminded the nation: 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. . . . The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. [36] Washington – indisputably a constitutional expert – declared that religion and morality were inseparable from government, and that no true patriot, whether politician or clergyman, would attempt to weaken the relationship between government and the influence of religion and morality. Or why not cite the actions of the entire body of Founding Fathers? For example, in 1800, when Washington, D. C., became the national capital and the President moved into the White House and Congress into the Capitol, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building for Christian worship services. [37] In fact, Christian worship services on Sunday were also started at the Treasury Building and at the War Office. [38] John Quincy Adams, a U. S. Senator, made frequent references to these services. Typical of his almost weekly entries are these: [R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. October 23, 1803. [39] Attended public service at the Capitol, where Mr. Ratoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. October 30, 1803. [40] The Rev. Mannasseh Cutler, a U. S. Congressman (as well as a chaplain in the Revolution and a physician and scientist) similarly recorded in 1804: December 23, Sunday. Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. [James] Laurie [pastor of the Presbyterian Church] alone [preached]. Sacrament [communion]. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours. Cold day. [41] By1867, the church in the Capitol had become the largest church in Washington, and the largest Protestant church in America. [42] There are numerous other public religious activities by the Founding Fathers that might be cited, and Madison participated and facilitated many of them. Yet Madison later privately renounced his own practices, thus distancing himself from his own beliefs and practices as well as those of the other Founders. Therefore, to use Madison’s “Detached Memoranda” as authoritative is a flagrant abuse of historical records, choosing a long unknown ex post facto document in preference to those concurrent with the framing and implementation of the First Amendment. Newdow’s use of James Madison is typical of most revisionists: it gives only the part of the story with which he agrees and omits the part with which he disagrees. If Newdow wants to take the position that the “Founding Fathers” (plural) opposed the use of chaplains, then he must provide evidence from more than one Founder; he must show that the majority of the Founders opposed chaplains – something that he cannot do. WallBuilders has a resource that provides comprehensive information on the Founders views on the Constitution (see Original Intent). ENDNOTES [1] Letter of Madison to William Bradford (November 9, 1772), in 1 James Madison, The Letters and Other Writings of James Madison 5-6 (New York: R. Worthington 1884). [2] Letter of Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773), in 1 James Madison, The Papers of James Madison 66 (William T. Hutchinson ed., Illinois: University of Chicago Press 1962). [3] The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, Held at the Capitol in the City of Williamsburg, in the Colony of Virginia, on Monday the 6th of May, 1776, 103 (Williamsburg: Alexander Purdie 1776) (Madison on the Committee on May 16, 1776; the “Declaration of Rights” passed June 12, 1776). [4] 1 The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 451, 1st Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, D. C.: Gales & Seaton 1834) (June 8, 1789). [5] 1 Debates and Proceedings 758-759 (1834 ed.) (August 15, 1789). [6] 1 Debates and Proceedings 109 (1834 ed.) (April 9, 1789). [7] Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 1325, 12th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington: Gales & Seaton 1853) (“An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia. Be it enacted, &c., That the duties arising and due to the United States upon certain stereotype plates, imported during the last year into the port of Philadelphia, on board the ship Brilliant, by the Bible Society of Philadelphia, for the purpose of printing editions of the Holy Bible, be and the same are hereby remitted, on behalf of the United States, to the said society: and any bond or security given for the securing of the payment of the said duties shall be cancelled. Approved February 2, 1813.”) [8] 1 James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, 513 (Published by Authority of Congress 1899) (July 9, 1812), 532-533 (July 23, 1813), 558 (November 16, 1814), and 560-561 (March 4, 1815). [9] See, for example, Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 617 (1992); Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 791 (1983); ACLU v. Capitol Square Review, 243 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2001); Sherman v. Cmty. Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992); American Jewish Congress v. City of Chicago, 827 F.2d 120 (7th Cir. 1787), and others. [10] Ten members of the Constitutional Convention also served in the first federal Senate (William Few, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, William Paterson, Robert Morris, Oliver Ellsworth, William Samuel Johnson, Caleb Strong, and John Langdon) and nine members of the Convention served in the first federal House (Abraham Baldwin, James Madison, Hugh Williamson, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Roger Sherman, Elbridge Gerry, and Nicholas Gilman). [11] Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution 208-209 (Lawrence, Kansas, 1985), compiled from The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (Max Farrand, ed., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, 216, 373, and Vol. II, 45, 306, 324-325, 345, 440, 500, and 617. [12] 3 James Madison, The Papers of James Madison 1566 (Henry D. Gilpin, ed., Washington: Langress and O’Sullivan, 1840) (Wednesday, September 12, 1787); see also 2 George Bancroft, Bancroft’s History of the Formation of the Constitution 209-210 (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1882), and 2 Farrand’s Records of The Federal Convention 588 (September 12, 1787) and 637 (September 15, 1787). [13] 1 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 306 (Jonathan Elliot, ed., Washington, 1836) (September 12, 1787). [14] Dictionary of American Biography, s.v., “George Mason,” “Edmund Randolph,” “Elbridge Gerry.” [15] Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III, 652-655, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 25, 1788. [16] Elliot’s Debates, Vol. II, 176-181, Massachusetts Ratification Debates, February 6, 1788. [17] Joseph B. Walker, A History of the New Hampshire Convention (Boston: Cupples & Hurd, 1888), 41-43, June 21, 1788. [18] Elliot’s Debates, Vol. II, 413, New York Ratification Debates, July 26, 1788. [19] Collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society (Providence: Knowles and Vose, 1843), Vol. V, 320-321, March 24, 1788. [20] Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, 242-251, North Carolina Ratification Debates, August 1-2, 1788. [21] Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III, 616-622, James Madison, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 24, 1788. [22] Rowland, Life of George Mason, Vol. I, 244. [23] Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III, 655-656, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 25, 1788. [24] Patrick Henry, Life, Correspondence and Speeches, William Wirt Henry (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891), Vol. I, 430-431; see also Rowland, Life of George Mason, Vol. I, 244; see also Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III, 659, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 27, 1788. [25] 1 Debates and Proceedings 448-450 (1st Cong., 1st Sess) (June 8, 1789); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 93-99 (1985) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). [26] See 1 Debates and Proceedings 440-948 (1st Cong., 1st Sess.) (June 8- September 24, 1789, for the records chronicling the debates surrounding the framing of the First Amendment). [27] 4 Washington Irving, Life of George Washington 475 (New York: G. P. Putnam & Co., 1857); Mrs. C. M Kirkland, Memoirs of Washington 438 (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1870); Charles Carleton Coffin, Building the Nation 26 (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1882); etc. [28] 1 Richardson, Messages and Papers 51-54 (April 30, 1789). [29] 1 Annals of Congress 29 (April 30, 1789). [30] Acts Passed at a Congress of the United States of America Begun and Held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, in the Year 1789, 104 (Hartford: Hudson & Goodwin, 1791) (August 7, 1789). [31] 1 Debates and Proceedings 685 (1st Cong., 1st Sess.) (July 21, 1789, passage by the House), and 1 Debates and Proceedings 57 (August 4, 1789, passage by the Senate). [32] Constitutions (1813) 364 (“An Ordinance of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio,” Article III). [33] For example, State constitutions across the decades reflecting this requirement include the 1803 Ohio Constitution (Constitutions (1813), 334, Ohio, 1802, Article 8, Section 3); the 1817 Mississippi Constitution (The Constitutions of All the United States According to the Latest Amendments (Lexington, KY: Thomas T. Skillman, 1817), 389, Mississippi, 1817, Article 9, Section 16); the 1858 Kansas Constitution (House of Representatives, Mis. Doc. No. 44, 35th Cong., 2nd Sess., February 2, 1859, 3-4, Article 1, Section 7, of the Kansas Constitution); the 1875 Nebraska Constitution (M. B. C. True, A Manual of the History and Civil Government of the State of Nebraska (Omaha: Gibson, Miller, & Richardson, 1885), 34, Nebraska, 1875, Article 1, Section 4); etc. [34] See The Constitution of North Carolina 42 (Raleigh: Rufus L. Edmisten, Secretary of State, 1989) (Article 9, Section 1); Constitution of the State of Nebraska 1-2 (Lincoln: Allen J. Beermann, Secretary of State, 1992) (Article 1, Section 4); Page’s Ohio Revised Code Annotated 24 (Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co., 1994) (Article 1, Section 7). [35] United States Code Annotated 1 (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1987) (“The Organic Laws of the United States of America”). [36] George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination 22-23 (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796). [37] 1 Debates and Proceedings 797 (6th Cong., 2nd Sess.) (December 4, 1800). [38] Hutson 89; see also 1 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams 265 (Charles Francis Adams ed., Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1874) (October 23, 1803). [39] 1 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs 265 (October 23, 1803). [40] 1 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs 268 (October 30, 1803). [41] 2 William Parker Cutler & Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journals, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler, LL.D. 174 (Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co. 1888). [42] James Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic 91 (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress 1998).

Courtesy of Wallbuilders at http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=105