First Amendment Religion Clauses

Banning Heaven from Street Names - Is That In the Constitution?

2011-06-24T20:12:00.000-05:00

People across the nation were inspired by some of the heroic deeds of the first responders, as well as other police and fire personnel and various volunteers after the attacks in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. One Brooklyn firehouse lost seven firemen on that day, and they naturally want to honor them. The city named a nearby street for them: "Seven in Heaven Way."

You readers know what's coming next, right? An atheist group is complaining to the city about the sign, demanding it be changed. "Heaven" is a Christian concept, they say. Well, that's partly right. Heaven, or similar concepts using other words, are part of many religions. But Heaven is not part of atheism.

According to an article in New American:
Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission noted, "There are cities that have religious connotations in their names. Why not a street. Do they want us to rename Los Angeles, Corpus Christi, and St. Joseph?” Added Land, "In a country where 85 percent of the people say they are Christian or claim to be Christian, should it be surprising that you name cities and streets with religious terminology?”

That makes sense to me. Our Constitution specifies (in the Bill of Rights) that Congress may not make a law establishing a religion, and the provision is being applied to our states as well after a Supreme Court decision. But clearly a street sign requires no state law to be passed; it is a decision that cities make for a variety of reasons, and such decision do not require statutes to back them up. Even if they did, there is a difference between recognizing religion and establishing a religion. We have "Armed Forces Day" each year, but every citizen is not required to be in the military, for example. And many, if not most, cities have a form of Martin Luther King on a street name (sometimes on several). But the residents of those cities are not all black.

Read more here:

Atheists Complain Over NYC Street Sign Honoring Fallen 9-11 Firemen

Major Network Seems Not to Like Phrase 'Under God'

2011-06-20T03:19:00.003-05:00

Maybe it's time for a refresher on the Declaration of Independence. It contains a very important phrase, which points out that our rights are endowed by our Creator. That phrase was important as we sought independence from England and England's king. There are rights that are not the King's to give; they would not be the yet-to-be formed U.S. Government to give; they are rights given by God to human beings. Doesn't that seem like an important concept?

To be specific, those words from the Declaration of Independence are, "We hold these truths to self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." Is there any reason to be ashamed of those words? Aren't those same words indicative of people of all races having the same rights? We certainly aren't ashamed of that concept today.

And given that thought, it seems easy to accept the words "under God" that are in our Pledge of Allegiance. After all, that phrase was part of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. After a bold statement in our Declaration that our rights are given by our Creator, and the landmark Gettysburg Address saying we are a nation under God, having it in the Pledge seems consistent.

Yet, it seems that NBC is not at all comfortable with those words. In this weekend's broadcast of the U.S. Open Golf Championship, NBC played a moving "Americana" segment with the Pledge interwoven. But NBC decided to move the words "under God" out of the script. They are a non-governmental company (although there are serious ties these days between the Federal Government and the parent company of NBC), so they can do what they want. But if I ran the company and didn't care one way or the other about history, God, etc., I still might have guessed differently about which version might offend fewer members of the audience.

Read more here:
NBC Cuts 'Under God' From Pledge of Allegiance

Pledge of Allegiance Challenged Once Again - and Survived

2011-06-19T12:20:00.000-05:00

The well-known atheist Michael Newdow has continued to endless quest to remove any reference to God from all public arenas. He was unhappy about the children in Hanover, New Hampshire, being allowed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words, "under God."

On June 13, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected Newdow's appeal from the Boston Federal court. The Boston First Circuit's decision had been unanimous. The decision stated that the Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state. In my opinion, as expressed countless times in this blog, that makes sense. Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights are not given to us by the government, but rather are given to us by God. If we do not believe that, then we have no rights of our own. And if we think it is wrong to recite that we are a nation "under God" in our Pledge, are we not abandoning the belief that our government is not all-powerful?

Read another opinion of the case here:

Supreme Court rejects atheist's latest challenge to Pledge of Allegiance

See the Boston circuit decision here:

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION v. HANOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT

Remembering D-Day - FDR Prayer

2011-06-06T05:40:00.000-05:00

The way some news sources handle the issue, one could believe that religious belief and public prayer belong to the right and/or the Republican party. But if you look at our history this was not always the case. Certainly it would have been very difficult for any news outlet to claim he did not have religious feelings and beliefs after he gave a nationwide live radio address just before D-Day. The text below is the full prayer given by FDR, for and with the American people, on June 6, 1944. (As found on the FDR Library site.)

My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas -- whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

National Tradition Under Fire - Day of Prayer

2011-05-05T19:09:00.000-05:00

Before and after our Constitution was written, continuing through this century, Congress, Presidents, and Governors have declared national/state days of prayers. Even President Thomas "separation of church and state" Jeffersion declared a state day of prayer as Governor of Virginia (he did not declare a national day as President). But today there are organizations fighting to remove such traditions. Oddly, these groups even want to eliminate state days of prayer because of "separation of church and state," a phrase quoted by these groups. That phrase was from a letter of Thomas Jeffersion, who clearly was NOT against state days of prayer.
Jay Sekulow has a good, brief article about this. You can find it here:

Legal Challenge Can’t Stop National Day of Prayer

Jefferson Bible: Newly Restored, Still Misunderstood

2011-03-16T06:44:00.002-05:00

USA Today reports that the famous Jefferson Bible is being restored. This Bible contained the story of Jesus' life in chronological order, but it left out some of the miracles and resurrection. This fact is presented in the article, and later in the article it is said that Jefferson never sold it because he didn't want the give support to the claims that he was not a Christian. Those facts are probably all true, but they don't tell the whole story. And by not telling the rest of the story, they leave a false impression. It also leaves the impression that Jefferson left out all the miracles, even though there is evidence that some were originally included.

Jefferson was not an ideal Christian by my personal definition, but he called himself a Christian. And in the case of this Bible, his goal was not (apparently) to deny the miracles or resurrection, but was instead to make the Bible more understandable and acceptable for a primer for the Indians - to help show the Indians Jesus' teachings. In today's common concept of Jefferson - that he wanted a complete separation of church and state - this seems very odd indeed. Why would a President and Founding Father, if he believed in keeping religion far from government, create a Bible to give to the Native Americans of his time?

Read more about Jefferson's edition of the Bible here:
The Jefferson Bible

Also, look at the University of Virginia's Jefferson Library (once on the page, search for the word "indians"):
About the Jefferson Bible, from University of Virginia

Invite Me Anywhere, Just Not to Church

2011-03-10T19:40:00.000-06:00

The First Amendment seems so clear to me. First, the wording is clear and concise. Second, there are ample examples of the interpretations of the men who wrote it to demonstrate what they thought about it. Surely one demand of the First Amendment is NOT to allow all manner of speech as long as it is not religious.

Pocono Mountain School District is being sued over a supposed First Amendment issue. Students are allowed to pass out to their classmates all sorts of invitations to events. Halloween parties are fine, birthday parties are fine, Valentine's dances are fine, even some paid events are fine. But a student was barred from handing out an invitation to a free Christmas party at a church.

Many, if not most, public schools have become overly nervous about any hint of religious speech or actions within school property. The blame the constraints of the First Amendment, which is not accurate but is widely believed. But surely some of these officials must see that when you allow students to share invitations to all events except religious ones, that is hostility to religion more than neutrality to religion. This is more obvious when you consider that the handing out was done during non-instructional time before classes.

This blog is peppered with examples of our Founders supporting religion in public life and in public schools. The few Founders who may have been resistant to such support would still have insisted on neutrality.

Our country went through some troubling times when people with colored skin were treated different. Sometimes Jews were treated differently; sometimes Irish were treated differently. Now it may be a time when religious people are treated differently.

Read the story below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1309388

Day of Prayer Declaration in 1622

2011-02-07T01:57:00.001-06:00

There are several examples on this blog of our founders' declarations for days of fasting and prayer, many from around the time of our Declaration of Independence and later years. But it was the continuation of a tradition that started long before that.

Consider Plymouth Plantation, when there was a severe lack of rain in 1622. Governor Bradford had no federal government to look to for assistance. Instead he looked to the leader that he and his people wanted to be in charge. He wrote this declaration:

"I may not here omit how, notwithstand all their great pains and industry, and the great hopes of a large crop, the Lord seemed to blast, and take away the same, and to threaten further and more sore famine unto them. By a great drought which continued from the third week in May, till about the middle of July, without any rain and with great heat for the most part, insomuch as the corn began to wither away though it was set with fish, the moisture whereof helped it much. Yet at length it began to languish sore, and some of the drier grounds were parched like withered hay, part whereof was never recovered. Upon which they set apart a solemn day of humiliation, to seek the Lord by humble and fervent prayer, in this great distress. And He was pleased to give them a gracious and speedy answer, both to their own and the Indians' admiration that lived amongst them. For all the morning, and greatest part of the day, it was clear weather and very hot, and not a cloud or any sign of rain to be seen; yet toward evening it began to overcast, and shortly after to rain with such sweet and gentle showers as gave them cause of rejoicing and blessing God..."

This was before the Constitution was written, so there was no cry of "separation of church and state." Indeed, the framers who wrote the Constitution took care to assure the states that the new federal government would not interfere with such practices and beliefs by the states.

As found in "Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647", by William Bradford, Samuel Eliot Morison.

Hawaii Senate Feels Pressure and Discontinues Prayer

2011-02-04T01:58:00.001-06:00

The senate of Hawaii had a practice of opening meetings with prayer. Apparently these prayers sometimes invokes Christian phrases, and now the senate has received notice from the American Civil Liberties Unions (ACLU) that they must stop of face a lawsuit. The ACLU bases such actions on the so-called "separation of church and state." The senate considered using a non-sectarian prayer instead, but finally voted to just discontinue prayer altogether.

To say that such a prayer is unconstitutional is an interesting concept, but is inherently misdirected. The very men who wrote the Constitution opened their first official meeting with a prayer, and the presiding chaplain read from a psalm. Did these men not understand the document they wrote? Were they hypocrites? Or is it possible that modern courts have essentially re-written the Constitution to fit their ideological views?

After the 1947 Supreme Court decision that started to erode the rights of religion, the veryACLU mentioned above said that the decision "gave new meaning to the Establishment Clause." That says it pretty well. Unfortunately, it is not the job of the court to give new meaning to laws. They are supposed to decide how to fairly apply the laws as they were written by the people charged with creating them.

Read the Hawaii story below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/us/22brfs-AFTERCOMPLAI_BRF.html?_r=1

Graduation Ceremonies in Churches Need Protection?

2011-02-01T01:51:00.000-06:00

You can find other posts on this blog about controversy over churches serving as the venue for high school graduations and some other functions. Often, one group or another will take the matter to court to try to block the use of the church. Sometimes it has worked and other times the school has succeeded with their planned use.

There are some very good reasons that schools have chosen to use churches in these stories. Generally the churches have offered ample seating capacity at a price lower then secular venues in the same areas. Often the churches have comforts not found in high school facilities, such as air conditioning, more comfortable seating with a better overall view, better parking, better sound systems, and large-screen monitors.

That seems logical, and would be considered a good business decision in most circumstances. Perhaps if you are new to this blog, you are wondering what the objection could be. Almost without exception, the issue raised is a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state." As a reminder, the "separation" phrase comes from a letter of Thomas Jefferson. It is not a phrase contained in our legal founding documents, but rather was intended as a convenient metaphor to describe one aspect of the First Amendment. That amendment covers religion, and in fact the first two short clauses are called the Religion Clauses. The first of those two is called the Establishment Clause, and the second is called the Free Exercise clause. The whole First Amendment is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Clearly the word "separation" is not found there. The context of this is a limitation on the actions of the Federal Government ("Congress"). Many believe the 14th Amendment places the same limitation on the state governments, in that it guarantees that the rights of a citizen under the constitution may not be abridged by any state.

In all of that, where do we justify not allowing a high school to hold a graduation ceremony inside a church facility? Does that establish a state law? Does is prohibit the free exercise of one's religion?

The Liberty Counsel has stepped in now to help various schools in Georgia that may have been threatened with legal action for planning to hold graduations in churches. Matt Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel, said:

"Clearly, public schools can use religious venues -- churches and other venues -- just like anyone else [and can] make a common-sense decision based upon size, location and costs," he contends. "The First Amendment does not interfere with that decision."

Read more below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1253638

Alexander Hamilton - Our Rights Come from the Divine

2011-01-29T01:32:00.001-06:00

Alexander Hamilton was the first United States Secretary of Treasury, and was a signer of the U.S. Constitution. We hear it said often (just do a Google search) that our Founders were mostly atheists and that religious faith played no real part in our founding. That is easily argued against by perusing the writings of these men.

The University of Chicago has some fine web pages, including a series of Hamilton's writings. On the page covering Feb. 23, 1775, we find this quote:

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

Read more on the University's site:

Right of Revolution

No Christianity Allowed in Home Schooling

2011-01-26T01:03:00.000-06:00

The New Hampshire Supreme Court just declared that a home-schooled child must now be sent to public schools. It did not start as an uncommon story. The child's parents are divorced. Custodial Mom was doing the home schooling, Dad preferred public school.

Often divorced parents don't agree on how children should be treated in any number of ways. It would not be too surprising to hear a judge side with the notion that a home-schooled kid was too sheltered, or did not get a quality education. In this case, though, the student was doing very well academically and all agreed she was happy and doing well socially.

No, this time the objection was that the mom was too "Christian" in her approach. The court said:

"It would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

That statement assumes that the courts have the right to say the custodial parent does not have the right to teach her own religious beliefs to her child. Can someone point to the clause in the U.S. or New Hampshire constitution that gives the state the right to determine what is a proper religious upbringing (assuming no laws are being broken and no harm comes to the child). In fact, the U.S. Constitution specifically says it is not the government's business at all, which is expressed by saying that the government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Read more below:

http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/religious-freedom/mom%E2%80%99s-homeschooling-views-work-for-her-child-but-not-for-nh-judge/

Donations OK, but Not to Churches?

2011-01-23T01:23:00.000-06:00

In Polk Country, Florida, the Sheriff's department is in the news. They are donating no-longer-needed basketball equipment to eight local churches. But the Atheists of Florida are complaining because they say that government money is supporting churches.

The Sheriff's motive appears to have been directed at the best use of the equipment. They are particularly concerned with providing a place for teens to assemble productively - the "get them off the streets" in other words. This is a common goal of law enforcement and community groups. The equipment will be outside, rather than behind locked doors.

Suppose the department had donated the equipment to the parks department or to a non-religious community group. Would there have been a complaint then? I personally believe there would not have been the same reaction. Would it be OK if these tax-provided leftovers were donated to any group except a religious group? That seems like reverse discrimination to me. Once again the so-called "separation of church and state" was invoked by the group complaining. Is this action the same as a body of law establishing an official religion? That is what "separation of church and state" intended to address, if one stops to read the First Amendment of our Constitution.

Read more below:

http://www.polkcountydemocrat.com/articles/2011/01/08/news/local/doc4d279881bd109186895037.txt

Do We Learn Both Sides of Our Country's Founding?

2011-01-20T01:11:00.001-06:00

I learned in school about a few of our nation's religious roots. At that time public schools taught about the religious motivations of the Pilgrims, for example. But a lot of the religious underpinnings of our founding were not mentioned. That's probably appropriate, given the sheer amount of data that had to be covered to catch me up on all those years between Columbus and the 20th Century.

There is more to the story, and my reading in more recent years has been very educational. It filled out a lot of the color of our history. I have seen where our first Congress met. I stood in the room and had a sense of awe at the history that room held. Now that I know the Founders opened their first Congress with prayer and a Bible reading, it colors it in a bit more, not so much as a religious story, but to show the importance the Founders gave to their tasks. The work was too much for the minds of even these smart folks. They needed God's help.

Dr. William Bennett, former Secretary of Education, has written several books about the country and its history. One of his recent efforts is the American Patriot's Almanac. In the revised edition he added a section titled "Faith and the Founders." Here is a nice summary from that a paragraph in that chapter:

"The Founders or this country were mostly Christians. They drew deeply from the wellsprings of the Judeo-Christian tradition for the underlying philosophy of the republic. Histories that ignore this side of the American story leave out a crucial part. As the scholar Michael Novak has written in his book On Two Wings, 'a purely secular interpretation of the founding runs aground on massive evidence.'"

Read more in the book shown here. It is a good value.

Martin Luther King, Jr - Reverend

2011-01-17T01:43:00.000-06:00

The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. was both on January 15, 1929, and this year his federal holiday falls on January 17. I think most schools talk about King; many cities have streets named for him, and we hear about him on television often, especially around this time of the year.

I have been casually observing the manner of addressing King within the media. He held a doctoral degree and a divinity degree. In manuals of style, the correct form of address for such a person would be "The Reverend Doctor..." However, the common form I hear is "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." His widow has declared that King was most proud of the title Reverend.

But in news stories he is not addressed the way he would have preferred. I found the following numbers when I did a search on Google for these various forms of his name, searching only in the "News" category:

"Dr. Martin Luther King" - 3,060 results
"Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King" - 2 results
"Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King" - 25 results
"Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King" - 279 results

It is almost certain appropriate to remember that "Reverend" should be attached to his name. In his public work he was outspoken about religious roots of his beliefs and teaching. Consider a famous event in his life, which his front porch was bombed while his family was at home. King rushed into the home to learn their fate and found them safe. There was a very angry mom of King supporters in his front yard, many with weapons. Reporters on the scene were being blocked from departing and had reason to fear for their safety.

King walked onto the porch and said, in part:

"Don’t get your weapons. If you have weapons, take them home. He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword. Remember that is what Jesus said. We are not advocating violence. We want to love our enemies. I want you to love our enemies. Be good to them. This is what we must live by. We must meet hate with love.’”

When the crowd of several hundred was silent, he continued, “I did not start this boycott. I was asked by you to serve as your spokesman. I want it to be known the length and breadth of this land that if I am stopped, this movement will not stop. If I am stopped, our work will not stop. For what we are doing is right. What we are doing is just. And God is with us.”

(As presented on Rhapsody of Books)

So this year, let's remember that he was not JUST Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He was Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.

Cross Declared Unconstitutional

2011-01-14T01:01:00.001-06:00

The Mount Soledad Cross is back in the news again. The cross belongs to the American Legion and was erected 57 years ago as a war memorial. Part of the complaint in this case is that it exists on government land.

The First Amendment addresses religion and government, and prohibits the government from establishing a national religion to which citizens must adhere. Allowing the Legion to maintain this cross is hardly the same as establishing an official religion.

The complaint was brought by the ACLU on behalf of Jewish war veterans. And now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found the cross to be unconstitutional.

Certainly I sympathize with Jewish veterans who might feel "left out" when the see the cross. But a symbol erected by a private organization is not required to be all inclusive. And I can see that, if the Legion wishes a religious recognition, it would be difficult to do so without leaving out some group or other.

The Ninth Circuit decision in this case seems to ignore a U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of a different cross in the Mojave National Preserve. And it also seems to dramatically expand the meaning of the First Amendment.

Read more below:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=247701

And read this informative insight from the Heritage Foundation:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/09/resisting-accommodation-the-aclu-and-mount-soledad/

Harry Truman - Too Religious to Be a President?

2011-01-11T01:14:00.020-06:00

It seems as though a public official can't be deemed as too religious and have a hope of being elected. Or they might at least expect some kind of "religious zealot" theme in articles against them. After all, we have separation of church and state, right?

Did you know that President Truman said a daily prayer? Would it make citizens or the press uneasy if they learned that our current President said a prayer every day?

We have seen school systems forced to remove prayer as a daily routine. What if the students said the same prayer that Truman used? The very idea of students saying a common prayer would not be accepted today, and in our current society I'm not sure I would want students being lead in prayer by their teacher. But what part of the Truman prayer would be objectionable? What part of this would we not want to teach our young folk to believe?

Daily Prayer of President Harry S. Truman:

"Oh! Almighty and Everylasting God, Creator of heaven, earth and the universe, help me to be, to think, to act what is right, because it is right. Make me truthful, honest and honorable in all things. Make me intellectually honest for the sake of right and honor and without thought of reward to me. Give me the ability to be charitable, forgiving and patient with my fellowmen -- help me to understand their motives and their shortcomings -- even as Thou understandest mine! Amen, amen, amen."

As found in the American Patriot's Almanac, by William J. Bennett and John T.E. Cobb, revised edition.

Should Public School Choirs Sing Christmas Music at Christmas?

2011-01-08T01:57:00.000-06:00

I have written before about various public school "holiday" concerts where the music directors were forced to not include any Christmas music. The justification is generally a misconception of the so-called "separation of church and state." The below has a good discussion of this issue. It is written from the perspectives of school personnel who actually have to deal with the issue.

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/dec/13/religious-music-public-schools-hed-help-hed-help/

Boca Raton: Menorah, Yes - Nativity, No

2011-01-05T01:34:00.000-06:00

Sometimes it is easy to understand the logic city officials use to say that no religious displays are permitted on city property. As I have pointed out several times previously, such a prohibition is not required by the Constitution, but some claim that it is.

But in Boca Raton, Florida, it is harder to understand the officials' logic. The do allow religious displays, but do not allow a nativity scene. The officials say that they are giving Christians an equal voice by having displays of Christmas trees and snowflakes. Those are secular symbols, and are displayed in non-Christian environments. Walk around Toyko, for example, and you will see such symbols everywhere. There is no intent to recognize the divinity of Christ; it is simply part of the commercial Christmas buying season. One could use Frosty the Snowman on a similar basis. On the other hand, a Menorah is a religious symbol with Biblical roots.

Read more at the link below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1250290

Now the Federal Reserve Bans Christmas

2011-01-02T01:21:00.001-06:00

A bank in Perkins, Oklahoma, found out the hard way. They had some quotes appropriate for the Christmas season (assuming you think Christmas is somehow related to Christianity) within the bank and on their website. But the Federal Reserve said that is against its rules. Those sayings might be in conflict with their Regulation B, which can disallow things on this basis: "...the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication ... express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion."

Is the bank allowed to close on Christmas if they would otherwise be open on that day of the week? Would not that be a "policy of exclusion"? For that matter, if Christmas day fell on a Wednesday this year would the Fed's offices be open?

I have talked in the past about the "war on Christmas" and received comments that there is no such thing. Read the last several posts on this blog and see what you think. Perhaps this particular incident is not a war on Christmas, but one has to wonder whether the Fed would have cracked down similarly if the bank used phrases that recognized a Muslim holiday during the appropriate dates.

Read more here:

Feds Force Okla. Bank To Remove Crosses, Bible Verse

Lowe's Renames Christmas Trees to Family Trees - and Back Again

2010-12-30T01:22:00.000-06:00

Here is one more example of entities that are afraid to names items accurately. Lowe's, the home improvement store, always sold "Christmas trees" in their stores. But they thought that a bad idea and renamed the products "Family Trees" a few years ago. But the uproar among their customers was so great that they renamed the items "Christmas Trees" again.

Lowe's is a private company and may do whatever they please in such matters. But all the lawsuits against government entities for recognizing one of our nation's oldest holidays may have made Lowe's nervous. Fortunately, they listened to their customers.

Check out the story at Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/familytree.asp

Twas the Night Before a Holiday

2010-12-28T01:10:00.002-06:00

The city of Mount Pleasant, Michigan, is located in what many would consider the "Bible Belt." But that does not make it immune to controversy around Christmas time. Their annual "Dickens Christmas Festival" has been renamed this year to the "Dickens Holiday Festival."

It seems that the town plans on promoting this in many places, including the public schools. But in an effort to be "inclusive" the schools have banned the word Christmas. According to an Alliance Defense Fund press release, "The Mount Pleasant School District enacted a policy that purportedly bans the use of the words 'Christmas,' 'Santa,' and 'nativity.' ADF attorneys explained in the letter that such a policy is unconstitutional as applied to the private speech of students, teachers, and members of the community."

Being the simple-minded person that I am, it seems natural to assume that this festival is named in memory of Charles Dickens' story "A Christmas Carol," which one may see on television in a few different productions this time of year. Would the school ban that story as well? Would it ban a book of collected Dickens' writings if the book included the Christmas Carol?

Is it uncomfortable for school officials and teachers to acknowledge that Christmas is part of the history of our country, and that there are a great many traditions that exist because of Christmas? Or is it better to just hide that fact so those of others faiths are not offended? Do we wish to present the U.S. traditions of Christmas as a huge mistake, and a shame of our history, treating Christmas in the same light as slavery? We perhaps have to recognize that Christmas exists (existed?), but we don't have to be proud of it.

Read more at the link below:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Home/ADFContent?cid=4320

U.S. HUD Prohibits Christmas in Housing

2010-12-26T01:31:00.001-06:00

Our U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is a government agency. And we all know that the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing an official national religion.

So how do we get from those facts to HUD saying that an 85-year-old grandmother may not put an angel on top of the living center's "Christmas" tree because it is too religious? Would that act establish an official national religion? Then there is the rule that residents may use the common room for a party during the Christmas season but they may not call it a Christmas party. Since the party was not necessarily the only event held in that room, and since no person would be required to attend, why not call it a Christmas party?

Read more below:

http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/hud-says-no-angels-christmas-trees-other-religious-symbols

Christmas Village Renamed to Holiday Village

2010-12-23T01:00:00.010-06:00

In Philadelphia, a private organization has had a "German Christmas Village" display for the last few years. It is a walk-in display, with booths and vendors inside. If you look at the link below you can see a press photo of the sign above the entrance. The word "Christmas" is being removed. It will be replaced with the word "Holiday" instead.

This is not a Constitutional issue, nor is it a political issue. At least, in this case, no one has sued as far as I know. But instead I sense it is an issue of political correctness. While the city of Philadelphia is listed as a partner in this display, which is actually run by a commercial company, the motivation to change the name does not come from the city.

What is wrong with naming it a German Christmas Village? Loudspeakers at the venue will be playing Nat King Cole's "Christmas Song." There will be nativity scenes and more secular Christmas object for sale inside. The Germans in America throughout our history have observed Christmas. According to the Library of Congress, "The Germanic custom of having a specially decorated tree at Christmas time was introduced to America by Pennsylvania Dutch in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Later in the century, the Pennsylvania Dutch version of St. Nicholas, Sinterklaas, evolved into America's Santa Claus, popularized by a German immigrant and influential political cartoonist, Thomas Nast. The Easter bunny and Easter eggs were also brought to this country by German immigrants." (The drawing by Nast is shown to the left.)

The image shown to the right of this paragraph is available from the Library of Congress' shop as a print. It is described: "The Christmas coach 1795 / J.L.G. Ferris. View of coach on High (Market) Street at Second, Philadelphia, on Christmas Eve, with woman getting off, in front of the old courthouse."

The first calls for national public days of fasting and prayer came from our Continental Congress in Philadelphia. That congress opened its sessions with prayer, and signed many official documents with "In the year of our Lord..."

Read more below:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20101130_Let_s_call_it_the_German__Holiday__Village.html

ACLU-Tennessee: Schools Better Ditch Christmas or Else

2010-12-22T01:33:00.002-06:00

The ACLU is staging a preemptive strike in Tennessee by sending letters to all the public schools. They warn the school administrators to make sure that Christmas is not singled out specifically during the "Winter holiday season." With such letters, the reader is certain to understand that if the ACLU senses too much recognition of Christmas, then a lawsuit might very well follow. And what school can afford that?

The Liberty Counsel sent their own letter to schools to demonstrate how the ACLU has it wrong. They report that court decisions have found that Christmas music, for example, may be performed as long as there are other types of music on the concert.

The ACLU seems willing to overlook how many of the Founders, including "Mr. separation of church and state" himself Thomas Jefferson, believed in the use of the Holy Bible in public schools. Jefferson attended church services at the U.S. Capitol and even ordered the U.S. Marine Band to perform.

Read more at the link below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1259314

Tulsa Strips "Christ" from Event Name

2010-12-21T01:16:00.002-06:00

Tulsa, Oklahoma, used to have an annual Christmas Parade of Lights (a tradition that dates back about 70 years). The parade is still there, but the name has been changed to "Holiday Parade of Lights" instead. Senator Jim Inhofe, who used to be mayor of Tulsa and who rode is horse in the parade, has refused to participate this year because of the name change.

Once again we have a parade that was originally intended to celebrate Christmas along with most of the local population, but now it has become a political issue. Why change the name? To be more inclusive? To not offend anyone who is of a different religion or of no religion? I'm sure someone had a reason along those lines. But I'm also reasonably sure that the much-misunderstood metaphor "separation of church and state" played a role. I don't suspect a direct connection such as a lawsuit this year. I believe it likely it has more to do with various lawsuits and court decisions in the past. In some cases those decisions have seemed to indicate that "Christmas" is not a proper word to associate with civic events.

Imagine how surprised our Founders would be to discover such an attitude in current-day America. They were not in any way ashamed of proclaiming religious days, such as national days of fasting and prayer. Our nation has an official holiday for Christmas, and all federal and state offices are closed that day. Don't look for mail that day. Don't even expect to do much shopping. Why then do we seem afraid to call a parade that originated as a Christmas celebration a "Christmas [anything]" parade?

Read more below:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101130_11_0_WASHIN967856

Video here:
http://youtu.be/d5G2ElKc9UQ

Fort Worth Bank Kicks Out Christmas Tree

2010-12-19T01:30:00.001-06:00

In Southlake, Texas, a Chase Bank branch was given a Christmas tree by a local businessman as a favor to the bank's manager. But the corporate office sent an email that said the tree had to go. The stated reason was they wanted to be inclusive and not risk offending some customers.

While the theme of this blog is usually related to misguided actions made because of confusion about the purpose of the Constitution's First Amendment. That is not the case here. The tree was not removed because the company said they were afraid of breaking the law. It was a corporate decision based on a view of customer relations. It dealt with an item displayed on property they control. It was their right to do this. But I think it is too bad that a company thinks this way, and that some of the public thinks this way.

The President is going to light a National Christmas Tree this year, and there are many other Christmas trees on display in public places, private and governmental. Are people afraid that such a tree indicates the bank is preaching? Or that the bank only welcomes Christian customers? Does the bank intend to stay open on Christmas day in order to be inclusive?

I strongly suspect that this kind of attitude comes about because of all the lawsuits that have been publicized about various types of Christmas recognition and other religious symbols or statements in public places. You will find many such actions reported elsewhere on this blog.

But at least the bank (apparently) does not prohibit employees from wishing "Merry Christmas" to customers.

Read more below:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/12/02/2676274/jpmorgan-chase-orders-southlake.html

Chicago Nativity Scene Is Back This Year

2010-12-16T01:32:00.000-06:00

A topic you may see in the news every year around this time has to do with a tradition of public displays during the Christmas season (sorry - the "holiday" season). The USA does not have an official religion, and such a thing would be prohibited by the Constitution. However, the Constitution does not require that government avoid any recognition of religion. Many of our Founders have stated that our country was founded on Christian principles and courts, presidents, and other public figures have affirmed this even through recent times.

Yet there are groups and individual who would stop any recognition of religion tradition. Many towns across America have displayed nativity scenes around Christmas time. Any many of them have been sued to prevent those displays, citing the so-called "separation of church and state."

I'll grant them the point that a nativity scene might be somewhat more overt than a Christmas tree, but they both are rooted in the same holiday and tradition. This year, as with years in our past, the President will light our National Christmas Tree during a public ceremony. How then, do we assume that a town having a nativity display is less appropriate? Or could it be that groups who sue about such things are not quite ready to take on the President and Congress just yet? (Not to say that's not coming.)

This year, in Chicago, there WILL be a nativity scene, as there has been in past years. Will someone sue? Perhaps. But in the mean time it will be there to remind passersby of the "reason for the season." Read the story at the link below:

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/4378015568.html

Another Founder's Statement of Faith - Robert Treat Paine

2010-12-13T01:55:00.001-06:00

Robert Treat Paine is one of our Founders and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. As such he may have been one of those who some today would say were a bunch of theists and atheists. But he was truly a Christian, at least in his own opinion and perhaps that of his church. Here is his statement of faith:

"I Believe the Bible to be the written word of God & to Contain in it the whole Rule of Faith & manners; I consent to the Assemblys Shorter Chatachism as being Agreable to the Reveal¡¯d Will of God & to contain in it the Doctrines that are According to Godliness. I have for some time had a desire to attend upon the Lords Supper and to Come to that divine Institution of a Dying Redeemer, And I trust I¡¯m now convinced that it is my Duty Openly to profess him least he be ashamed to own me An Other day; I humbly therefore desire that you would receive me into your Communion & Fellowship, & I beg your Prayers for me that Grace may be carried on in my soul to Perfection, & that I may live answerable to the Profession I now make which (God Assisting) I purpose to be the main End of all my Actions."

From The papers of Robert Treat Paine, Volume 3 (Stephen T. Riley, Edward William Hanson, Massachusetts Historical Society)

John Adams on Religion's Positive Influence (1798)

2010-12-10T01:39:00.001-06:00

One of our country's early presidents, John Adams, found a benefit to society from religion. (This was true for many of our founders. If they were correct, one has to wonder why there are people and groups who work so hard to keep any sign of religion out of government at any level.)

In the "Message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts" Adams said (emphasis added):

But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

As found in the book, The works of John Adams, second president of the United States, Volume 9 (Charles Francis Adams)

National prayer event OK'd by judge, Constitution

2010-12-07T01:20:00.000-06:00

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter had issued a proclamation that said their annual prayer observances are constitutional. This action was part of a suit by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who claimed that the action was a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state." (Never mind that the very men who wrote the U.S. Constitution also were responsible for several declarations of days of prayer.)

The governor actions were defended by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), and Denver judge R. Michael Mullins decided the governor's decision was compatible with the state's religious freedom clause.

Kevin Theriot, the ADF attorney, said:

"The fact that the government acknowledges our religious heritage and the fact that we are predominantly a religious people does not create a constitutional crisis," ... "And the folks at Freedom From Religion Foundation and other anti-religion organizations aren't okay with that. They keep trying to rewrite history, and they're going to courts asking judges to agree with them."

Read more at the link below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1219974

John Hancock on Religion in Society

2010-12-04T01:09:00.001-06:00

We all know that John Hancock was the first signer of the Declaration of Independence (hence the phrase, "Put your 'John Hancock' right on the dotted line."). But did you also recall that he was governor of Massachusetts? And do you know any of the words in his inaugural address as governor?

Here is a sample of his ideas from his inaugural address as Governor of Massachusetts, 1780.

Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement that shall not infringe the rights of conscience, which I rejoice to see established by the Constitution on so broad a basis; and if anything can be further done on the same basis for the relief of the public teachers of religion and morality, an order of men greatly useful to their country, and who have particularly suffered in the defense of its rights by the depreciation of currency; as also for the relief of widows and orphans, many of whom have been distressed in the same way, and who are particularly committed by Heaven to the protection of civil rulers, I shall most readily concur with you in every such measure.

A due observation of the Lord's Day is not only important to internal religion, but greatly conducive to the order and benefit of civil society. It speaks to the senses of mankind, and, by a solemn cessation from their common affairs, reminds them of a Deity and the accountableness to the great Lord of all.

As found in:
John Hancock: his book, by Abram English Brown, page 269.

Freedom of Speech/Religion Upheld in Montana

2010-12-01T01:46:00.000-06:00

In a 2008 high school graduation ceremony in Butte, Montana, one of the valedictorians planned to mention her faith in her address. However, the school's principal stepped to forbid the words Renee Griffith planned, which included a statement that she "didn’t let fear keep me from sharing Christ and his joy with those around me" and that she would speak about "being someone who lived with a purpose from God with a passionate love for him."

The principal suggested specific alternative, non-religious wording. Renee did not accept that, and therefore she was not permitted to give her speech. She sued, but lost in the district court. However just a few days ago the Montana Supreme Court overturned that ruling, saying she had the right to speak of her faith.

So here we had a principal that let students give their thoughts, as long as the thoughts were not about religion. And this had to go to the state supreme court to restore her rights.

I believe it is very mistaken for a school official to think that the First Amendment requires this kind of "separation of church and state" (that phrase is not actually in the First Amendment). The amendment prohibits a law from being made respecting an establishment of religion. Schools do not make law, and a student speaking her own words at a ceremony would not constitute the establishment of a religion.

Read more below:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/valedictorian-had-right-to-mention-god-and-christ-in-address-montana-suprem/

Thanksgiving in America, 1789

2010-11-28T01:30:00.000-06:00

We have all heard of "separation of church and state," which many would claim was the intention of the founders when they wrote the Bill of Rights. That rather "loose" phrase has let judges ban all kinds of religious recognition in public life. But consider the 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation, requested by our Congress and signed by George Washington. Here are the words, as found on the Library of Congress website - you can decide if these men intended to keep any religious language or sentiment away from government.

Thanksgiving Proclamation

[New York, 3 October 1789]
Page Image.

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

Congress' Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1782

2010-11-25T01:57:00.001-06:00

Do you think Thanksgiving started to thank the Indians (as some textbooks claim)? Or to sell stuff at Best Buy?

Here is what the Library of Congress says about the proclamation for Thanksgiving by our Congress in 1782:

Founders Give Thanks
Following the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress recognized the need to give thanks for delivering the country from war and into independence. Congress issued a proclamation on October 11, 1782:

By the United States in Congress assembled.

PROCLAMATION.

IT being the indispensable duty of all Nations, not only to offer up their supplications to ALMIGHTY GOD, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his providence in their behalf: Therefore the United States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these States, in the course of the important conflict in which they have been so long engaged; the present happy and promising state of public affairs; and the events of the war, in the course of the year now drawing to a close; particularly the harmony of the public Councils, which is so necessary to the success of the public cause; the perfect union and good understanding which has hitherto subsisted between them and their Allies, notwithstanding the artful and unwearied attempts of the common enemy to divide them; the success of the arms of the United States, and those of their Allies, and the acknowledgment of their independence by another European power, whose friendship and commerce must be of great and lasting advantage to these States:----- Do hereby recommend to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the twenty-eight day of NOVEMBER next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to GOD for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience of his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.

Done in Congress, at Philadelphia, the eleventh day of October, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, and of our Sovereignty and Independence, the seventh.

JOHN HANSON, President.

Charles Thomson, Secretary.

Yale University's Roots - A Christian Mission

2010-11-23T01:52:00.000-06:00

Perhaps you are not aware, as I was not, that many of our early educational institutions in the United States were founded with religious missions. Many of these entities are not now associated with religious principles.

One such is Yale University, originally founded in 1701 as Yale College. Its founders intended Yale be an institution where:

"Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences who through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State."

Among the requirements for Yale students was:

"All Scholars shall live religious, godly, and blameless lives according to the rules of God's Word, diligently reading the Holy Scriptures, the fountain of light and truth; and constantly attend upon all the duties of religion, both in public and secret.
"...Every student shall consider the main end of his study to wit to know God in Jesus Christ and answerably to lead a Godly, sober life."

One can be sure that incoming students are not given that requirement today, but it does point out something in our history that is not generally known today.

Learn more at the links below:

http://www.yale.edu/about/history.html

http://chamberscollege.com/LibralArts.html

http://michaelnewdow.com/YaleCollege.htm

Thomas Jefferson - Importance of Freedom of Religion

2010-11-20T01:44:00.000-06:00

As you may already know, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in our Constitution. In informal surveys I have done, however, many people this it IS found there. Thomas Jefferson used that phrase in one letter to describe a facet of the First Amendment to the Constitution (the first of the 10 "Bill of Rights"). It was not intended to completely describe the Establishment Clause of the Amendment, which simply says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

In most of his writings on the topic, Jefferson was more likely to use phrases like "freedom of religion" or "religious freedom" to describe the need for a Bill of Rights. Consider the quote below, which is courtesy of the University of Virginia's collection of Jefferson's writings:

"In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail to become a primary object." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808. ME 16:317

See more of his writings at:

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm

Christian Student Gets an Equal 'seat at the table' in Michigan - For Now

2010-11-17T01:21:00.000-06:00

The Holly Area School District (Michigan) has been in the news lately. It seems that a student wanted to hand out fliers that told about a Christian summer camp and invited children to sign up. The teacher, principal and superintendent of schools all agreed that the student could not give out anything related to a church.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) stepped in to defend the student's rights in this matter, and a federal court agreed with the ADF position. A statement from ADF says:

"So we were really pleased when the court handed down its ruling, saying that not only do students have a right to distribute literature at school and to allow their voice heard, even if it's from a religious perspective, but also community groups and parents have a right to have religious flyers and invitations sent home on the same terms and conditions as other community groups are permitted to do," notes ADF attorney Matt Sharp.

Perhaps because of the way some courts have worded decisions, and perhaps because of the news coverage of such things, many people seem to think that religious materials a forbidden in school situations. But when the school prohibits only one kind of speech, isn't that more like discrimination?

Read more at the link below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1219722

Charlie Brown and School Prayer

2010-11-14T01:16:00.001-06:00

I was reading the Sunday comics recently and noticed the Peanuts strip. Charlie Brown's sister came into the house after school and found Charlie watching television. She indicates to "Chuck" that she wants to talk to him. Then she leads him to another room, looks around to make sure no one is in earshot, and whispers to him, "We prayed school today!" Obviously she knew this could be big trouble if anyone found out!

The strip's creator, Charles Shulz, died 10 years ago, so this is not exactly a new strip. And it's not a new issue this year. But perhaps it IS a new issue in the last few decades, compared to the rest of our history. It used to be a practice in some classrooms. Some school systems even had officially-suggested wording for the prayer. I don't know if any teachers were required to do a prayer in class, but I suppose it could have happened.

Why is this such a forbidden concept today? Is it because of the Constitution? Not exactly, in my opinion. The Constitution addresses religion in the First Amendment, where it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." The word "respecting" is interesting it that context. Many states at the time had official religions. One could easily think that the Founders who wrote it this way intended that the federal government should not make a law that interferes with one of those existing religion establishments, and that they should also not make a law that establishes a "higher-level" federal religion. I believe that is logical.

But the courts in recent decades apparently believed that the Founders wanted to keep any religion out of any level of government, from opening a town council meeting with prayer, to allowing religious displays in city parks, to prayers at high school graduations, to...

One certainly could argue that since the people's rights in the First Amendment have been carried down to the states by later Amendments, then the "official" prayer that New York state had some years ago would be a problem. But is it more of a stretch to say that praying in class in unconstitutional? Not for the courts, perhaps, but it stretches me considerably.

And that is not to say I'm necessarily in favor of having prayers in class. I'm simply saying that doing so is not a breach of the U.S. Constitution.

See the comic strip I mentioned at the link below:

http://comics.com/peanuts/?DateAfter=2010-10-24&DateBefore=2010-10-24&Order=d.DateStrip+ASC&PerPage=1&x=30&y=9&Search=

Veterans' Day Speech and Prayer

2010-11-11T06:04:00.001-06:00

On the 40th anniversary of D-Day, in 1984, President Ronald Regan gave a speech at the U.S. Ranger Monument at Pointe du Hoc. In it, he reminded us of one of the many ways that prayer and faith in God have played a part in our history and tradition.

Here are some of the President's words:

Something else helped the men of D-day: their rockhard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer he told them: Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we're about to do. Also that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: `"I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.''

Read the entire speech below:

The History Place

School Principal in Trouble Over Prayer Breakfast Endorsement

2010-11-10T01:23:00.002-06:00

In California, an elementary school principal is threatened with job termination because he appeared as a private citizen in a video promoting an prayer breakfast that was to honor teachers. Craig Victor is suing the school for threatening his job and for placing him on a disciplinary performance plan.

This apparently came about because a member of the school board saw the video on the internet. This person said the video was an illegal promotion of religion. Considering that the First Amendment was intended to prevent an establishment of religion by the U.S. Congress, it is remarkable how far we have bent that Amendment. A Supreme Court decision in 1947 brought the phrase "separation of church and state" into their decision, that phrase coming from a private letter of Thomas Jefferson. Think how much more "flexible" that phrase is. Did the principal establish a religion (even though he has no power to make a law)? But the courts have used the "separation" metaphor to say the government may not promote religion. And courts have brought the restriction on legislative action down to much smaller levels. For example, the Supreme Court said you can't have prayer at a graduation ceremony. That is an individual school's decision, and they are hardly a legislative body.

Now we have a principal speaking on his own time about a prayer breakfast, and that has become an unconstitutional act (in the mind of the school board, at least).

Read more below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1207536

Is 'In God We Trust' a New Concept

2010-11-07T01:50:00.000-05:00

Some people object to the use of the word "God" in conjunction with our national identity in any way. As I have pointed out many times in this blog, there is a strong thread of religious faith and recognition in our history back to the earliest days. But, for example, one argument against such recognition is that the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's. It is very easy to be cynical of modern-day political activities. Adding God to the Pledge was indeed a modern change, but it was at least partly inspired by the words of President Lincoln in the 1860's.

Another action from around that time, specifically between 1861-64, is the addition of "In God We Trust" to our coins. As often happens, when people are facing strife they feel more of a need to turn to God. There was evidence of this after the attacks of 9/11/2001. Churches saw a large upturn in attendance. The same feeling existed during our Civil War. Salmon Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, received a letter suggesting the addition of such wording to our coins. Chase then wrote the following to James Pollack, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia. It said in part:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

After that Congress created the proper acts and it became official. That stands through the current day.

Read more at the link to the U.S. Treasury below:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

U.S. 2nd Continental Congress Attended Christ Church, 1775-76

2010-11-04T01:45:00.000-05:00

On a recent vacation I had the chance to see some of the historic sites in Philadelphia. On the Sunday I was there I attended worship at Christ Church. This historic church was attended by George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Morris, and Alexander Hamilton. Betsy Ross' pew is also there, and shows up in some of the National Park Service's materials with the U.S. flag hanging over it (the flag brackets have since been removed). Several of our Founders are buried on the church grounds.

I have written before about the proclamation for a Public Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation on July 20, 1775, which was passed by our Second Continental Congress. Right after doing so, the Congress as a body went the few blocks to Christ Church and attended a worship service. Can you imagine our Congress today doing so?

Read more at the links below:

http://www.christianheritagemins.org/articles/The%20Religion%20of%20the%20American%20Founding%20Fathers%20-%20Christ%20Church,%20Philadelphia.pdf

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2010/06/first_prayer_of_the_continental_congress.html

Media Bias: Corporate Donations Far Out of Balance

2010-11-01T01:55:00.001-05:00

Below is a story about how donations by employees of network television gave money to Democrats over other parties to the tune of an 88% share. That only amounts to a little over a million dollars in total individual contributions, but the degree of imbalance is striking. The imbalance is notable enough that I have even created a special tag for many posts on this blog called Media Bias (click that link to see the list).

The country is in approximate balance between Democrats and Republicans. If all else were equal, this would be similar for reporters and employees of the major networks. Why is it different. That's a question I won't try to answer here, but it's a good question.

Another good question is whether this imbalance is represented in the reporting. Some of the posts link above demonstrate that it is. Would people in the major networks deliberately sway the coverage of candidates or issues? There are many posts here that show an imbalance, but it is hard to prove that it is intentional. But whether intentional or not, it should not exist to any noticeable extent.

Various levels of government and private entities have instituted affirmative action programs to make sure that various minorities are represented within their "walls." If you are hiring a college professor, would it not seem logical to ensure that students have a diversity of opinion available? Hiring a black instructor when the percentage of blacks is less than the population could be supported with that type of logic. And certainly someone who grew up black might have developed different opinions and may have had different experiences because of skin color.

How about reporters? Would not conservative reporters have a different perspective compared to liberal reporters? If the country is balanced, should not both points of view be affecting coverage to the extent that one's personal opinions might affect one's coverage? (Actually, Gallup reports that more people say they are conservative that liberal in the United States, so why is it that liberals have stronger representation, assuming "conservative" and Republican are linked somewhat and that "liberal" and Democrat are somewhat linked?)

Coverage of the main subject of this blog, the First Amendment's religion clauses, would presumably be affected by a left or right bias in the media. I have pointed out in many posts that the media often gets it wrong, in my opinion. If the media shows a bias, then so some extent that becomes the public's understanding of the issue.

If you wanted to increase the readership of a newspaper, wouldn't you want to have Republicans and Democrats equally and fairly represented? That would seem to be the best way to reach the largest number of readers. A policy of outright hiring to that goal could probably be legally challenged on the basis of First Amendment free speech rights (viewpoint discrimination), but it would create a more interesting newspaper than is typical today.

Read more about the issue here:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/08/27/lefties-upset-murdoch-donation-take-note-88-percent-network-donation

Why the United States Is a Christian Nation

2010-10-29T01:25:00.000-05:00

I'm guessing that headline will provoke some readers to start mentally drafting an angry reply before they have even read the post. It IS a controversial statement today, although it was accepted when our nation was founded. Despite the fact that our Constitution prohibits demanding adherence the Christianity or any other religion, there are other ways one could consider this a Christian nation.

In today's post I am looking at a statements made by President Obama, specifically a summary of several statements he has made on the world stage. The President stated publicly that we are not a Christian nation. His statement surprised many in this country and caused David Barton to put together a refutation consisting of a fine collection of disagreeing statements by various figures throughout our history.

For example, did you know of the following statement by Supreme Court justice Earl Warren (1891-1974)?

I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people. . . . I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.

He did not say we are officially a Christian nation, which of course we are not. Similarly, this next statement talks about Christianity's nature within our justice system (from the Supreme Court in 1903):

[I]n decisions of this court, the Indian right of occupancy of tribal lands, whether declared in a treaty or otherwise created, has been stated to be sacred. ... Thus... "It is to be presumed that in this matter the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people..."

But the best summary I saw in the article is made by Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910):

[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation -- in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.

There he clearly states what I've been addressing on this blog, that we are not officially a Christian nation, but we are nonetheless a Christian nation in other ways. The article goes on to explain Brewer's statement:

So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was "of all the nations in the world... most justly called a Christian nation" because Christianity "has so largely shaped and molded it."

Read the entire article below (and see the citations for the quotes above):

Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?

The Importance of Choosing the Best Words

2010-10-26T01:14:00.001-05:00

What does the Constitution more firmly guarantee: freedom or religion, or separation of church and state? That wording is, of course, somewhat unfair because is uses common phrases rather than the actual wording of the Constitution. The general principle of "freedom of religion" is not stated that way in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, but it's a reasonable paraphrase of "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." But is "separation of church and state" as reasonable (or clear) a paraphrase of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."?

The "separation..." phrase was used one time by Thomas Jefferson in a letter, and was intended to assure the recipients that the Federal Government would not interfere with their religion. But Jefferson, who was not in the USA during the debates leading up to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, wrote to those drafting it appealing for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights (which was intended to clarify the Constitution, not to actually change it). In Jefferson's letters he used the phrase "freedom of religion" to explain the right that the First Amendment would help clarify.

If you look at the wording of the First Amendment next to either "freedom of religion" or "separation of church and state" the words all seem compatible. It does guarantee freedom of religion, and it separates church and state in that it prohibits the government from making a law respecting an establishment of religion. But it is important to understand the context of "respecting" in the First Amendment. Many of our states had official state religions at the time of the Bill of Rights' ratification, and those states needed reassurance that the federal government would not interfere with those establishments. So the Founders wrote language that would prohibit the Congress from making a law that either establishes a national religion OR limits the power of the states to have their own religions. So their language was not vague by accident; it was vague so that it would cover both situations.

But if you do as our courts have done and look at the phrase "separation of church and state" (which is not contained in the Constitution or Bill of Rights), especially if you do so without also looking at the actual wording of the First Amendment and without looking at the actions of the Founders, you could distort "separation" into much more than was intended. And they have done so. They have used it to remove religion from aspects of public life, a removal the Founders would not have approved.

Suppose a court used "freedom of religion" without regard to the actual words of the First Amendment? That phrase is also from Thomas Jefferson and was used more often by him. If you rely on "freedom of religion" as the main guidance, you could justify much more license for religious actions than the Founders wanted. A court could reverse the current situation, which I believe has caused too many restrictions on religious expression, into a situation where churches and believers had more license than the Founders ever intended.

If courts are going to interpret the Constitution in making decisions, then it seems reasonable to expect that at the very least they will use the document's words. It would also seem smart to gain more guidance from the actions of the Founders and the decisions of early courts (which were much closer to the Constitution's creation).

Congress Goes to Church

2010-10-23T01:36:00.000-05:00

Having just take a little vacation time to visit some of our nation's historic sites, I was reminded about the marvel of our new country in 1789, electing a President of the United States... one chosen by the people. And of course a few years later that President handed over the power to our next President, also elected by the people. I was also reminded that in two years, our country will either elect a new President or will decide to keep the existing man for one more term. All this happens peacefully. It's no wonder that over 100 other countries have used our Constitution as an inspiration for writing their own versions.

Now go back in time to the inauguration of our first President, George Washington. There is at least one thing that has changed since that time. After Washington was sworn in on April 30, 1789, he and the Congress walked to the nearby Trinity Church and worshiped together. Can you imagine the uproar if that were to happen today? There is already a little disgruntlement about using a Bible to swear in the President. But having so many of our top government officials go together to church as a follow-on to the official ceremony... well, that's not likely to happen. We would hear about that not being allowed because of "separation of church and state." That phrase, we are told, sums up a provision of the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Is it possible that all these public servants, many of whom participated in writing and ratifying the Constitution, understood that document so poorly that they would violate its intention?

Read more about the historic Trinity church below:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/LM065.htm

Ignorance of First Amendment at Law School

2010-10-20T01:14:00.002-05:00

You can read the "long version" of this story at the links below. Here is the short version, which goes to the point of this blog.

There was a debate at a between Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell on October 19, 2010, for Delaware's open U.S. Senate seat. The debate was held at Delaware's Widener Law School (that's an important fact). The debate at some point wandered into whether local schools could teach creationism or should stay with Darwinism, and the phrase "separation of church and state" came up. O'Donnell then asked, "Where in the Constitution is "separation of church and state?" The law school audience laughed and some were heard to say "Whoa!," and the context seems to be that they were laughing at O'Donnel. Coons claimed that is is in the First Amendment and made light of her question.

I would think a room with a high population of law students would not laugh at the question, hoping they would know that those words are not in the First Amendment. When quoted, the reference is to a private letter of Thomas Jefferson, and in the legal world that should be an important distinction. Not that the phrase should be overlooked, but its context is important. Also important is the fact that the Founders signed a document that did not contain that phrase. But the laughed at her. In my opinion the [sad] joke is on them, not her.

You will read in some of the text below that some in the media are also making fun of O'Donnell's question. Political journalists should know the Constitution and some of the important Supreme Court cases well enough to understand her question. Clearly they do not all meet my own preferred standard. But I'm not paying their salaries, I don't live my life around what they tell me, and I don't hold them as accountable as I do law students. That's partly because I keep hoping that law schools will point out that in the 1947 Supreme Court case that first brought "separation..." to a legal status, the court only used that quote without actually quoting from the words of the First Amendment and without looking at prior decisions and court writings. They can agree or not with the spirit of that 1947 court decision, but they should take note of the distinction between personal writings and the dictates of the Constitution.

Now that I re-think all this, I don't know why I am surprised. I have done random testing with various demographics and learned that it is probably the majority of the U.S. population who believe that "separation of church and state" is literally in the Constitution. That's my primary motivation for starting this blog in the first place.

Read more at the three links below (one include a media file):

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/19/odonnell-takes-coons-constitution-courtroom-debate

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/10/19/christine-odonnell-separation-church-and-state-not-constitution-msnb

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/19/chris-coons-cant-name-the-five-freedoms-in-the-first-amendment/

Christian Pastor Arrested for Witnessing to People in Front of a Mosque

2010-10-18T01:13:00.001-05:00

Many who read this blog, and I hope most of the rest of the USA, know at least roughly what the First Amendment protects. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, it protect freedom of religion, and also protects freedom of speech. The courts have had so much respect for the right of free speech that they have declared shopping malls (privately owned) to be part of the "public square" and therefore to be a haven for free speech.

I believe it was in the 1950's that the Supreme Court specifically protected the right to hand out religious tracts on a public sidewalk. So how does it come about that a pastor can be arrested for doing the same thing?

Pastor Mark Holick, from Wichita, Kansas, was recently arrested and handcuffed for witnessing and handing out religious information in front of a mosque. I believe the police overreacted in this case, but we'll see if it goes to the court system for redress. The non-profit Rutherford Institute is taking up the pastor's case.

As I write this the case has not been posted on the website, but perhaps it will be by the time you read this post. Visit Rutherford to learn more:

http://rutherford.org/

Do the Courts Understand the First Amendment?

2010-10-15T01:16:00.002-05:00

That's a provocative headline, and probably is not fair. But I fear that the courts, even the Supreme Court of the United States, still have ideologues among them. We all have opinions, and it would be super-human for a judge or justice to be totally objective. In some cases, there ARE some human judgments that have to be made; the laws don't give complete guidance in all cases.

But the Founders were prolific writers, and the words and deeds are well preserved in various libraries and compilations. The original introduction of the metaphor "separation of church and state" was in 1947, I believe. In any case, I'm quite sure that was the first time the phrase was used without further justification from actual quotes of the Constitution. The metaphor is from a letter of Thomas Jefferson and certainly gives a small piece of insight into his views on the First Amendment. But if one searches his writings, one finds almost no other use of that phrase, but rather a repeated use of "freedom of religion" or "religious freedom" to describe the need for a Bill of Rights.

There is a good article on the Examiner's site discussing this. Follow the link below to learn more:

The truth about "separation of church and state"

The Limits of Censorship

2010-10-12T01:20:00.001-05:00

Nebraska schools had better watch their step(s). The ACLU has sent letters to all public schools warning them that they had better not invite in any speakers whose message or organization might be related to religion. The justification, of course, is the so-called separation of church and state. That metaphor is supposed to represent the First Amendment's religion clauses, but is woefully inadequate to do so and is even misleading if used alone.

Forgetting for a moment that the part of the the First Amendment referenced is about prohibiting lawmakers from making laws establishing an official religion, what about the concept of inviting speakers of all types except one?

What if you wish to have a speaker addressing programs to fight alcohol addiction? You would be afraid to invite someone from AA because part of their method is religious faith. But you could invite someone who recommends non-standard or unproven methods that were not related to religion, and that would be OK. Would balancing speakers in this way make an impression on the students? Would a reasonable person assume that if certain groups are not allowed to speak at a public school assembly, then they must not be mainstream or simply are not worthy of such discussion?

I'm not objecting to schools not inviting charismatic preachers to speak about his/her faith. My personal view is that such a speaker is not unconstitutional, but I wouldn't endorse the choice for reasons unrelated to the Constitution.

Read more on the Nebraska story below:

http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=13162361

Should We Use the Bible in Public Schools?

2010-10-09T01:57:00.001-05:00

Benjamin Rush was one of the signers of our Declaration of Independence. One could suppose that men who were so involved in the founding of our nation might have a good idea of what was allowed and not allowed by our form of government.

Today no teacher in a public school would even consider teaching from the Bible, or even allowing daily Bible reading as part of class. Teachers and administrators have stated that such a practice would be against the "separation of church and state" (by which they mean against the Constitution).

Certainly many modern-day parents would not be in favor of such a practice. Even many Christian parents would not want to trust the teaching of the Bible in an environment that has often been hostile to the Bible. But that leaves the question of whether or not it is constitutional to do such a thing.

Consider the opinion of Benjamin Rush. In 1786 he said the following:

I do not mean to exclude books of history, poetry, or even fables from our schools. They may and should be read frequently by our young people, but if the Bible is made to give way to them altogether, I foresee that it will be read in a short time only in churches and in a few years will probably be found only in the offices of magistrates and in courts of justice.

From Benjamin Rush. “Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic” from American Political Writing during the Founding Era, 1760-1805, Volume 1, p. 684, edited by Charles S. Hyneman and Donald S. Lutz (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1983)

Perhaps Rush might think that, if parents wish the Bible to be excluded from teaching, that the point be made on the basis of logic or desire, but not because doing so would be disallowed by our nation's laws and founding documents.

Mainstream Media: Is It Reporting or Creating News?

2010-10-06T01:31:00.001-05:00

We live in a large country with a diverse population. We naturally have people who disagree about various issues, and our nation was founded with a guarantee of the right to express your thoughts in words. Our courts have either clarified that right or possibly extended it by saying that certain actions are protected "speech" as well. Flag burning would be in that protected category, for example.

Now we see news of a pastor in Florida who wants to have an "event" on September 11. He announced he would be burning a copy of the Koran. This man leads a congregation of perhaps 50 people at most. He is not, to my knowledge, famous in any of the conventional ways. I don't see books by him at my local Barnes & Noble or on Amazon.com, I don't see a Sunday morning TV show with him preaching, etc. But he has been made famous in this country because of this Koran burning event. [He has announced just recently that he would cancel the event.]

It seems to me that various entities with something gain from it have played this up more than it deserves. Not that such an intention is not an awful thing; it is worthy of criticism. But this should not be an international event. A couple years ago there were incidents overseas of burning of Muslims using rocker-propelled grenades to break into a church, after which they desecrated the church, tore Bibles apart, etc. Was our press filled with stories of this? Had you even heard about it?

Does this pastor in Florida have a "free speech" right to burn a book, even one that is holy? Yes, apparently he does based on what our Supreme Court has ruled in various decisions. But having a right to do something does not mean you should do it. Does the press have a right to make an international issue of this pastor? Yes, they do. But that doesn't mean they should. Would the press report someone burning a Bible to the extent that it became an international story?...

Read more below:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/09/did-media-negligently-create-koran-burning-controversy

Article: Is the USA a Christian Nation?

2010-10-03T01:05:00.001-05:00

This blog has often discussed the reasons that one might say the USA is a Christian nation. Of course that does not mean in the sense of a theocracy; there has never been an official national religion. But there are still many reasons such a viewpoint could be valid.

Some are discussed in the article below. It makes interesting reading. But be warned: it quotes such right-wing religious radicals as Woodrow Willson and Harry Truman.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html

Biology Teacher Fired for Mentioning Intelligent Design?

2010-09-30T01:40:00.002-05:00

At George Mason University, teacher Caroline Crocker was fired. She taught Biology and made a couple of fatal mistakes. She did not teach the Darwin theory of evolution as proven and indisputable, and she also spoke favorably of the Intelligent Design concept.

Even Darwin himself did not think that his theory was any more than that - a theory, not proven science. See challenging the absolute authority of that theory would seem reasonable for that reason alone. And universities are supposed to allow teachers latitude to challenge the students' minds with viewpoints that are controversial.

George Mason was a Founder and a patriot. He was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Along with James Madison he is called the "father of the Bill of Rights." He said, "The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth." Part of the mission statement of George Mason University is "Encourage freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in a tolerant, respectful academic setting that values diversity." Wouldn't all that point to a more tolerant attitude about the theory of intelligent design? The Founders prayed to God; are we to assume they were just fooling themselves about the existence of God? Or are we to think that they were right about the existence of God, but that teaching students that God had anything to do with creating us is folly? Or would a teacher be fired for teaching about the meaning of George Mason's own words?

Read more here:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/free_to_think_caroline_crocker036671.html

Hate Crimes Against Muslims Fewer but Over-Reported

2010-09-27T01:53:00.000-05:00

Here are the facts discussed in the article linked below. The mainstream news (i.e. New York Times and similar) have been shouting about the rash of anti-Muslim crimes in this country. We have a term in our lexicon of "anti-semitism" and a term of "islamophobia." If you search Google for each of those, you will get about 3.5 million for the former and 5.2 million for the latter. Yet there are 10 times as many hate crimes reported by the government against Jews than there are against Muslims. Not in the article is the fact that there are about twice as many Jews as Muslims in this country. Given that, one might expect twice as many hate crimes against Jews if all else were equal, which could be attributed to opportunity. But there are 10 times as many hate crimes.

Who is accountable for this seeming discrepancy? In my eyes that would be the media. If I walk around complaining about one kind of crime or the other, few people will hear me or be influenced. If I post a complaint on this blog, the reach will still be limited. I think it takes the power of the large media to get this slanted message to "stick."

What do you think?

Read the whole story below:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/06/inconvenient-truth-10-times-more-hate-crimes-against-jews-muslims

Early History: Proclamation for Day of Thanksgiving to GOD

2010-09-24T01:19:00.001-05:00

Our country was founded by people of religious faith. They had God interwoven throughout the early documents, from the voyages of Columbus through the landing on Plymouth Rock through this example from the Governor of Connecticut in 1721. Our Founders believed we owe gratitude to God for our blessings, and that we need to appeal to God for forgiveness of our sins.

The U.S. Constitution was ratified years later, and limited the power of the Federal Government to make laws about religion (either creating one or limiting any). But it left in place the official religions the majority of our states had in place at the time. The Founders wanted the Federal Government to leave this kind of thing to the states.

The proclamation is below, courtesy of the Library of Congress (forgive the computer's text recognition, although some of the "odd" words are simply forms in use during these days):

By the HONOURABLE,
Gurdon Saltonstall, Esq;
GOVERNOUR of His Majesty's Colony of Connecticut in New-England

A PROCLAMATION
For a Publick Thanksgiving.

ALTHOUGH, Considering the Judgments of GOD, which are on the Earth, in the great Distress & Desolation brought upon many Nations, both by WAR and PESTILENCE.

And Considering also particularly, the awful Tokens of GOD's Righteous Anger against us, Especially, in the Contagious SICKNESS which has been in divers Places of the Land, and in the continued RAINS, by which great Losses have been sustained, It becomes Us to be deeply Humbled before the LORD.

IT is Nevertheless our Duty to Acknowledge the many Instances of Divine Goodness, which the LORD whose Ways, are not as Ours, has Graciously vouchtaled Us and which are never to be forgotten...........Namely,

THE Smiles of Providence on the BRITISH Empire, and particularly, On Our Sovereign Lord the KING, in the Prosperity of His Life and Reign: On Their Royal Highnesses the PRINCE and PRINCESS of Wales, and and on all the Branches of the ROYAL FAMILY, not only, in Their Happy Increase, by the BIRTH of the Royal Prince WILLIAM AUGUSTUS, but, also, in the Lives of Others of Them when in Hazard by Sickness, have been Mercifully Spared.

THE PEACE which has been Continued, and Confirmed to Our Nation, after so many Endeavours to interrupt It.

THE Preservation of the British Dominions from the Raging PESTILENCE, which has laid so many Places waste, within their View, and Neighbourhood.

THE General HEALTH that has been Enjoyed in the Land, notwithstanding, The SMALLPOX has prevailed so much, in the Principal Place of our Neighbouring Province.

THE Preservation of Our COLONY, in so great a Measure from that Contagious Sickness, when We have been in great Danger of It; The Continuance of Our Privileges both Civil and Sacred; The Peace which we have Enjoyed: And the good Supply of the Fruits of the Earth, which the present Year has been Crowned with.

WHICH are, (All of them) Blessings from the LORD, whose Mercy therein We ought to Celebrate with great THANKFULNESS.

I have therefore thought fit, with the Abbice and Consent of the Council, and at the Desire of the Representatives, to Appoint, and do hereby Appoint Wednesday, the Eight Day of November next, to be Observed as a Day of publick THANKGIVING throughout the Colony. Exhorting all both Ministers & People, with Unseigned Devotion, to Bless the Name of the LORD, and praise him for all the Wonders of his Goodness; And, to Beg that the mercy which we Adore, may in all the needful Instances thereof be manifested to Us.

And all Service Labours on the said Day is hereby strictly prohibited.

Given in New-Haven, the Fourteenth Day of October, Anno Domini 1721, In the Eight year of the Reign of Our Sovereign lord GEORGE, by the Grace of GOD of Great Britain, France and Ireland, KING, Defender of the Faith, &c.

G. SALTONSTALL.

GOD Save the KING.

NEW-LONDON: Printed by Timothy Green, Printer to his Honour the GOVERNOUR and COMPANY, 1721.

In What Year Did the Federal Government Declare the Bible 'The Word of God'?

2010-09-21T01:01:00.001-05:00

Seeing the question above, you might first think it's a trick question. It's got to be a joke, right? After all, we have a separation of church and state. But, no, it's not a joke. This actually happened. The words "separation of church and state" are just a metaphor that describes one aspect of our First Amendment. The actual Amendment intended that the Federal Government be prohibited from forcing people by law to give up their preferred religious practices.

Accepting that, you might answer that this must have happened during our early history, thinking it was influenced by very religious Founders like George Washington. That is a good guess, but not what I am looking for.

But I'm thinking of time later in our history. So might you guess it was in the middle 1800's, influenced by the man who brought us the concept of one nation under God, Abraham Lincoln.

Both those would be logical guesses, but they would be wrong. The year was 1982, less that 30 years ago. It came to us via Public Law 97-280 (October 4, 1982), a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress, signed by the President of the United States. The full text is below - notice the 2nd paragraph:

Joint Resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the “Year of the Bible.”

Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;

Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States;

Whereas many of our great national leaders among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as the words of President Jackson that the Bible is “the rock on which our Republic rests”;

Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;

Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and

Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national “Year of the Bible” in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
Approved October 4, 1982.

State Dept. Publishes Book Supporting Muslims, but No Other Religions?

2010-09-18T01:51:00.000-05:00

Our own U.S. State Department has published a book called Being Muslim in America, which talks about the ways that the U.S. supports freedom of religion. It is, and should be, supportive of the right of Muslims to be Muslim. But the PDF document makes no mention of our Constitution and does not talk about the need for every religion to follow the laws of our land.

But a more interesting fact is that the State Dept. apparently publishes no book with any of the following titles:

• Being Buddhist in America
• Being Christian in America
• Being Hindu in America
• Being Jewish in America
• Being Sikh in America
• Being an Atheist in America

Does that mean that there is a particular need to assure Muslims, over any other faith, that their religion is welcome in the USA? Based on government statistics on hate crimes, there are more such crimes against Jews than Muslims when measured relative to their populations. So why do we not have a book assuring Jews that they are welcome here, and that their practices are OK in this country? There are about twice as many Jews in the USA as there are Muslims, but the hate crimes against Jews are 10 times as numerous as those against Muslims.

Read more below.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/08/hilllary-clintons-state-department.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+DougRossJournal+(Doug+Ross+%40+Journal)

Just How Broad IS the First Amendment?

2010-09-15T01:40:00.000-05:00

This blog is mostly about the First Amendment, and also has many posts about court decisions that turned the original meaning of the First Amendment on its head. Perhaps it will be useful to look at a recent circuit court decision on another part of the First Amendment, the free speech provision. Here is the entire text of the First Amendment (underlining added):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's simple enough. The underlined portion is the free speech clause. We all want free speech, right? As with the religion clauses, we would hope to understand the intention of the Founders in order to properly interpret the Amendment in court. Is free speech unlimited? Free honest speech is, and I'm sure that was part of the intent. Free political opinions are protected, and that may have been one of the primary motivations for the clause. But it also seems reasonable that the Founders did not intend people to get away with dishonest speech. We don't accept libel or slander. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Etc.

The recent case, decided by the 9th Circuit Court by 2 to 1, is about a Federal law that makes it illegal for someone to misrepresent his/her own military valor. The case is about a man who claimed to have won the Bronze Star, a very high honor for military members. This man, probably for political advantage, claimed to have won that award even though that is not the case. The court said the Federal law violates his free speech rights because his lie does no harm.

So the voters are left to think, by his own claims, that he is a man of different character. He also diminishes the honor of those who have actually won the award (if anyone can claim it, then it will not strike people as much of an honor to say, even honestly, that one earned the award). Would it be a logical extension to say that the military's uniform regulations, which allow the wearing of only awards actually received, is unconstitutional? Does that do any actual harm to the others in uniform?

What about perjury? If the false testimony does not change the outcome of the case, is it illegal? How about lying about my age on an application of one kind or another? Lying about my age to get into the military? Lying about my age to be able to make that Presidential run I've been secretly planning? Isn't it my free speech right to "embellish" my resume, even to the point of outright lies?

Do we want courts interpreting the Constitution this way? How much of this kind of interpretation will it take before the Constitution becomes meaningless?

Read more details below:

http://www.military.com/military-report/court-rules-stolen-valor-act-illegal?ESRC=miltrep.nl

School Principal Threatens Teachers for Religious Activities

2010-09-12T01:35:00.000-05:00

There are already several posts on this blog about how some school officials are not supportive of any religious activities or recognition. Most often, by a very great margin, are instances where the intolerance is toward Christians rather than those of other faiths. And virtually always the discrimination has been due to a misunderstanding about the meaning of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

The latest case I heard about is from Fishersville, Virginia. In this case, it would seem the principal of Wilson Middle School wants teachers to stay very far away from any organized student religious activities and organizations like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. In a letter to the faculty, Principal Curtis said, “As I trust common sense and your elementary knowledge of the law should remind you, the Constitution includes an amendment that expects 'The government will not establish any religion,’... Be as religious as you want when you’re not in your official role as a teacher. Your official role as a teacher starts anytime you’re involved with students. Please check with me or your attorney if you need clarification so I can avoid termination proceedings for those of you that don't believe me or wish to test this concept. I’m being somewhat of a smart a&*, but I trust ‘You’re feeling me!’”

The part of the amendment Curtis references says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" It was clearly understood at the time of its writing to be a limitation of the power of the Federal Government, because more than half the states had laws establishing religion. The states would not have ratified the Constitution if they believed the Federal Government would interfere with their state religions. A later amendment is interpreted to bring the same mandate on the states. Even if that were the case, the amendment prohibits a law from being established. Individual participation by faculty in religious activities is hardly establishing a law. And the principal completely ignored the equally important second half of the Amendment, which intended to protect the free exercise of religion.

The non-profit Rutherford Institute has stepped in to help the teachers. The organization said, in part:

“By intimidating teachers, through threat of termination, into refusing to provide the same types of administrative assistance to the FCA as are made available to other student groups, Principal Curtis has pitted himself in direct opposition to the spirit of the First Amendment” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “School administrators need to act immediately to correct the erroneous impression conveyed by the principal’s e-mail that religion has no place in the public schools.”

Read more about the story below:

http://rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=846

Christians Not Welcome In Some College Programs

2010-09-09T01:44:00.001-05:00

A while ago I wrote about students who were not allowed to be part of programs to teach them to be counselors because of their Christian beliefs. The particular "fault" was that they could not affirm the gay life style. The issue was not that the treated any gay people badly or that they expressed a desire to withhold treatment from gay people, or even that they said they would try to "reform" gay patients.

Below is another example, this time from Augusta State University in Georgia. The school wants to require that the student do follow this plan, in part:

"They say the plan requires her to take steps to change her beliefs through additional assignments and additional 'diversity sensitivity training' and to 'work to increase exposure and interactions with gay populations. One such activity could be attending the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta.'"

While Christianity is the most common religion in the USA, it is not the only one. A substantial percentage of our population follow other religions, but stories like this seem limited to Christian students. I am waiting to hear of a story where a Muslim or Jewish student has been required to accept sensitivity training to accept the gay lifestyle. If you know of an example, please leave a comment.

Read the whole story below:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10072207.html

Challenges to Prayer on the Increase

2010-09-06T01:58:00.000-05:00

Readers of this blog know I have already written about several court cases that arose when one or more people were offended by some form of public prayer. It has seemed to me that I am seeing more of these cases, and an article on foxnews.com documents that to be the case.

One example: employees of the University of Texas were fired for praying over a follow employee's cube, even though it was after hours, when the employee was not there, and without the employee's knowledge (even after the fact). Why did the school fire these people? The cited "harassment." At least one of those directly involved did not actually utter a prayer, but simply said "Amen" at various times. So that person was fired either for saying "Amen" or for silent actions.

It is clear from history that our Founders did not intend the First Amendment to mean anything like this. The phrase "separation of church and state" comes to us from Thomas Jefferson. This is the same Thomas Jefferson who issued proclamations for days of prayer in Virginia, and who specified that certain areas of the University of Virginia be set aside for prayer between students and faculty.

Read more below:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/23/legal-challenges-prayer-rise-1410541964/

First Amendment Limits Campus Law Enforcement??

2010-09-04T01:46:00.000-05:00

A recent court case held that Davidson College, being a Christian college, could not enforce laws on its campus. It is the practice of the Attorney General of North Carolina to delegate enforcement duties to college police departments. But the court has said that it violates "separation of church and state" to give law enforcement rights to a college if that college is Christian.

The Founders, if one looks at their writings and actions, wanted to keep the government from establishing an official religion which citizens would be forced to follow. The college is being prohibited from enforcing laws solely because it is Christian (or religious). But allowing this police department to enforce laws such as DWI does not establish a religion. It has nothing to do with religion.

And the remedy? The college will now need to local police to patrol the campus, extending their workload and in effect channeling more tax dollars to support the college. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is not unconstitutional for local services, like fire and police or even school buses, to serve religious schools. So the local police may do this job. But I fail to see how the Founders' intentions would have led to religious schools being denied rights (or duties) that any other school would have.

Read more here:

http://www.carolinaweeklynewspapers.com/story/20100820/court-overturns-davidson-college-police-powers

God Not Allowed in Shopping Mall

2010-09-02T01:59:00.001-05:00

In Roseville, California, a youth minister wished to go to a shopping mall and share the Gospel with shoppers. Apparently he was very careful to not force himself on others; all those who spoke with him did so voluntarily. But for doing this he was arrested, handcuffed, fingerprinted, and book on criminal charges.

The mall has a policy that "...forbids anyone [from] ever sharing their faith or political views with anyone else in the shopping mall at any time if they did not know that person prior to entering the shopping mall." The story did not make it clear if the minister knew this policy beforehand.

This story raises some conflicts for me. On the one hand, I believe that private businesses should have latitude to run their business freely. And having the Constitutional right to free speech and free religious exercise does not mean anytime anywhere. (i.e. you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater)

On the other hand, the courts have often recognized that commercial establishment like malls are, in effect, part of the public square. And the Supreme Court ruled years ago, I believe during the Viet Nam war, that a man had the First Amendment right to wear a jacket with "F*** the Draft" on it, and presumably he could have worn that into a shopping mall. The Roseville mall discussed above has a rule prohibiting wearing clothes with political messages, so where would that leave an anti-draft jacket?

Feel free to comment if you have an opinion about this. It remains to be seen if this or a similar case will work its way to the Supreme Court.

Read the story below:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1065954

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1065954

Mention SCOTUS case that said young man can wear a F___ the Draft jacket in public.

Putting a Mosque at Ground Zero Not Protected by First Amendment

2010-08-31T01:04:00.000-05:00

If you listen to people heartily discuss, or in some cases tiptoe around, the subject of building a mosque right beside the site of the World Trade Center, the First Amendment is often invoked... wrongly.

The gist of many opinions is that, while the builders have a First Amendment right to build there, they should decide not to based on the hurt it will cause at this particular site. I agree with the second part of that point. It is a matter of sensitivity, which has come into play historically in other similar situations.

But look at what the First Amendment says about religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Where in that is the guarantee of a right to build a house of worship anywhere one pleases? It prohibits Congress from certain actions, among them anything that would prohibit the free exercise of religion. But our Founders would not have meant that to allow anything, anywhere, any time. A congregation could not walk in during a session of Congress because they wanted to worship and sing hymns in the gallery, for example. A church would not be allowed to build next door to my house. Churches have been prohibited from ringing the carillons except at certain times.

The legal right to build this mosque does not really involve the First Amendment. It is controlled by zoning, and in this case by definitions of historic buildings. The man pushing this is responsible for following other laws as well, including those that regulate funding from certain overseas sources (no matter what kind of building is being proposed). It remains to be seen if the funding will stand up to investigation.

There is also nothing to say that people may not protest its proposed site. That does not violate the First Amendment. I hope commentators will keep the First Amendment out of these discussions, particularly when they make a passing reference to a right that is not in fact present in this context.

What Was Jefferson's Religious Belief?

2010-08-29T02:45:00.000-05:00

Jefferson has become a mystery man today. That is puzzling, given the volumes of information that exist about Jefferson, including his voluminous writings.

Some argue that Jefferson was not a religious person. Certainly by my standards he would hard to classify as a mainstream Christian. He called himself a true Christian. He believed in passing on the teaching of Christ.

His famously-abridged Bible was edited (according to his inscription) to make it more suitable for reading by and teaching to the Indians (Native Americans). He, as with the Founders in general, used the term "religion" to mean what we would call Christian sects. That is clear from some of the preserved writings and made clearer in an official sense by the wording of the drafts of the First Amendment (found elsewhere on this blog).

Now consider the following words Jefferson used in a letter:

"My religious reading has long been confined to the moral branch of religion, which is the same in all religions; while in that branch which consists of dogmas, all differ." - Letter to Thomas Leiper, January 11, 1809

He goes on to talk about how any lesson found in the Bible may be taught in the various denominations in a much-different form. So while he may not have been a huge fan of the organized religions of his time, he certainly found beauty and value in the writings of the Bible.

Read more in the book "The writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 9" by Thomas Jefferson:

Google Book Extract

Recurring Theme: Will Courts Tell the Clergy How to Pray (and to Whom)?

2010-08-27T01:57:00.002-05:00

Yet another story is in the news about the issue of a town council opening meetings with prayer. This time it is from the town of Greece (near Rochester, NY). A couple residents did not like the way prayers were given in some cases and filed suit. In this case (and for now) the town won and may continue their practice.

The town was assisted by the Alliance Defense Fund. The ADF lawyer summed it up this way:

"Oddly enough, what they were asking the town to do is to tell clergy how and to whom to pray," he says. "Of course we thought this was a horrible affront to the Constitution -- if the separation of church and state means anything, then it means that the state should not be telling clergy how and to whom to pray."

To object to prayers, even to prayers in Jesus' name, ignores much of our history when our Founders followed similar practices.And these same Founders wrote the First Amendment, which is what our courts have come to use (in many cases) to prohibit the very same practices. It's a little like watching a tennis match.

Read more below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1117778

You Can't Counsel and Be a Christian

2010-08-25T01:31:00.000-05:00

Below are two links to articles about college students who are in programs that teach them counseling skills, seeking a degree to become counselors. Unfortunately for some of the students, they are being punished for not being willing to forsake their Christian beliefs to succeed in the program.

The issue is dealing with gays. Some schools' programs insist that students not only treat gays well, but that they affirm the gay lifestyle. If that is against your religious convictions, then you can not graduate with the degree you sought.

I wonder if the same limitations are, or will be, applied to students looking to be teachers, for example. With a teaching degree from a state university, one might seek to teach in either a public school or a private school. In the latter case, the school may be Christian and may not choose to affirm the gay lifestyle, even through they might very well admit gay student, or children of gay parents. The university that trained the teacher taught him/her the skills necessary to teach. That is what matters.

For counselors, they need to have good counseling skills. I have met Christian counselors before, and I have met atheist counselors. I have met counselors who did not reveal that part of their makeup. Must all counselors believe the same things when it comes to moral principles? Are not the skills of counseling separate from the belief about lifestyle?

Must all counseling students believe that home schooling is unhealthy? Must they believe that God has not part in healing, mentally or physically? How about a lifestyle of excessive consumption? Do we need to affirm that? It is not illegal, and not everyone believes it is immoral. To how many moral issues must all students agree in order to graduate?

Could someone get a medical degree if they believed abortion is immoral? Or euthanasia? How about non-reconstructive plastic surgery? Isn't the medical degree independent of those beliefs (even though one's take on those issues might well affect where they can ultimately be employed)?

When our current President and Secretary of State simultaneously abandon the phrase "freedom of religion" in favor of "freedom of worship" should we worry? Being denied a degree does not affect my freedom of worship necessarily, but it may indeed affect my freedom of religious expression (not to mention freedom of speech).

Read more below:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10072803.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-07-28-IHE-counseling-gays-ruling28_N.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29

For Now, We Keep 'In God We Trust'

2010-08-23T01:32:00.000-05:00

I'm sure it comes as no surprise when you hear that someone is suing to have "In God We Trust" removed from our currency or from a public edifice. A recent instance came before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In this case, the court decided that the phrase is not a religious exercise or an endorsement of a particular religion.

That seems like a good decision if one has any regard for the opinions and actions of our Founders (by "Founders" I mean the people who wrote and ratified the First Amendment). They used many, many public recognitions of God and His influence on our country's history, and recognized the importance of looking to a higher power instead of relying solely on the logic of man.

Read more here:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1102228

Courts aren’t the final arbiter

2010-08-21T01:37:00.004-05:00

Folks who argue for the left on matters of separation of church and state proudly point to Jefferson, who have us that little metaphor. As I have pointed out, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but was not present at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. He was in France. He wrote to the Founders with opinion and advice, though. In those letters he did not use the phrase "separation of church and state" but rather used the phrase "freedom of religion." No matter. People who believe the whole "separation" idea as it has been applied by recent courts will largely ignore Jefferson's actions and word that might argue against the kind of separation the courts have mandated today.

It is instructive to look at some of Jefferson's other writings regarding the way we have allowed the courts to become the "last word" on the Constitutionality of laws and actions. He spoke often about the danger of the judicial branch if they chose to take on too much power. He clearly thought they should have no more power than the other two branches.

He also thought that even the federal government as a whole could not be the last word. If the feds take on too much power or overstep their boundaries, the states and the people still have the final word. We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Remember in the New Testament how Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man; man was not made for the Sabbath. In the same way, the Constitution was made for the people, not the other way around.

Below is a link to an article that examines Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and the concept of nullification of federal actions. It is not very long and makes for interesting reading:

Courts aren’t the final arbiter

Where Is Our Government Getting Their Powers Lately?

2010-08-19T01:58:00.000-05:00

I remember learning about American History in a class by that name in public school, followed the next year by a class called American Government. The teachers didn't consider me at the top of the class (fairly enough), but I did learn a few things. One clear theme had to do with our Constitution and the Founders' intent for the document. They wished to keep the citizens as free as possible, leaving with them as many rights as possible. They also wanted to severely limit the powers of the Federal Government, leaving anything not specifically authorized for the feds to belong to the states or the citizens.

Watching all three branches of our Federal Government these days, one might wonder how those folks did in their schools' history and civics classes. More and more the central government is taking control of rights that used to belong to citizens and states. Hence we have many states today bringing suits against the Federal Government over health care requirements or immigration control. We could blame both the Legislative and Executive branches in those cases. And the courts have been leaning toward government and away in many cases, such as the Kelo case, where homeowners had to give up their property so a local business could build on their lots.

The U.S. Constitution's 9th Amendment says:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the 10th says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

One can't really call that language "legalize" because its meaning is clear. The Federalist Papers are considered good insight into the Constitution's meaning and the Founders' intentions. Federalist 45 says, in part:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

To the point of this particular blog overall is to protect the rights our Founders intended us to have in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. Reading the above quotes, does it seem Constitutional for the Supreme Court of the United States to tell a city's public school that it can't have prayer at a graduation ceremony? Look at the tag Discrimination Examples or Revisionism here to see examples, and then apply the three quotes above to see if they pass Constitutional muster.

Much of the current Tea Party phenomenon is fueled by frustration over seeing the Federal Government seemingly willing to ignore Constitutional limitations and the clear will of the people. We'll see what the election shows this fall. One might suspect that Tea Parties won't go away no matter what the outcome, because there are still many politicians of both major parties who not in good standing with the people they were elected to serve.

Florida School District Bans Bibles on Religious Freedom Day

2010-08-17T01:08:00.000-05:00

In Florida, the Collier County School District has a day once a year called Religious Freedom Day. In past years the Superintendent allowed for a table to be set up where students could take a free Bible. There was a sheet distributed with the Bible making it clear that it was not associated with the school district.

However, the Superintendent recently decided that Bibles serve no education purpose and therefore could not be included in displays on this day. The details I can find are somewhat skimpy, but one has to assume the Superintendent is worried about the so-called "separation of church and state" issue. Keeping in mind that the separation phrase comes from Thomas Jefferson, one should also remember that Jefferson himself, as president of the Washington, D.C. school district, authorized the use of two books as primary reading material in the public schools: the Watts Hymnal and the Bible.

But that is only a guess. Regardless of whether that was a factor with this school system, as it has been with so many others in this country, I still object to the through that the Bible has no role in Religious Freedom Day. Most of our early settlers came here in order to worship in their own way, using the very same Bible. Many quotes from our Founders come from the Bible. Many of our government buildings and monuments have carved in them quotes from the Bible. Then there is Jefferson's use of the Bible for teaching reading in the public schools.

Our Constitution and its First Amendment's Religion Clauses were meant to keep the central government from interfering with religion. The idea was to avoid centralized control over religion, and to assure free of religion. As such, there is no justification for using the Constitution as a reason to prohibit offering the Bible. And I believe the school system is free to determine how they run various events. Not knowing more details, I can't claim there was a violation of First Amendment rights by denying this permission because I don't have enough detail available. (Schools are required to offer equal accommodation to religious groups as they would to non-religious groups in many areas.) If this display table was denied solely because of its religious materials (which does seem silly on "Religious Freedom Day"), then that would be a violation. Perhaps more details will arise.

Read more about it at the link below:
Florida school district bans Bibles on Religious Freedom Day

Religious Thoughts on the Establishment of St. Johns River Settlement, Fla.

2010-08-15T01:00:00.002-05:00

When you think of the religious settlers who came to this "New World" to make a new life, do you (as I) think of the Puritans and the Pilgrims? Most of us do, I suspect.

There are many more examples. If you have read this blog you may have learned about the religious convictions of Christopher Columbus and other historic figures. But how about Rene de Laudonniere?

In 1564 Rene de Laudonniere led a group that settled at St. Johns River in Florida. They colonized and built Fort Caroline (in the general area of today's Jacksonville). Upon the creation of this settlement, de Laudonnier recorded these words:

"We sang a psalm of Thanksgiving unto God, beseeching Him that it would please Him to continue His accustomed goodness towards us."

This event has been called the First Thanksgiving in America (even though the settlement was wiped out by Spanish soldiers the next year).

Read more here:

Google Books extract

Edward Everett - Ideas of Our Institutions Come from Scripture

2010-08-13T01:46:00.001-05:00

Edward Everett is a significant figure in American history, although most of us may not have heard of him. He was the a President of Harvard University, 15th Governor of Massachusetts, U.S. Minister to Britain, Secretary of State (under Pres. Fillmore), and a U.S. Senator. If we had our televised 24/7 news cycle in his days, he might be well recognized because he was a speaker, along with President Lincoln, at Gettysburg.

Everett said, "All the distinctive features and superiority of our republican institutions are derived from the teachings of scripture."

(These words came just before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.)

Read more quotes from Edward Everett at the link below:

http://www.winwisdom.com/quotes/author/edward-everett.aspx

Taking God Out of the Gettysburg Address

2010-08-11T01:58:00.002-05:00

The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy recently published a handy, compact booklet containing three significant pieces of American history: The Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and the Constitution of the United States. I have a similar small booklet from the Heritage Foundation that contains the Declaration and Constitution, and I like being able to carry it with me so easily.

However, the booklet from the Constitution Society is not one I would choose to carry. Is that because I don't like the Gettysburg Address? Hardly! It is for the opposite reason, that I like and respect the Gettysburg Address as it was given by Lincoln. The booklet contains a somewhat different version.

There exist several drafts of the address, which is not surprising. Most speeches go through revisions before they are given. During that process they can be filled up to finish incomplete thoughts, changed to correct wording that was not effective or could be misleading, etc. One substantial difference between the draft published in this booklet and the final version that Lincoln gave (which was carefully transcribed by three independent news agencies as Lincoln was speaking) is that Lincoln used the words "under God" in his speech and in his final draft. That final draft is the one on display at the White House and is the only draft that Lincoln signed.

Of the five extant drafts, two do not contain "under God" and three do. All of the transcriptions of the actual spoken words contain "under God." So why would the Constitution Society choose a version that did not have those words? You can draw you own conclusions; I certainly have.

Read more detail below:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/god-and-gettysburg

Full text as found in the White House:

Transcription of the Gettysburg Address

Address delivered at the dedication of the Cemetery at Gettysburg.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln.

November 19, 1863.

Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address by the Numbers

2010-08-09T01:55:00.000-05:00

Abraham Lincoln is recognized as an American hero for people on both sides of the political spectrum. Yet I wonder if some who are liberal in their political ideology really know about Lincoln. Often it is the liberal side who will argue against any recognition of religious faith coming from government official's mouths at official events. But Lincoln was not shy about such things.

For example (and as mentioned in a previous post), his Gettysburg Address gave us the concept of a nation under God, which was later incorporated into our Pledge of Allegiance. But one of the best examples of his religious expression is found in his second inaugural address. The whole address is only about 700 words, but within it there are at least 14 references to God and somewhere between two and five quotes from the Bible (depending on how you count, in both cases).

Below is his address, followed by a link to an article explaining some of the structure of the address.

Fellow-Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Article explaining some of the meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%27s_second_inaugural_address

Full text of the address:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln%27s_Second_Inaugural_Address

President Theodore Roosevelt on the Importance of the Bible

2010-08-07T01:55:00.000-05:00

Our whole U.S. history is infused with the Judeo-Christian religion. Many of our earliest settlers came here to worship in the way they chose, and many of our Founder Fathers had formal Christian education (even holding seminary degrees). But it continues into our more recent years, too. Here is a quote from Theodore Roosevelt:

As all of you know, there are certain truths which are so very true that we call them truisms, and yet I think we often half forget them in practice. Every thinking man, when he thinks, realizes what a very large number of people tend to forget, that the teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally - I do not mean figuratively, I mean literally - impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teachings were removed. We would lose almost all the standards by which we now judge both public and private morals; all the standard toward which we, with more or less of resolution, strive to raise ourselves. Almost every man who has by his lifework added to the sum of human achievement of which the race is proud, of which our people are proud - almost every such man has based his lifework largely upon the teachings of the Bible. Sometimes it has been done unconsciously, more often consciously; and among the very greatest men a disproportionately large number have been diligent and close students of the Bible at first hand.

As found in the periodical "Public opinion, Volume 32" (covering January 1902-June 1902)
Google Books extract

Founding Father Says: Honor God and He Will Honor US

2010-08-05T01:08:00.000-05:00

So often when you see quotes of the Founders that would seem to point to a desire for a totally non-religious society in public/government life, Thomas Jefferson comes up. There is no doubt that Jefferson was a brilliant and accomplished man and that he was influential. However, there were many other Founders involved in forming our country. In fact, where our Constitution was being debated and ratified, Jefferson was in France (although he corresponded with the men writing the document).

But many of our other Founders are not widely quoted today, and are certainly not quoted in discussions such as mentioned above. Consider Samuel Adams. Here is a Wikipedia excerpt about him:

After Parliament passed the Coercive Acts in 1774, Adams attended the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, which was convened to coordinate a colonial response. He helped guide Congress towards issuing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and helped draft the Articles of Confederation and the Massachusetts Constitution. Adams returned to Massachusetts after the American Revolution, where he served in the state senate and was eventually elected governor.

Apparently Samuel Adams may be rightly included among our influential Founders. In 1780, the Boston Gazette quoted Adams saying:

May Heaven inspire that Army yet more and more with Military Virtues, and teach their hands to was and their fingers to fight! May every citizen in the army and in the country have a proper sense of the DEITY upon his mind, and an impression of that declaration recorded in the Bible, "Him that honoreth me I will honor, but he that despiseth me shall be lightly esteemed."

Read the Google Books excerpt below:

Google Books, The Writings of Samuel Adams

Pastor in Michigan Denied Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech

2010-08-03T01:45:00.001-05:00

Imagine a man who immigrated to the U.S. because of our freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Imagine this man came from Sudan, and wanted to be here in order to share the word of Christ with Muslims (which could get him in serious trouble in some countries). That sounds like part of our American story, doesn't it?

Now add to this story a federal judge who prohibited him from distributing his pamphlets to at Dearborn, Michigan's annual Arab Festival. Can't happen here, right? Wrong. It did happen to Pastor George Saeg. According to his lawyer, "He's never caused any disturbance to the public or any disturbance to the festival." Nevertheless, a federal judge did not think he had the right to distribute his literature.

Fortunately for Pastor Saeg the 6th U.S. Circuit Court issued an emergency order allowing him to proceed. I'm sure the case will be litigated further, but for now he can follow his usual practice.

If I learn more of this case I will post it here. Read more at the link below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1056354

Another Flap Over Prayer Before Meetings

2010-08-01T01:22:00.001-05:00

Mayor Linda Thompson of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, has been praying with her staff at the start of meetings. An "unidentified employee" has complained, and the American Civil Liberties Union responded with a letter to the mayor instructing her to stop. The reason, of course, is the so-called "separation of church and state" that has driven so many cases of the ACLU and similar groups.

That phrase is supposed to represent the First Amendment. However, the actual complete text of the religion clauses of that Amendment is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Nothing in there about not asking staff members to join in voluntary prayer. The mayor has made it clear from the start of this regular practice that no one is compelled to participate. They may simply abstain or may leave the room temporarily.

As a prelude to all this discussion, it might be good to notice that the First Congress, who wrote and ratified the First Amendment, opened their first meeting with a prayer. Right after they ratified the Amendment, they also petitioned our first President to declare a national day of prayer and fasting. And prayers and all sorts of official occasions were commonly invoked by those folks.

The Founders did not intend to prevent an official from leading his/her staff in prayer. They wanted to prevent the establishment of a centralized government that people would be forced by law to support. This is clear from reading the history of our country and the debates leading up to the Constitution's ratification. And remember that they were only clarifying what the Constitution could not do. The Constitution gave the government no power to establish a religion, and stated that the government had only those powers specifically given to it.

Does the mayor's prayer establish an official religion for the nation? The state of Pennsylvania? Or even the city of Harrisburg? Are people compelled by law to worship? Hardly. One could feel the mayor's habit is not considerate of members of the staff who are not comfortable with such things, or one could worry that a member might feel uncomfortable bowing out. But neither of those comforts or feelings are a Constitutional matter. If she is being inconsiderate, which I am not claiming, she could be asked about it. The voters could remove her if they wished.

Read more at this link:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/07/aclu_asks_mayor_thompson_to_st.html

Can a Simply Word Harm Freedom of Religion?

2010-07-30T01:16:00.000-05:00

During more recent references to the U.S. rights as spelled out in our Constitution, both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have been changing one word in a phrase that has previously been taken for granted. Instead referring to "freedom of religion" they have used the phrase "freedom of worship." It may be worth watching this development.

I have pointed out many time in this blog about the use of "separation of church and state" instead of the actual wording of our Constitution's First Amendment. The Amendment says Congress may not interfere with the free exercise of religion. The Founders debated the wording for quite a while and there were several drafts. They did not take words lightly.

I have spoken often about the misuse of the phrase "separation of church and state," which was used once by Thomas Jefferson in a letter describing one protection of the First Amendment. But in his letters to the Founders who were writing the Constitution (Jefferson was in France at the time) he used the phrase "freedom of religion" to say why the First Amendment was so necessary.

Does one little matter? Have you noticed how those who favor keeping abortion legal in almost all circumstances do not talk about killing a baby in the womb. The term "fetus" has come to be used for decades. Aborting a fetus has a somewhat different ring that terminating the life of a baby. But if a "pregnant couple" goes through a miscarriage, they never talk about losing a fetus. That same entity is considered a baby by the couple who wants it - but the person who does not want it calls it a fetus. In the Roe v. Wade decision, I can find no mention of the word "baby" but 20 or so of the word "fetus."

Religious people have expressed concern over the change from "religion" to "worship" in the speech of such high-level officials. Does it mean anything? Will it result in fewer rights for religious exercise? Time will tell.

Read more here:
http://catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=37390

Is Praying in Public a Right? Keep an Eye On This Story.

2010-07-28T01:53:00.004-05:00

According to news stories, a group of Christian school students were visiting Washington, D.C. on May 5, 2010. While they were in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building, the gathered in a circle to pray. An official told them what there were doing was illegal and they would have to move on. The children were from Arizona, a junior high school American History class at Wickenburg Christian Academy.

The Marshal of the Court said they will look into to the matter, and that "the Court does not have a policy prohibiting prayer." Well, one would hope not.

The Alliance Defense Fund is helping by representing the students' rights.

When our Founders wrote the Constitution, they were well aware of the desire of the people to have freedom of religion. That is a reason some of our earliest settlers came here. There was debate during the Constitutional Convention about whether we needed the Bill of Rights, because all those 10 amendments did was emphasize what the Constitution already said. Do we need to say that Congress can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion? "No," some said, because the Constitution gave Congress no rights in that area in the first place. Nevertheless, the amendment was added to clarify what Congress may not do. But does it matter that Congress supposedly may not make such a law if officials assume they have the right to push their own ideas of enforcement on helpless students?

DISCLAIMER: this story is not well filled out yet. Perhaps it was all a misunderstanding or is being reported incorrectly. We shall watch and see what develops. But the actions reported are not at all hard to believe, given other documented examples already mentioned in various posts on this blog.

Read the story here:
Students Ordered to Stop Praying Outside Supreme Court Building

Prayer Throughout Our History

2010-07-26T01:34:00.002-05:00

Surely we have learned in history class about the significance of the Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads being joined with a Golden Spike ceremony, marking our first transcontinental railroad. This event, as with so many others, was marked by prayers of gratitude to God.

Before the final spikes were driven home, a prayer was offered. The transcript of the message sent at the time said:

At about half past 12, the telegraph sent the following message:

To everybody. Keep quiet. When the last spike is driven at Promontory Point [Summit], we will say "Done!" Don't break the circuit, but watch for the signals of the blows of the hammer. Almost ready. Hats off; prayer is being offered.

How interesting it is to contrast such events as this, which is documented on the official U.S. National Park Service website, with the efforts today to abolish our days of prayer, which happen in all states and federally once a year. Prayer in all situations is part of our history. It was a practice of our Founders, who wrote the very Constitution that lawsuits would have us believe prohibit such actions.

Read the conclusion of the Golden Spike event here:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gosp/clr/clr2g.htm

National Park Service Prayer Display

2010-07-24T01:23:00.001-05:00

I have previously posted the prayer used by President Eisenhower before his inaugural in this entry:

http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2009/03/president-eisenhowers-1st-inaugural.html

I point out today that this prayer is currently on display at the National Park Service's website, here:

http://www.nps.gov/history/museum/exhibits/eise/President/Presidency/EISE8530_prayer2.html

This is a display maintained by the Federal Government using tax dollars, and it is quite "religious looking." It is typeset very much like old hand-created editions of the Bible. While such displays might raise the eyebrows of some today who throw around the phrase "separation of church and state," there is no denying that such things are indeed part of our history. In this case, it is a rather attractive display.

The text of that prayer is:

"Almighty God, as we stand here at this moment my future associates in the executive branch of government join me in beseeching that Thou will make full and complete our dedication to the service of the people in this throng, and their fellow citizens everywhere.

"Give us, we pray, the power to discern clearly right from wrong, and allow all our words and actions to be governed thereby, and by the laws of this land. Especially we pray that our concern shall be for all the people regardless of station, race, or calling.

"May cooperation be permitted and be the mutual aim of those who, under the concepts of our Constitution, hold to differing political faiths; so that all may work for the good of our beloved country and Thy glory. Amen."

ADF Defends National Day of Prayer

2010-07-22T01:37:00.001-05:00

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is in the news again. This time they brought a lawsuit against the National Day of Prayer, in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama.

This particular annual recognition of our religious roots began in 1952. However, the tradition actually started even before our country was officially born and has been there throughout our history since our founding. In fact, all 50 states have also issued proclamations for a day of prayer.

The Continental Congress in 1775 called for such a day of prayer, which was recognized. But "Wait!" you say - that was before our Constitution was written. People objecting to the day of prayer now claim that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. I suppose one could argue on either side of what the Establishment Clause means, but if we take the word of those who wrote it, there is no justification for the current lawsuit. The same Congress that debated and ratified the Constitution almost immediately called upon President Washington to declare a national day of prayer and fasting (which he did). After risking life and property in a tough war, and after countless hours of debate in crafting the words of the Constitution, are we to assume that one of their first acts violated our primary legal document? That's not an assumption I would make.

Read more about the case here:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=5337

No Free Speech at State Universities?

2010-07-20T01:06:00.002-05:00

If you listen to what is going on around us in the USA you have probably heard that the so-called "separation of church and state" (which is an attempt to summarize the First Amendment's religion clauses) has been used to justify all manner of restrictions. What I have read about our Founders leads me to believe they would not approve of such restrictions in the name of the First Amendment.

And we often hear about how important it is to maintain free speech on campuses of our colleges and universities. We desire a free exchange of ideas, right?

So how can an instructor who teaches a class on Catholicism in a university's Religion Department be fired for teaching what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality? If happened to Kenneth Howell at the University of Illinois. He was teaching what I understand to be the Catholic Church's stance on sexuality. Suppose Mr. Howell were teaching a class like "21st-Century Treatment of Sexuality" and said that in that context it is assumed that homosexual unions are equal to heterosexual unions? Can anyone imagine that a state university would have fired him for that? I, for one, cannot.

The First Amendment prevents Congress from establishing a national religion, and it protect all our rights to freely exercise our religion. The man we quote when we raise the "separation" issue, Thomas Jefferson, was President of the United States when we began the practice of holding weekly church services in several federal buildings, including the chambers of Congress. Did he really want to keep all discussion of religion away from governmental institutions?

Read more below:
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?p=7765

or here:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/illinois-professor-fired-for-giving-catholic-teaching-on-homosexuality/

More Commencement Censoring - Montana

2010-07-18T01:48:00.001-05:00

Here we go again. A high school co-valedictorian's speech was censored before she gave it. Why was this done? Readers of this blog certainly can guess the answers. Her speech contained religious references.

The graduates were asked to speak about lessons they learned in high school. Her lessons had to do with applying her faith in real-life situations, and that was unacceptable to the school officials. Her speech was apparently censored solely based on this religious content. She was told she had to change it and she refused, so she was not allowed to speak to the class.

Perhaps you are thinking the officials had in mind something learned in school as content for this speech. Based on the changes they proposed, that was not the case. She was told to replace references to Christ with phrases like "sharing my faith" or "love of mankind." It is clear enough what the particular type of censorship was.

If a student had wanted to tell how she learned lessons about life because she had to balance her part-time job with school work and sports, would that have been censored? Or if a student went through a tough experience with a dying relative and learned to cope, would that have been censored? I'm sure not.

Once again we see an example where a (perhaps well-meaning) person believes it violates "separation of church and state" to utter the words God or Christ in a non-cursing context. I'm glad this student refused to change here speech, and I'm glad there is a group (the Rutherford Institute) willing to fight for her rights in the state's supreme court. We'll see how it turns out. Learn more about Rutherford from the book linked on the left.

Read more details by following the link below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1071054

Abandoning the Concepts of Rights from Our Creator

2010-07-16T01:15:00.001-05:00

If you watched much television in late June you may have seen the hearings for Elena Kagan as a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. There weren't too many surprises here. People expected President Obama to appoint a liberal person and she seems to have a record that would support that.

However, I found it a bit disturbing when a senator pressed her on the Declaration of Independence as an influence on her presumed future decisions. We are used to hearing such nominees duck many questions, and that is what she did here. Ms. Kagan did not affirm that the Declaration is a guideline for our system of government.

But our own United States Code says that the Declaration of Independence is one of the four documents that defined the organic law of the United States. And what is special about the Declaration? Simply that it states clearly that our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not come from the government, but rather are given to us by our Creator. If we ignore that guideline, then the government can take away those rights by simply passing a law.

I don't know about you, the reader, but I know that I would very much like our highest court to acknowledge that we have rights from God. Those are "above" the government. Read the posts in this blog and you will find ample acknowledgment by our Founders that they were grateful to God for our many blessings. The recognized this in writing and in oratory.

Read a little more about organic law here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law

Supreme Court Affirms Christian Roots In Our Laws

2010-07-14T01:15:00.003-05:00

Most people know that the USA does not allow polygamy, and some even know that was because of a Supreme Court Case that disallowed the Mormon practice of having multiple wives for one husband. The case that established was the 1890 case of The Mormon Church v. The United States. It said, in part:

"The organization of our community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization, which Christianity has produced in the Western world. The question, therefore, is whether the promotion of such a nefarious system and practice, so repugnant to our laws and to our [Christian] civilization is to be allowed to continue by the sanction of  our government."

But isn't is unconstitutional to use a Christian belief to control interpretation of our laws? That is a fairly common belief today. But consider the 1890 case of Davis v. Beeson. Here the court confirmed that outlawing bigamy and polygamy was constitutional because they were "crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian nations."

Today the standard justification to explain why we don't allow polygamy is that it would be somewhat harmful to our society. But the court used the specific logic that Christian principles may come into play in such complex decisions.

Follow the two embedded links above to read the two cases cited.

Pledge of Allegiance is Unacceptable?

2010-07-12T01:17:00.001-05:00

NOTE: This post is slightly off topic because it deals more with the issue of partiotism specifically than the First Amendment's religion clauses in particular.

In the story linked below we learn that a public high school, Arlington High School in Massachusetts, is not willing to do the Pledge of Allegiance. They also do not display the flag in the classrooms. One of the students was very upset about this and tried to petition the administration to start using the Pledge. That doesn't seem so illogical, especially given the amount of money that our federal government spends on education. One must assume most of the students (certainly their parents) are in this country by choice.

The student managed to get the school to display flags in the classrooms, but the Pledge is still not being used. One reason given by the administration is that they did not think the teachers would be willing to lead the Pledge. Interesting comment, because several teachers signed the petition to restore the Pledge. Also signing letter of support was Senator John Kerry, who is not usually considered a right-wing extremist.

One hesitation cited was the relgious implication of the phrase "under God" in the pledge. But most of the discussion (at least as found in the article) was about partiotism.

One teacher said, "Patriotism is a very personal thing for all of us, but I do not think it is in the school committee's best interest to mandate that any of our employees recite the pledge."

It's a good thing that teacher is not currently applying for citizenship in the USA. She would have to take the following oath (boldface added):

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

That language is considered by some to be antiquated (it originates from a centuries-old oath of Great Britain). The proposed new language, not yet accepted into law, would require the same level of discomfort from the teacher quoted above (boldface added):

"Solemnly, freely, and without mental reservation, I hereby renounce under oath all allegiance to any foreign state. My fidelity and allegiance from this day forward is to the United States of America. I pledge to support, honor, and be loyal to the United States, its Constitution, and its laws. Where and if lawfully required, I further commit myself to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, either by military, noncombatant, or civilian service. This I do solemnly swear, so help me God."

But as native-born citizens, we apparently have a God-given right (or nature-given, or Mother Earth-given, or...) to not feel an allegiance to this country, or at least to not admit to it.

Read more by following the link below:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/29/ma-school-officials-wont-let-students-recite-pledge-allegiance/

Can a Small Piece of Tax Code Overrule the Constitution?

2010-07-10T00:42:00.000-05:00

In the early 1950's then-Senator L.B. Johnson added an amendment to the tax code. It said that a religious organization may not use a substantial portion of its resources for political activities. That helps separate groups whose main purpose is lobbying or campaigning or is otherwise political from groups that truly have a religious purpose primarily.

But in recent years the ACLU and other groups have "turned in" churches to the IRS if their pastors spoke out about political issues. But does a pastor's free speech, even from the pulpit, constitute using a substantial portion of the church's resources?

And even if it did, could an amendment to tax law nullify a provision of the Bill of Rights (free speech)? One would think not. Fortunately the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has stepped in the defend the rights of pastors in such circumstances. But isn't it a shame that one needs a powerful group behind them to guarantee rights the Founders specified for us over 200 years ago?

Read more at the link below:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100622/legal-group-to-defend-church-reported-to-irs/

Christian Founders: John Hart of New Jersey

2010-07-08T01:55:00.000-05:00

Some may say that our Founders were not men of faith. But it is not too hard to see hundreds of examples that prove that belief wrong. Many are already shown on this blog.

John Hart was a signer of the Declaration of Independence from New Jersey. He is one of many of our Founders who lost everything because of their siding with the revolution. In his last will and testament he wrote:

...Thanks be given unto Almighty God therefore, and knowing that it is appointed for all men once to die and after that the judgment [Hebrews 9:27] . . . principally, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of Almighty God who gave it and my body to the earth to be buried in a decent and Christian like manner . . . to receive the same again at the general resurrection by the mighty power of God.

Quote found in the book "1776 Faith" by Phil Webster:

Book extract from Google Books

If Not The Year of Our Lord, Then What?

2010-07-06T01:25:00.000-05:00

In New Haven, Connecticut, they have finally responded to a request from 1976, where a graduate noticed "In the year of our Lord" on the bottom of her diploma to help specify the date. According to a new account, the Superintendent of Schools saw to it that the phrase was removed from diplomas. Part of the justification for this action was the presumption that it violates the so-called "separation of church and state."

This seems a bit silly to me. The only reason we use the year 2010 today is that it was based on a system counting from the incarnation of Jesus Christ. You may have also seen "A.D." used after a year, which originated from the same counting system. That abbreviation stood for "Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi." Scholars believe the exact year chosen for the 0-base of this system is not quite accurate, but nonetheless the reason for now being 2010 is based on Jesus' life. Whether we use 2010 alone, in the year of our Lord 2010, or 2010 A.D., we are counting the same way

You may already know that the "separation" metaphor was used once by Thomas Jefferson to help explain the purpose of the First Amendment. I have pointed out in this blog many times that the metaphor does not, even in Jefferson's own words, properly explain what Jefferson thought was the purpose and value of the First Amendment of our Constitution. But perhaps more to this particular point, Jefferson went one step further by using the designation "in the year of our Lord Christ" when signing official documents as President of the United States. That document was signed several years after his letter where he used the "separation" metaphor.

Our Constitution Convention used "in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven." You can find the phrase in some of our state constitutions. Founder John Adams as President used the phrase when he declared a national day of prayer. And so it has gone throughout our history.

To base an argument for not using "year of our Lord" on Jefferson's metaphor is very loose.

Read more in the link below:

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/06/26/news/new_haven/aa1_new_haven_diploma_2062610.txt

John Adams on the Declaration of Indepence

2010-07-04T01:08:00.001-05:00

As mentioned in the post yesterday, the Founders believed that future celebrations of the 4th of July would include a religious tone. These men believed our freedom was part of a divine providence. Consider the letter below from John Adams to his wife, Abigail:

Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.

Read the whole letter here:

http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17760703jasecond

July 4 - A Religious Holiday?

2010-07-03T01:23:00.000-05:00

It is not generally know that for at least the first century and a half after our nation's founding, the 4th of July was celebrated as a religious holiday, or at least as one with serious religious overtones. Consider this speech given by John Quincy Adams in 1837.

An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at their request, on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence,
July 4th, 1837.
By John Quincy Adams.
Why is it, Friends and Fellow Citizens, that you are here assembled? Why is it, that, entering upon the sixty-second year of our national existence, you have honored with an invitation to address you from this place, a fellow citizen of a former age, bearing in the records of his memory, the warm and vivid affections which attached him, at the distance of a full half century, to your town, and to your forefathers, then the cherished associates of his youthful days? Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? – And why is it that, among the swarming myriads of our population, thousands and tens of thousands among us, abstaining, under the dictate of religious principle, from the commemoration of that birth-day of Him, who brought life and immortality to light, yet unite with all their brethren of this community, year after year, in celebrating this, the birth-day of the nation?

Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?

There are many ties to the Bible, including Christianity. In fact, there are 16 references to Christ or Christianity. He quotes from the Bible several times, including the examples below. Does this fit with the image we find in the modern press and some history books, that the U.S. was founded as a secular nation?

By the signature of the Preliminary Articles of Peace, on the 30th of November 1782, their warfare was accomplished, and the Spirit of the Lord, with a voice reaching to the latest of future ages, might have exclaimed, like the sublime prophet of Israel, – Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God [Isaiah 40:1].

This was indeed a great and solemn event. The sublimest of the prophets of antiquity with the voice of inspiration had exclaimed, "Who hath heard such a thing? Who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once?" [Isaiah 66:8].

In the common intercourse of social life, the birth-day of individuals is often held as a yearly festive day by themselves, and their immediate relatives; yet, as early as the age of Solomon, that wisest of men told the people of Jerusalem, that, as a good name was better than precious ointment, so the day of death was better than the day of one's birth [Ecclesiastes 7:1].

In the corrupted currents of this world, not only is the race not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong [Ecclesiastes 9:11], but the heart is often wrung with anguish at the sight of the just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and of the wicked man that perisheth in his righteousness, and of the wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness [Ecclesiastes 7:15].

Why is it that six hundred years before the birth of the Redeemer, the sublimest of prophets, with lips touched by the hallowed fire from the hand of God, spake and said, – "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound?" [Isaiah 61:1]

And why is it, that, at the first dawn of the fulfillment of this prophecy, – at the birth-day of the Savior in the lowest condition of human existence, – the angle of the Lord came in a flood of supernatural light upon the shepherds, witnesses of the scene and said, – Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people? Why is it, that there was suddenly with that angle, a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, – Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, – good will toward men? [Luke 2:9, 10, 13, 14]

It is generally admitted by Christians of all denominations, that the fulfillment of this prophecy commenced at the birth of the Redeemer, six hundred years after it was promulgated. That it did so commence was expressly affirmed by Jesus himself, who, on his appearance in his missionary character at Nazareth, we are told by the gospel of Luke, went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up to read. And there was delivered to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found this very passage which I have cited. "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted; to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound! And he closed the book, and gave it again to the minister, and sat down" [Luke 4:17, 18, 20, 21].

Yes, from that day forth shall the nations of the earth hereafter say, with the prophet, – "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace!" [Isaiah 52:7]

From that day forth shall they exclaim, Sing, O heavens, and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains! for the Lord hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted" [Isaiah 49:13, 24-25].

From that day forth, to the question, – "Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive be delivered?" – shall be returned the answer of the prophet, – "But thus saith the Lord, – Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered; for I will contend with him that contends with thee, and I will save thy children." – "From that day forth, shall they say, commenced the opening of the last seal of prophetic felicity to the race of man upon earth, when the Lord God shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" [Isaiah 2: 4].

Read the entire speech here:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=9717

Rutherford B. Hayes Prays for Wisdom

2010-07-01T01:44:00.000-05:00

Rutherford B. Hayes was the 19th President of the United States. He was apparently a smart man. Here is a little background from the White House website:

Born in Ohio in 1822, Hayes was educated at Kenyon College and Harvard Law School. After five years of law practice in Lower Sandusky, he moved to Cincinnati, where he flourished as a young Whig lawyer. He fought in the Civil War, was wounded in action, and rose to the rank of brevet major general.

But he was also smart enough to know that he did not have all the answers to life's challenges. In a letter during some difficult considerations about bringing the country to a better place in the wake of the Civil War, he said the following:

We do not want a united North nor a united South. We want a united country. And if the great trust shall devolve upon me, I fervently pray that the Divine Being, who holds the destinies of the nations in his hands, will give me wisdom to perform its duties so as to promote the truest and best interests of the whole country.

So despite his Harvard degree he needed to consult our Creator. This has been and still is part of our country's history.

Read more here:

http://www.rbhayes.org/hayes/scholarworks/display.asp?id=503

Family Bibles Were Precious American Possessions

2010-06-28T01:35:00.000-05:00

Based on what we hear in popular media, it's easy to forget the strong religious heritage that is part of our nation's legacy. Statistics show that professional journalists are much less likely to attend a house of worship regularly than the average citizen, for example.

But during the 19th century and much of the 20th, it was common knowledge that religion is part of everyday life. Earlier posts in this blog, for example, point out that some state or local governments required an oath of office that professed a belief in God. In some court cases a witness' testimony was thrown out because the witness was know as one who had no regard for religion.

I have also pointed out that even Thomas Jefferson, who "gave" us the phrase "separation of church and state," approved the Bible and the Watts Hymnal for use as the primary sources of reading practice in public schools.

From the website of the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center we learn of a collection they have of family Bibles. "Why would they do that?" you might ask. Here is a quote from the collection's introduction:

The family bible was often the most precious possession of the nineteenth-century American household. In addition to spiritual inspiration, religious instruction, and the means by which many children learned to read, the bible served as the repository of a family’s vital records. Family bibles were often handed down from one generation to another. Each succeeding generation recorded its family’s birth, death, marriage, and baptismal dates and places. Precious photographs, documents, and keepsakes were stored in the family bible as well.

The Bible was used in this context not as a religious reference or study. But it was such a common household item, and had such an important place in the family, that it was seen as the obvious place to hold such important information. The traditions described go back to well before the 19th century. The Bible was simply a part of family life, assumed, a fixture, a source of comfort, a source of moral guidance, and a way to practice reading.

Read more here:
http://www.rbhayes.org/hayes/mssfind/287/fambible.htm

Why It Is Important to Know the Constitution

2010-06-26T01:02:00.000-05:00

I'm going to pick on President Obama for a minute. But that's only because he is 1) the most powerful elected official in our country, and 2) he or his people makes claims that he is a constitutional scholar. It is not because he is... GASP!... a black man. Nor is it because he is... GASP!... a Democrat. It is because of his attitude about our U.S. Constitution.

About 10 years ago Mr. Obama was on an NPR program in Chicago for an interview. In that interview he said the following:

"And to the extent as radical I think as people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted. The Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. It says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

That probably sounds familiar because it was replayed during the most recent Presidential campaign. It reflects an unfortunate and somewhat dangerous attitude about one of our four founding documents. I am focusing on the phrase "negative liberties." It is an odd way to characterize our Constitution. The Constitution was found necessary when our country discovered it was not able to function with the somewhat looser organization in place after the Revolutionary Way. The very reason we had our Constitutional Convention is that we needed a guiding document that enabled the government to work. Based on previous experience in the world, it was felt that the Constitution would be good for only about 150 years or so. We have now been using the document for 221 years and it is still being studied and copied in other countries.

The Constitution was not intended to define how every citizen could get assistance from the government. Therefore it was not intended to say what the government must do on your behalf. That does not mean it is a charter of negative liberties.

The Constitution defines how government is structured. It says how representatives are elected. It says how long officials serve. It uses the word "shall" over and over, but usually in the positive direction. You find the phrase "shall not" much less often.

If I open my pocket Constitution to the page in the middle, where it wants to fall because of the staples holding it together, I see phrases that begin:
New States may be...
The Congress shall have power...
The United States shall guarantee...
The Congress... shall propose...
All debts... shall be valid...
The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States... shall be...
The Senators and Representatives... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support...

Certainly there are negative implications along with any positive statement. Aren't most of our laws stated as negative liberties? A stop sign, which you must legally observe, is a positive implement in that I may safely pass through the intersection. But it is a negative implement if I do not wish to stop for the safety of others.

Perhaps Obama was referring to the Bill of Rights. Those are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, and the very first one begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law...". That is a "negative liberty" toward the Congress, but the purpose is a positive liberty to all citizens. The Founders did not name this collection "The Bill of Limitations" but rather saw it as a collection of guarantees of our inherent rights. These rights are guaranteed to the people, not to the government. As the Declaration of Independence made clear, the rights do not come from the government, but rather are from our Creator.

Most of the posts in this blog are only necessary (in my mind) because of the lack of understanding of the Constitution, or perhaps even because of a lack of true faith and allegiance to the same. I usually focus on only one part of our First Amendment. But it is important that all citizens and all leaders understand the entire Constitution. On this page is a link where you can buy a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution for about a dollar and a half. It's a small investment to have such a document handy. Or you can easily find the entire text on the Internet for free.

Disclaimer for the Constitution - Reader Beware!

2010-06-24T01:32:00.000-05:00

Wilder Publicatioins has produced a convenient set of our original documents, including the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps as a reflection on attitudes in some quarters today, the publisher said they had to include a disclaimer because of complaints from some customers. The disclaimer says, in part, "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today."

Well, I suppose a person could misunderstand many works that were written in past years. Would they put a disclaimer on the Bible? Wilder publishes The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus, and also the Manifesto of the Communist Party. I don't think they have not put a disclaimer on those titles.

Yes, the Constitution was written at an earlier time. Yet somehow it has been copied by many other countries and is still in force (in a manner of speaking) well over 200 years after its birth.

Read more here:
Newsbusters