Thanksgiving in America, 1789

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

The Importance of Choosing the Best Words

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).

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

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?

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)

Prayer Throughout Our History

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

Pledge of Allegiance is Unacceptable?

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?

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/

If Not The Year of Our Lord, Then What?

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

Why It Is Important to Know the Constitution

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!

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

National Day of Prayer Proclamations, 1900-1910 (13 in all)

A previous post here (Judge Declares National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional) discussed a federal judge declaring that our 235-year-old tradition of declaring a national day of prayer was not constitutional. So after 230 years of this tradition, started by the very men who wrote the Constitution, only now does someone think it an offense to the Constitution?

Here are 12 examples from the years 1900-1910:

1900 - William McKinley Proclamation on October 29, 1900. A day for “thanksgiving and praise” set apart on November 29, 1900. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1901 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on September 14, 1901. A day of “mourning and prayer” set apart on September 19, 1901. The assassination of President McKinley motivated the call to prayer.

1901 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on November 2, 1901. A day of “praise and thanksgiving to God” set apart on November 28, 1901. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1902 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on October 29, 1902. A day of “festival and thanksgiving to God” set apart on November 27, 1902. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1903 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on October 31, 1903. A day of “praise and
thanksgiving to God” set apart on November 26, 1903. Reflecting on the closing
year motivated the call to prayer.

1904 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on November 1, 1904. A day to “give thanks unto Almighty God” set apart on November 24, 1904. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1905 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on November 2, 1905. A day of “thanksgiving for the past and of prayer for the future” set apart on November 30, 1905. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1906 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on October 22, 1906. A day of “thanksgiving and supplication” set apart on November 29, 1906. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1907 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on October 26, 1907. A day of “general Thanksgiving and Prayer” set apart on November 28, 1907. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1908 - Theodore Roosevelt Proclamation on October 31, 1908. A day of “general thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 26, 1908. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1909 - William Howard Taft Proclamation on November 15, 1909. A day of “general thanksgiving... [for] praise and thanks to Almighty God” set apart on November 25, 1909.

1910 -William Howard Taft Proclamation on November 5, 1910. A day of “National Thanksgiving and Prayer” set apart on November 24, 1910. Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

The quotes above and the citations for them can be found in the ACLJ's amicus brief linked from this page:

ACLJ: Court Decision Declaring National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional 'Flawed' - Case Could End Up At Supreme Court

Presidents Harrison, Cleveland, McKinley Proclamations for Prayer

A previous post on this blog reviewed the news of a federal judge's ruling that our tradition of declaring a national day of prayer is not constitutional. This was despite evidence presented of 164 such declarations starting with our first Congress (who wrote the Constitution).

Below are the 13 proclamations made just in the years between 1889 and 1899:

1889 - Benjamin Harrison Proclamation on April 4, 1889. A day to “implore the favor of God” set apart on April 30, 1889.65 The centennial of George Washington’s inauguration address as the first President of the United States motivated the call to prayer.

1889 - Benjamin Harrison Proclamation on November 1, 1889. A day of “national thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 28, 1889.66 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1890 - Benjamin Harrison Proclamation on November 8, 1890. A day of “prayer and thanksgiving” set apart on November 27, 1890.67 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1891 - Benjamin Harrison Proclamation on November 13, 1891. A day of “joyful thanksgiving to God” set apart on November 26, 1891.68 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1892 - Benjamin Harrison Proclamation on July 21, 1892. A day to express “gratitude to Divine Providence for the devout faith of the discoverer and for the divine care and guidance which has directed our history and so abundantly blessed our people” set apart on October 21, 1892.69 Celebrating the four hundredth anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ discovery of America motivated the call to prayer.


1892 - Benjamin Harrison Proclamation on November 4, 1892. A day for “thanksgiving to God for His mercies and of supplication for His continued care and grace” set apart on November 24, 1892.70 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1893 - Grover Cleveland Proclamation on November 3, 1893. A day of “thanksgiving and praise” set apart on November 30, 1893.71 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1894 - Grover Cleveland Proclamation on November 1, 1894. A day of “thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 29, 1894.72 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1895 - Grover Cleveland Proclamation on November 4, 1895. A day of “thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 28, 1895.73 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1896 - Grover Cleveland Proclamation on November 4, 1896. A day of “thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 26, 1896.74 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1897 - William McKinley Proclamation on October 29, 1897. A day of “national thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 25, 1897.75 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1898 - William McKinley Proclamation on October 28, 1898. A day for “giving thanks to Almighty God” set apart on November 24, 1898.76 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.


1899 - William McKinley Proclamation on October 25, 1899. A day for “general thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 30, 1899.77 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

The quotes above and the citations for them can be found in the ACLJ's amicus brief linked from this page:

ACLJ: Court Decision Declaring National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional 'Flawed' - Case Could End Up At Supreme Court

Prayer Proclamations, 1866 - 1880

Recently in the news and on this blog, there has been discussion about a federal judge's ruling that our tradition of declaring a national day of prayer is not constitutional. Such a belief overlooks the fact that the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution petitioned our first President to declare such a day. The tradition continued until our current history.

Below are the proclamations that were made between 1866 and 1880:

1866 - Andrew Johnson Proclamation on October 8, 1866. A “day of thanksgiving and praise to Almighty God” set apart on November 29, 1866.40 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.
 
1867 - Andrew Johnson Proclamation on October 26, 1867. A “day of national thanksgiving and praise to the Almighty Ruler of Nations” set apart on November 28, 1867.41 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer. President Johnson noted that proclaiming a national day of praise and thanksgiving to Almighty God was “[i]n conformity with a recent custom that may now be regarded as established on national consent and approval[.]”

1868 - Andrew Johnson Proclamation on October 12, 1868. A “day for public praise, thanksgiving, and prayer to the Almighty Creator and Divine Ruler of theset apart on November 26, 1868.42 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1869 - Ulysses S. Grant Proclamation on October 5, 1869. A “day of thanksgiving and of praise and of prayer to Almighty God” set apart on November 18, 1869.43 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1870 - Ulysses S. Grant Proclamation on October 21, 1870. A day “to give thanks for the bounty of God during the year about to close” set apart on November 24, 1870.44 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1871 - Ulysses S. Grant Proclamation on October 28, 1871. A day to “make the usual annual acknowledgments to Almighty God for the blessings He has conferred” set apart on November 30, 1871.45 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1872 - Ulysses S. Grant Proclamation on October 11, 1872. A day “publicly to thank the Almighty for His mercies and His blessings” set apart on November 28, 1872.46 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1873 - Ulysses S. Grant Proclamation on October 14, 1873. A day “for renewed thanksgiving and acknowledgment to the Almighty Ruler of the Universe for the unnumbered mercies which He has bestowed” set apart on November 27, 1873.47 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1874 - Ulysses S. Grant Proclamation on October 27, 1874. A day for “offer[ing] thanks to Almighty God for the mercies and abundance of the year which is drawing to a close” set apart on November 26, 1874.48 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1875 - Ulysses S. Grant Proclamation on October 27, 1875. A day to “offer to Almighty God [ ] acknowledgments and thanks for all His mercies and [ ] humble prayers for a continuance of His divine favor” set apart on November 25, 1875.49 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1876 - Ulysses S. Grant Proclamation on June 26, 1876. A day for “public religious and devout thanksgiving to Almighty God” and for “invoke[ing] a continuance of His favor and of His protection” set apart on July 4, 1876.50 The 100th anniversary of the independence of the United States motivated the call to prayer.

1876 - Ulysses S. Grant Proclamation on October 26, 1876. A day to offer “thanks and prayers to Almighty God” set apart on November 30, 1876.51 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1877 - Rutherford B. Hayes Proclamation on October 29, 1877. A day of “national thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 29, 1877.52 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1878 - Rutherford B. Hayes Proclamation on October 20, 1878. A day of “national thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 28, 1878.53 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1879 - Rutherford B. Hayes on November 3, 1879. A day of “national thanksgiving and prayer” set apart on November 27, 1879.54 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

1880 - Rutherford B. Hayes Proclamation on November 1, 1880. A day for “mak[ing] . . . acknowledgments to Almighty God for His bounties and His protection and to offer to Him prayers for their continuance” set apart on November 25, 1880.55 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer.

The quotes above and the citations for them can be found in the ACLJ's amicus brief linked from this page:

ACLJ: Court Decision Declaring National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional 'Flawed' - Case Could End Up At Supreme Court

Bible Case Part of National Park Service Display

It seems that these days we are not taught much about the religious roots of our nation and its leaders. Christianity and religion in general played an important role in the early history of our nation and continued through our whole history.

The National Park Service would probably not be seen as an organization promoting a right-wing agenda. Yet, part of their function is to preserve our history. They don't make it up, they just preserve it.

So it should not be surprising that we find a "Bible Box" on display as part of the National Park Service Museum Collections. It is an antique box owned by the Roosevelt family, and dates to the 16th century (it is probably an antique obtained by the family to use long after it was built). The box held the Bible that was used to swear in FDR for each of his four Inaugurations. With many families at the time and earlier, a Bible was a treasured book, not just a device for ceremonies. It was used for worship, reading practice, and to record births and deaths in the family. Boxes like this displayed and protected the Bibles in some families.

See the Bible Box here:

http://www.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/elro/gallery/biblebox_HOFR225.html

The Coming Constitutional Debate

The following is an excellent article from Imprimis, published by Hillsdale College.

The Coming Constitutional Debate
By Stephen Markman
Justice
Michigan Supreme Court

AS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL under President Ronald Reagan, I prepared a report for Attorney General Edwin Meese entitled “The Constitution in the Year 2000: Choices Ahead.” This report sought to identify a range of areas in which significant constitutional controversy could be expected over the next 20 years. As critical as I believe those controversies were, they pale in significance before the controversies that will arise over the next several decades. The resolution of these emerging controversies will determine whether the Constitution of 2030 bears any resemblance to the Constitution of 1787—the Framers’ Constitution that has guided this nation for most of its first two centuries and has rendered it the freest, most prosperous, and most creative nation in the history of the world.

Proponents of a “21st century constitution” or “living constitution” aim to transform our nation’s supreme law beyond recognition—and with a minimum of public attention and debate. Indeed, if there is an overarching theme to what they wish to achieve, it is the diminishment of the democratic and representative processes of American government. It is the replacement of a system of republican government, in which the constitution is largely focused upon the architecture of government in order to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power, with a system of judicial government, in which substantive policy outcomes are increasingly determined by federal judges. Rather than merely defining broad rules of the game for the legislative and executive branches of government, the new constitution would compel specific outcomes.

Yes, the forms of the Founders’ Constitution would remain—a bicameral legislature, periodic elections, state governments—but the important decisions would increasingly be undertaken by courts, especially by federal courts. It will be the California referendum process writ national, a process by which the decisions of millions of voters on matters such as racial quotas, social services funding, and immigration policy have been routinely overturned by single judges acting in the name of the Constitution—not the Framers’ Constitution, but a “constitution for our times,” a “living constitution,” resembling, sadly, the constitutions of failed and despotic nations across the globe.

This radical transformation of American political life will occur, if it succeeds, not through high-profile court decisions resolving grand disputes of war and peace, abortion, capital punishment, or the place of religion in public life, but more likely as the product of decisions resolving forgettable and mundane disputes—the kind mentioned on the back pages of our daily newspapers, if at all. Let me provide a brief summary of six of the more popular theories of the advocates of the 21st century constitution. In particular, it is my hope here to inform ordinary citizens so that they will be better aware of the stakes. For while judges and lawyers may be its custodians, the Constitution is a document that is the heritage and responsibility of every American citizen.

1. Privileges or Immunities Clause

Since shortly after the Civil War, the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment has been understood as protecting a relatively limited array of rights that are a function of American federal citizenship, such as the right to be heard in courts of justice and the right to diplomatic protection. In defining the protections of the privileges or immunities clause in this manner, the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) rejected the argument that the clause also protects rights that are a function of state citizenship, asserting that this would lead to federal courts serving as a “perpetual censor” of state and local governments. This decision has served as a bulwark of American federalism.

Although a considerable amount of federal judicial authority has since been achieved over the states through interpretations of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, many proponents of a 21st century constitution seek additional federal oversight of state and local laws. Their strategy in this regard is to refashion the privileges or immunities clause as a new and essentially unlimited bill of rights within the 14th Amendment. The practical consequences of this would be to authorize federal judges to impose an ever broader and more stultifying uniformity upon the nation. Whatever modicum of federalism remains extant at the outset of this century, considerably less would remain tomorrow.

2. Positive Rights

For the 21st century constitutionalist, perhaps the greatest virtue of redefining the privileges or immunities clause is the prospect of transforming the Constitution from a guarantor of “negative liberties” into a charter of “affirmative government,” guaranteeing an array of “positive” rights. As President Obama has observed in a radio interview in criticism of the legacy of the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, “[It] never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and . . . more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. . . . [T]he Warren Court . . . wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. . . that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, 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.”

President Obama is correct. The Framers’ Constitution defines individual rights in terms of what the government cannot do to you. For example, the government cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such punishment; the government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such searches and seizures, and so forth. By contrast, the Framers’ Constitution does not guarantee rights to material goods such as housing, education, food, clothing, jobs, or health care—rights that place a related obligation upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Proponents of a 21st century constitution have many grievances with the individual rights premises of our Constitution as written—such as the largely procedural focus of the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, with its old-fashioned conception of such rights as those to “life, liberty, and property”; the negative cast of the specifically-defined rights in the Bill of Rights; and the limited application of the equal rights clause to things that have been enacted by legislatures (as opposed to things that they should have been required to enact). Each of these “limitations” poses significant barriers to what 21st century constitutionalists hope to achieve in reconfiguring America. This explains their interest in employing the privileges or immunities clause, which seems to them open-ended and susceptible to definition by judges at their own discretion.

As various advocates of a 21st century constitution have urged, a privilege or immunity might be interpreted to allow the invention of a host of new “rights,” and thus be construed to guarantee social or economic equality. However pleasing this might sound to some people, there should be no mistake: adopting this interpretation will supplant representative decision-making with the decision-making of unelected, unaccountable, and life-tenured judges. Should the privileges or immunities clause be used in this way, as a charter of positive rights, ours will become an America in which citizens are constitutionally entitled to their neighbors’ possessions; in which economic redistribution has become as ingrained a principle as federalism and the separation of powers; in which the great constitutional issues of the day will focus on whether porridge should be subsidized and housing allowances reimbursed at 89 or 94 percent of the last fiscal year level; and in which a succession of new “rights” will be parceled out as people are deemed worthy of them by berobed lawyers in the judiciary.

3. State Action

A barrier posed by both the due process and the privileges or immunities clauses, and viewed as anachronistic by 21st century constitutionalists, is the requirement of state action as a precondition for the enforcement of rights. In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), another post-Civil War precedent, the Supreme Court asserted that these provisions of the 14th Amendment prohibited only the abridgment of individual rights by the state. “It is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. . . . The wrongful act of an individual is simply a private wrong and if not sanctioned in some way by the state, or not done under state authority, the [individual’s] rights remain in full force.” However, for advocates of 21st century constitutionalism, if fairness and equity are to be achieved, the Constitution must become more like a general legal code—applicable to both public and private institutions.

Consider, for example, Hillsdale College. Despite being the embodiment of a thoroughly private institution, government officials have sought to justify the imposition of federal rules and regulations upon Hillsdale by characterizing the college as the equivalent of a state entity on the grounds that it received public grants-in-aid. When in response to this rationale, and in order to retain its independence, Hillsdale rejected further grants, the government then sought to justify its rules and regulations on the grounds that Hillsdale was the indirect beneficiary of grants-in-aid going to individual students, such as GI Bill benefits. Once again in response to this rationale, Hillsdale asserted its independence by barring its students from receiving public grants, even those earned as in the case of GI benefits, and instead bolstered its own private scholarship resources. We have witnessed a steadily more aggressive effort by governmental regulators to treat private institutions as the equivalent of the state, and thereby to extend public oversight.

However, it would be more convenient simply to nullify the state action requirement altogether. Professor Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law School, for example, would reconsider the Civil Rights Cases:

The state-action doctrine contributes nothing but obfuscation to constitutional analysis. It works as a bogeyman because it appeals to a vague libertarian sense that Americans have about the proper relation between them and their government. It seems to suggest that there is a domain of freedom into which the Constitution doesn’t reach. We would be well rid of the doctrine.

If Professor Tushnet succeeds in this mission, Hillsdale’s policies concerning such things as tuition, admissions, faculty hiring, curriculum, and discipline will each have to pass the scrutiny, and receive the imprimatur, of judges.

4. Political Questions

In areas that were once viewed as inappropriate for judicial involvement, federal courts have begun to assert themselves in an unprecedented and aggressive manner. The limited role of the judiciary, for example, with regard to matters of national defense and foreign policy is not explicitly set forth in the Constitution, but such matters have from time immemorial been understood to be non-justiciable and within the exclusive responsibility of the elected branches of government. As far back as Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall recognized that “Questions in their nature political . . . can never be made in this Court.”

Yet just in the last several years, the Supreme Court, in a series of 5-4 decisions, has overruled determinations made by both the legislative and executive branches regarding the treatment of captured enemy combatants. Most notably, the Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that foreign nationals captured in combat and held outside the United States by the military as prisoners of war—a war authorized by the Congress under Article I, Section 8, and waged by the President as Commander-in-Chief under Article II, Section 2—possess the constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court. Thus, in yet one more realm of public policy—one on which the sovereignty and liberty of a free people are most dependent, national defense—judges have now begun to embark upon a sharply expanded role.

If there is no significant realm left of “political questions,” if there are no longer any traditional limitations upon the exercise of the judicial power, then every matter coming before every president, every Congress, every governor, every legislature, and every county commission and city council can, with little difficulty, be summarily recast as a justiciable dispute, or what the Constitution, in Article III, Section 2, describes as a “case” or “controversy.” As a result, every policy debate taking place within government, at every level, will become little more than a prelude for judicial resolution.

5. Ninth Amendment

Another looming constitutional battleground concerns the meaning of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Many 21st century constitutionalists understand this amendment to say that there is some unknown array of unenumerated rights that lie fallow in the Constitution, waiting only to be unearthed by far-sighted judges.

Professor Thomas Grey of the Stanford Law School has suggested, for example, that the Ninth Amendment constitutes a “license to constitutional decisionmakers to look beyond the substantive commands of the constitutional text to protect fundamental rights not expressed therein.” Rights to abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, and similar sexual privacy rights have already been imposed by judges detecting such rights in the Ninth Amendment. The problem is that, in the words of Justices Stewart and Black, this understanding of the amendment “turns somersaults with history” and renders the courts a “day-to-day constitutional convention.”

The more conventional understanding of the Ninth Amendment has viewed it in the historical context of the Bill of Rights, of which it is a part. By this understanding, it was written to dispel any implication that by the specification of particular rights in the Bill of Rights, the people had implicitly relinquished to the new federal government rights not specified. Like the Tenth Amendment—which serves as a reminder that powers neither given to the federal government nor prohibited to the states in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people—the Ninth Amendment was adopted to emphasize that our national government is one of limited powers. Its principal purpose was to prevent an extension of federal power, not to provide an open-ended grant of judicial authority that would have the opposite effect.

6. Transnationalism

Professor Harold Koh of the Yale Law School, and now State Department Legal Counsel, is perhaps the leading proponent of what he calls “transnationalism,” which he contrasts with the “nationalist philosophy” that has characterized American constitutional law for the past 220 years.

Transnationalists believe that international and domestic law are merging into a hybrid body of transnational law, while so-called nationalists persist in preserving a division between domestic and foreign law that respects the sovereignty of the United States. Transnationalists believe that domestic courts have a critical role to play in incorporating international law into domestic law, while so-called nationalists claim that only the political branches are authorized to domesticate international legal norms. Professor Koh predicts that these disagreements will play out in future Supreme Court confirmation hearings, and that these appointments will be “pivotal” in determining by 2020 the direction in which the jurisprudence of the United States proceeds.

In practice, transnationalism would legitimize reliance by American judges upon foreign law in giving meaning to the United States Constitution; it would bind federal and state governments to international treaties and agreements that had never been ratified by the United States Senate much less enacted into law by the Congress; it would render both the domestic and international conduct of the United States increasingly beholden to the review and judgment of international tribunals in Geneva and the Hague; it would expose American soldiers and elected leaders to the sanctions of international law for “war crimes” and “violations of the Earth”; and it would replace the judgments of officials representing the American people, and holding paramount the interests of the United States, with the judgments of multinational panels of bureaucrats and judges finely balancing the interests of the U.S. with those of other nations—including authoritarian and despotic governments—throughout the world.

* * *

It is with the intention of generating debate, and of providing a roadmap to help us better navigate the constitutional forks-in-the-road that will soon be facing our nation, that I offer these thoughts. While there has never been a time in our history in which there was not serious constitutional debate among our people, I would submit that there have been few times in which this debate was more fundamental in defining the American experiment.


Stephen Markman was appointed Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court in 1999, and was re-elected in 2000 and 2004. Previously, he served as United States Attorney in Michigan; as Assistant Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, where he coordinated the federal judicial selection process; and as Chief Counsel of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. He has published in such journals as the Stanford Law Review and the University of Chicago Law Review, and has been a distinguished professor of constitutional law at Hillsdale College since 1993.

The article above is adapted from a speech delivered in Washington, D.C., on February 25, 2010, at an event sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.

Copyright © 2010 Hillsdale College. 

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

Presidential Prayer Proclamations, 1841 - 1865

Recently in the news and on this blog, there has been discussion about a federal judge's ruling that our tradition of declaring a national day of prayer is not constitutional. Such a belief overlooks the fact that the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution petitioned our first President to declare such a day. The tradition continued until our current history.

Below are the proclamations that were made after James Madison's Presidency and until 1865 (in case you were wondering):

1841 - Tyler Proclamation on April 13, 1841. A “day of fasting and prayer” set apart on May 14, 1841. Reflecting on the sudden death of newly elected President William Henry Harrison motivated the call to prayer.


1860 - James Buchanan Proclamation on December 14, 1860. A “day . . . for Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer” set apart on January 4, 1861. Reflecting on the “present distracted and dangerous condition” of the country motivated the call to humiliation and prayer.


1861 - Abraham Lincoln Proclamation on August 12, 1861. A “day of humiliation, prayer, and fasting” set apart on “the last Thursday in September next[.]” Reflecting on the outbreak of civil war motivated the call to prayer. Abraham Lincoln Proclamation on March 30, 1863. A “day of national humiliation, fasting, and prayer” set apart on April 30, 1863. Reflecting on the destruction caused by civil war motivated the call to prayer.


1862 - Abraham Lincoln Proclamation on April 10, 1862. A day to “render thanks to our Heavenly Father” for the victories won by the Union forces and to “implore spiritual consolation on behalf of all who have been brought into affliction” by the civil war. The day was set apart for the “next weekly assemblages in [the people’s] accustomed places of public worship[.]”


1863 - Abraham Lincoln Proclamation on July 15, 1863. A “day for national thanksgiving, praise, and prayer” set apart on August 6, 1863. Reflecting on the civil war and recent victories won by Union forces motivated the call to prayer.


1863 - Abraham Lincoln Proclamation on October 3, 1863. A “day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens” set apart on “the last Thursday of November next[.]” Reflecting on the providence of Almighty God at the close of the year motivated the call to prayer.


1864 - Abraham Lincoln Proclamation on July 7, 1864. A “day of national humiliation and prayer” set apart on “the first Thursday of August next[.]” Reflecting on the ending of civil war motivated the call to prayer.


1864 - Abraham Lincoln Proclamation on October 20, 1864. A “day of thanksgiving and praise to Almighty God” set apart on “the last Thursday in November next[.]”37 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer


1864 - Andrew Johnson Proclamation on April 29, 1865. A “day for special humiliation and prayer” originally set apart for May 25, 1865 postponed until June 1, 1865.38 The original proclamation setting apart May 25 conflicted with Easter, a day “sacred to large numbers of Christians as one of rejoicing for the ascension of the Savior[.]”


1865 - Andrew Johnson Proclamation on April 25, 1865. A “day of humiliation and mourning” and “humbling ourselves before Almighty God” set apart on May 25, 1865. Reflecting on the assassination of Abraham Lincoln motivated the call to prayer.


1865 - Andrew Johnson Proclamation on October 28, 1865. A “day of national thanksgiving to the Creator of the Universe” and “confession of our national sins against His infinite goodness” set apart on “the first Thursday of December next[.]”39 Reflecting on the closing year motivated the call to prayer. 

The quotes above and the citations for them can be found in the ACLJ's amicus brief linked from this page:

ACLJ: Court Decision Declaring National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional 'Flawed' - Case Could End Up At Supreme Court

Founders Did Not Understand the Constitution They Wrote

In a previous post on this blog (Judge Declares National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional) we heard about a federal judge who declared that our 235-year-old tradition of declaring a national day of prayer was not constitutional. That's correct - the tradition started by the men who wrote the U.S. Constitution is not constitutional. I guess they should have paid closer attention to what they were writing. And the part of the Constitution that this violates is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Yes, they cared so little about those ten words that... Wait a minute. They actually debated just how to craft those words for days and days. James Madison, who penned the words after each debate, went through several drafts to finally get the words above. Maybe they actually knew what they meant!

James Madison himself, a little more than 10 years after the Constitution's ratification, began to declare national days of prayer at the urging of Congress. As such he became created 4 of the 164 instances of national prayer days in our history. Here are the examples:

James Madison Proclamation on July 9, 1812. A “day of public humiliation and prayer” set apart on “the third Thursday in August,” 1812. Reflecting on the state of war motivated the call to prayer.


James Madison Proclamation on July 23, 1813. A “day of public humiliation and prayer” set apart on “second Thursday in September,” 1813. Reflecting on the state of war motivated the call to prayer.


James Madison Proclamation on November 16, 1814. A “day of public humiliation and fasting and of prayer” set apart on January 12, 1815. Reflecting on the state of war motivated the call to prayer.


James Madison Proclamation on March 4, 1815. A “day of thanksgiving and of devout acknowledgments to Almighty God for His great goodness manifested in restoring to them the blessing of peace” set apart on the “second Thursday in April next[.]”8 Reflecting on the state of war motivated the call to prayer.

The quotes above and the citations for them can be found in the ACLJ's amicus brief linked from this page:

ACLJ: Court Decision Declaring National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional 'Flawed' - Case Could End Up At Supreme Court

Charles Thomson, Signer of Declaration of Independence, Bible Translator

You can read in many places on the web about our Founders' overall lack of any religious depth. But that ignores actual history. Consider Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1781. Thomson was also one of only two men who signed the actual hand-written draft of the Declaration (along with John Hancock).

This same Charles Thomson also worked for 19 years in order to publish the first English translation of the Greek text of the Old Testament of the Bible.

Read more about Thomson here:
http://virtualology.com/declarationofindependence/CharlesThomson.com/

Learn more about the religious background of other Founders here:
http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2009/05/founders-had-very-religious-background.html

Thomas Jefferson: The True Meaning of the First Amendment

Thomas Jefferson is often quoted today when we hear "separation of church and state," a phrase from a private letter he wrote while President of the U.S.  Various activist groups have used that phrase to indicate that Jefferson would not approve of any government recognition of religion, as have the courts in recent years. But what did Jefferson mean by that phrase? His own practice was to use the phrase "freedom of religion" when discussing the First Amendment. And it seems clear to me that his main concern was about some kind of official government control over religion, or some limit on free expression of religion. Consider these words of Jefferson:

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

That quote and many others can be found within the University of Virginia's collection of Jefferson papers:

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

Ten Commandmants

Another controversy has arisen over the display of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom. This time it is from Ohio, and one unusual twist is that the judge who occupies that courtroom designed a display that uses the Ten Commandments. He makes a comparison between absolute laws, such as the Commandments, and relative laws. That could be interesting, but I haven't seen it personally and it is not the point of this post.

In the first place, it does indeed sound like this particular is not a statement that would be endorsed by or displayed in most churches. So it may be hard to call it a religious display, as in establishing a church or even endorsing a particular religion. But even that is not my main point.

Many people claim that the founders based our laws and Constitution on the Ten Commandments. And there are statements by the founders that support such a view. Some are covered in this blog. There are also many who way that such is not the case, and they have quotes to support their view.

One of those views is bound to be right. Either the founders did or did not base our laws on the Ten Commandments. If they somewhat based the law on the Commandments, that would support the "yes" side and validate displays of the Commandments almost anywhere.

Let's pretend for a minute that the founders really did base the law on the Ten Commandments. That could be compatible with the fact that they are displayed on and in the Supreme Court building. IF this is true, and given the words of our First Amendment and decisions of our Supreme Court, would a Ten Commandments display in a courtroom still be unconstitutional? Logic would say "no." So should not their constitutionality be based on the words of the Constitution? That is our controlling document and it was written in a way that was intended to be understood by any reasonably educated citizen.

Read more about this particular controversy here:
http://findroom219.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/philosophy-poster-containing-ten-commandments-gets-judge-back-in-spotlight/