Major Network Seems Not to Like Phrase 'Under God'

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

National Tradition Under Fire - Day of Prayer

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

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

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

Donations OK, but Not to Churches?

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

ACLU-Tennessee: Schools Better Ditch Christmas or Else

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

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

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

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

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

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

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=

Media Bias: Corporate Donations Far Out of Balance

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

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

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

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