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

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

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

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

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

Read more here:

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

Day of Prayer Declaration in 1622

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

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

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

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

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

Chicago Nativity Scene Is Back This Year

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

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

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

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

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

John Hancock on Religion in Society

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at the links below:

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

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

Media Bias: Corporate Donations Far Out of Balance

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

Ignorance of First Amendment at Law School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mainstream Media: Is It Reporting or Creating News?

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

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

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

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

Read more below:

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

Hate Crimes Against Muslims Fewer but Over-Reported

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

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

What do you think?

Read the whole story below:

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

Can a Simply Word Harm Freedom of Religion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Commencement Censoring - Montana

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

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

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

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

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

Read more details by following the link below:

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

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/

Family Bibles Were Precious American Possessions

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress Prays in Time of Crisis

Our nation has relied on prayer since before we became the USA. In times of trial especially, prayer is a comfort, a hope for guidance, and perhaps a hope that the Lord will help our side more than the "bad guys'" side. (As Lincoln said, both the Union and Confederacy prayed to the same God.)

About a year ago Washington, D.C. was shocked by a fatal commuter train crash. Not surprisingly, the opening prayer for Congress asked for comfort in the aftermath. Here is the Chaplain's prayer from June 23, 2009, given by Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin:

Lord the summer solstice has already passed.
So quietly and relentlessly daylight grows shorter.
The full expression of family joy on a weekend holiday or a brief summer vacation is abruptly ended with the news of a Metro train crash. The bright light is suddenly dimmed when the cloud of fragile life passes by.

Lord, we lift up in prayer all those who died or were injured in yesterday’s tragedy here in Northeast Washington. Be with their families, neighbors and friends.

As You restore confidence and peace to the fragile systems of routine in our work–a–day world, Lord, we bless You and praise You for all of the good days and the good times, we try to hold onto as best we can, because they carry us through the times that are not so good.

Lord of the ages, it is You who hold all together and oversee the seasons of everyone’s life, even as summer days grow shorter. Both now and forever. Amen.

Found on the website of the Chaplain of the U.S. House

Importance of Religion to the Lee Family

It's interesting what you can read courtesy of our National Park Service. Consider Arlington House and the Robert E. Lee Memorial. Lee is certainly an important figure in our national history. Most of us know of his role leading the South in the 1800's, but it could be a surprise to tourists at his memorial to learn what a strong role religion played in his life.

Such was not always the case for Robert E. Lee. But his marriage to a devout Christian woman and his connection to that family would have a great influence on him. Some of that influence is outlined in the following paragraph, found on the National Park Services web page about the Lee Memorial:

With firm conviction, Lee began to pray and read his Bible daily. He began to go to church regularly—a routine that his religiously committed mother had ingrained in him from day one. Now, as a grown man with grown children of his own, religious beliefs impacted his decisions not only in his personal life but in his military career and during his tenure as a college president as well. He “had come to [Washington College in] Lexington as much a missionary as an educator.” Lee weighed his decisions in light of the question: "what was his duty as a Christian and a gentleman?" Truly, his creed of doing that duty was acted upon even in the most challenging of social situations.

This little tidbit is one more example of how much of a role religion (usually Christianity) played in the history of our nation.

Read more by following the link below:
http://www.nps.gov/arho/historyculture/religion.htm

Created Equal: How Christianity Shaped The West

DINESH D’SOUZA is the author of several best selling books, including Illiberal Education, The End of Racism, What’s So Great About America, and, most recently, What’s So Great About Christianity. A graduate of Dartmouth College, he served previously as a policy analyst in the Reagan White House, John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution. His articles have appeared in several magazines and newspapers, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, Vanity Fair, The New Republic, and National Review.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on September 16, 2008, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Colorado Springs.

Created Equal: How Christianity Shaped The West

By Dinesh D’Souza
(Author, What’s So Great About Christianity)

IN RECENT YEARS there has arisen a new atheism that represents a direct attack on Western Christianity. Books such as Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great, and Sam Harris’ The End of Faith, all contend that Western society would be better off if we could eradicate from it the last vestiges of Christianity. But Christianity is largely responsible for many of the principles and institutions that even secular people cherish—chief among them equality and liberty.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal,” he called the proposition “self-evident.” But he did not mean that it is immediately evident. It requires a certain kind of learning. And indeed most cultures throughout history, and even today, reject the proposition. At first glance, there is admittedly something absurd about the claim of human equality, when all around us we see dramatic evidence of inequality. People are unequal in height, in weight, in strength, in stamina, in intelligence, in perseverance, in truthfulness, and in about every other quality. But of course Jefferson knew this. He was asserting human equality of a special kind. Human beings, he was saying, are moral equals, each of whom possesses certain equal rights. They differ in many respects, but each of their lives has a moral worth no greater and no less than that of any other. According to this doctrine, the rights of a Philadelphia street sweeper are the same as those of Jefferson himself.

This idea of the preciousness and equal worth of every human being is largely rooted in Christianity. Christians believe that God places infinite value on every human life. Christian salvation does not attach itself to a person’s family or tribe or city. It is an individual matter. And not only are Christians judged at the end of their lives as individuals, but throughout their lives they relate to God on that basis. This aspect of Christianity had momentous consequences.

Though the American founders were inspired by the examples of Greece and Rome, they also saw limitations in those examples. Alexander Hamilton wrote that it would be “as ridiculous to seek for [political] models in the simple ages of Greece and Rome as it would be to go in quest of them among the Hottentots and Laplanders.” In The Federalist Papers, we read at one point that the classical idea of liberty decreed “to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next….” And elsewhere: “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” While the ancients had direct democracy that was susceptible to the unjust passions of the mob and supported by large-scale slavery, we today have representative democracy, with full citizenship and the franchise extended in principle to all. Let us try to understand how this great change came about.

A New Morality


In ancient Greece and Rome, individual human life had no particular value in and of itself. The Spartans left weak children to die on the hillside. Infanticide was common, as it is common even today in many parts of the world. Fathers who wanted sons had few qualms about drowning their newborn daughters. Human beings were routinely bludgeoned to death or mauled by wild animals in the Roman gladiatorial arena. Many of the great classical thinkers saw nothing wrong with these practices. Christianity, on the other hand, contributed to their demise by fostering moral outrage at the mistreatment of innocent human life.

Likewise, women had a very low status in ancient Greece and Rome, as they do today in many cultures, notably in the Muslim world. Such views are common in patriarchal cultures. And they were prevalent as well in the Jewish society in which Jesus lived. But Jesus broke the traditional taboos of his time when he scandalously permitted women of low social status to travel with him and be part of his circle of friends and confidantes.

Christianity did not immediately and directly contest patriarchy, but it helped to elevate the status of women in society. The Christian prohibition of adultery, a sin it viewed as equally serious for men and women, and rules concerning divorce that (unlike in Judaism and Islam) treated men and women equally, helped to improve the social status of women. Indeed so dignified was the position of the woman in Christian marriage that women predominated in the early Christian church, and the pagan Romans scorned Christianity as a religion for women.

Then there is slavery, a favorite topic for the new atheist writers. “Consult the Bible,” Sam Harris writes in Letter to a Christian Nation, “and you will discover that the creator of the universe clearly expects us to keep slaves.” Steven Weinberg notes that “Christianity…lived comfortably with slavery for many centuries.” Nor are they the first to fault Christianity for its alleged approval of slavery. But we must remember that slavery pre-dated Christianity by centuries and even millennia. It was widely practiced in the ancient world, from China and India to Greece and Rome. Most cultures regarded it as an indispensable institution, like the family. Sociologist Orlando Patterson has noted that for centuries, slavery needed no defenders because it had no critics.

But Christianity, from its very beginning, discouraged the enslavement of fellow Christians. We read in one of Paul’s letters that Paul himself interceded with a master named Philemon on behalf of his runaway slave, and encouraged Philemon to think of his slave as a brother instead. Confronted with the question of how a slave can also be a brother, Christians began to regard slavery as indefensible. As a result, slavery withered throughout medieval Christendom and was eventually replaced by serfdom. While slaves were “human tools,” serfs had rights of marriage, contract, and property ownership that were legally enforceable. And of course serfdom itself would eventually collapse under the weight of the argument for human dignity.

Moreover, politically active Christians were at the forefront of the modern anti-slavery movement. In England, William Wilberforce spearheaded a campaign that began with almost no support and was driven entirely by his Christian convictions—a story powerfully told in the recent film Amazing Grace. Eventually Wilberforce triumphed, and in 1833 slavery was outlawed in Britain. Pressed by religious groups at home, England then took the lead in repressing the slave trade abroad.

The debate over slavery in America, too, had a distinctively religious flavor. Free blacks who agitated for emancipation invoked the narrative of liberation in the Book of Exodus: “Go down Moses, way down to Egypt land and tell old Pharoah, let my people go.” But of course throughout history people have opposed slavery for themselves while being happy to enslave others. Indeed there were many black slave owners in the American South. What is remarkable in this historical period in the Western world is the rise of opposition to slavery in principle. Among the first to embrace abolitionism were the Quakers, and other Christians soon followed in applying politically the biblical notion that human beings are equal in the eyes of God. Understanding equality in this ingrained way, they adopted the view that no man has the right to rule another man without his consent. This latter idea (contained most famously in the Declaration of Independence) is the moral root both of abolitionism and of democracy.

For those who think of American history only or mostly in secular terms, it may come as news that some of its greatest events were preceded by massive Christian revivals. What historians call the First Great Awakening swept the country in the mid-eighteenth century, and helped lay the moral foundation of the American Revolution. Historian Paul Johnson describes the War for Independence as “inconceivable…without this religious background.” By this he means that the revival provided essential support for the ideas that fueled the Revolution. Jefferson, let us recall, proclaimed that human equality is a gift from God: we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Indeed there is no other possible source for them. And Jefferson later wrote that he was not expressing new ideas or principles when he wrote the Declaration, but was rather giving expression to something that had become settled in the American mind.

Likewise John Adams wrote: “What do we mean by the American Revolution? The war? That was no part of the Revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people…a change in their religious sentiments.” Those religious sentiments were forged in the fiery sermons of the First Great Awakening.

The Second Great Awakening, which began in the early nineteenth century, left in its wake the temperance movement, the movement for women’s suffrage, and most importantly the abolitionist movement. It was the religious fervor of men like Charles Finney, the Presbyterian lawyer who became president of Oberlin College, that animated the abolitionist cause and contributed so much to the chain of events that brought about America’s “new birth of freedom.”

And finally, fast forwarding to the twentieth century, the Reverend Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech referred famously to a promissory note and demanded that it be cashed. This was an appeal to the idea of equality in the Declaration of 1776. Remarkably, King was resting his case on a proclamation issued 200 years earlier by a Southern slave owner. Yet in doing so, he was appealing to a principle that he and Jefferson shared. Both men, the twentieth-century pastor and the eighteenth-century planter, reflected the influence of Christianity in American politics.

Freedom Redefined

Christianity has also lent force to the modern concept of individual freedom. There are hints of this concept both in the classical world and in the world of the ancient Hebrews. One finds, in such figures as Socrates and the Hebrew prophets, notable individuals who have the courage to stand up and question even the highest expressions of power. But while these cultures produced great individuals, as other cultures often do today, none of them cultivated an appreciation for individuality. And it is significant that Socrates and the Hebrew prophets came to bad ends. They were anomalies in their societies, and those societies—lacking respect for individual freedom—got rid of them.

As Benjamin Constant pointed out, freedom in the ancient world was the right to participate in the making of laws. Greek democracy was direct democracy in which every citizen could show up in the agora, debate issues of taxes and war, and vote on what action the polis should take. The Greeks exercised their freedom solely through active involvement in the political life of the city. There was no other kind of freedom and certainly no freedom of thought or of religion of the kind that we hold dear. The modern idea of freedom, by contrast, is rooted in a respect for the individual. It means the right to express our opinion, the right to choose a career, the right to buy and sell property, the right to travel where we want, the right to our own personal space, and the right to live our own life. In return, we are responsible only to respect the rights of others. This is the freedom we are ready to fight for, and we become indignant when it is challenged or taken away.

Christianity has played a vital role in the development of this new concept of freedom through its doctrine that all human beings are moral agents, created in God’s image, with the ability to be the architects of their own lives. The Enlightenment certainly contributed to this understanding of human freedom, though it drew from ideas about the worth of the individual that had been promulgated above all by the teachings of Christianity.


* * *

Let me conclude with a warning first issued by one of Western civilization’s greatest atheists, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The ideas that define Western civilization, Nietzsche said, are based on Christianity. Because some of these ideas seem to have taken on a life of their own, we might have the illusion that we can abandon Christianity while retaining them. This illusion, Nietzsche warns us, is just that. Remove Christianity and the ideas fall too.

Consider the example of Europe, where secularization has been occurring for well over a century. For a while it seemed that secularization would have no effect on European morality or social institutions. Yet increasingly today there is evidence of the decline of the nuclear family. Overall birthrates have plummeted, while rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births are up.

Nietzsche also warned that, with the decline of Christianity, new and opposing ideas would arise. We see these today in demands for the radical redefinition of the family, the revival of eugenic theories, and even arguments for infanticide.

In sum, the eradication of Christianity—and of organized religion in general—would also mean the gradual extinction of the principles of human dignity. Consider human equality. Why do we hold to it? The Christian idea of equality in God’s eyes is undeniably largely responsible. The attempt to ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its spread. It is folly to believe that it could survive without the continuing aid of religious belief.

If we cherish what is distinctive about Western civilization, then—whatever our religious convictions—we should respect rather than denigrate its Christian roots.

Copyright © 2008 Hillsdale College. 
Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

The REST of the First Amendment

The First Amendment covers several topics, although I have focused only on the Religion Clauses. Here is the entire Amendment:

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

If you have followed the news lately, you may have heard that some of the largest news outlets are in major financial trouble. You may have also heard speculation about a government bailout for these companies. How did the discussion even get that far? What if a church or denomination were in financial trouble, and what if the government were thinking about a bailout for them? Wouldn't the phrase "separation of church and state" come up immediately? (That phrase is too often used to "summarize" the Religion Clauses.) Why, then, do we not hear immediate and strong objections to the very mention of government aid to news outlets?

The first few words of the Amendment, "Congress shall make no law..." applies to all the clauses that follow. So whatever restriction there is on Congress about religion would apply to the freedom of the press as well. How about "separation of media and state" or some similar phrase?

Both religious organizations and media organizations would want to be careful to avoid the government obtaining a measure of control. There is already some entanglement because of tax policies, which applies in different ways, but perhaps no less strongly, to the press as to religion.

Just food for thought.

FEMA Apologizes About Objection to Religious Logo

You may know that Mississippi suffered losses due to a tornado recently. Many volunteers assisted those in trouble and performed general clean-up work. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was involved as well, and later sent a videographer to film a story on the relief efforts.

Many of the volunteers wore T-shirts supplied by the local TV station, who was sponsoring some of the efforts. The shirts had the TV station logo and the logo of the Salvation Army, among others. For the interviews with two of the volunteers, the videographer asked them to change into other shirts because he did not want the religious logo in the scene.

FEMA says that they did not instruct the photographer to do this. They also issued a sincere-sounding apology to the volunteers involved.

I only know what I can read in news accounts, but something is not quite complete in the story as I read it. FEMA says the photographer was concerned about the production, but the story also says that they fired the photographer. If it was an innocent mistake made for no malicious purpose and with no prejudice, why did they fire him? While I think his actions were offensive and insensitive, or at least ignorant, I never hear of people getting fired for such actions. I hear of people whose jobs are at risk because they wear religious logos or jewelry.

In any case, I think the story is reflective of attitudes which are too-often found in today's society. Somehow, religion has become an offensive matter, but it seems that it's fine for South Park or stand-up comics to lampoon Christians. They don't get fired for that, do they?

We have migrated from a First Amendment that is intended to keep the Federal Government from interfering with religion, all the way to a more-or-less common belief that every citizen must be protected from seeing or hearing anything about religion in public.

Read the story here:

FEMA Apologizes to Volunteers Over T-Shirt Flap

Thomas Jefferson and the Accumulation of Washington Power

You see Jefferson's name a lot on this blog, mostly because he is now remembered in many circles for stating that our Constitution creates a "separation of church and state."  I have expressed my opinion in countless posts here that his little metaphor has been misused, and has be assumed to mean something that he no doubt did not mean.

But those who revere Jefferson should read this article, which nicely points out how Jefferson was against the gathering of too much power in Washington. He wanted power at the most local level that was possible, and yet people use his words to allow the Supreme Court to tell high schools that they can not have prayer at their graduations, for one small example.

Thanks for Hillsdale College for providing this article for no charge.

“All Honor to Jefferson”
By Jean Yarbrough
Professor of Government, Bowdoin College

It is one of the wonders of the modern political world that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Unaware that the “Sage of Monticello” had died earlier in the day, the crusty Adams, as he felt his own life slipping away, uttered his last words, “Thomas Jefferson still lives.” And so he does.

Today, as we dedicate this marvelous statue of our third President, and place him in the company of George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher on Hillsdale’s Liberty Walk, soon to be joined by Abraham Lincoln, it is fitting to reflect on what of Thomas Jefferson still lives. What is it that we honor him for here today?

Without question, pride of place must go to Jefferson as the author of the Declaration of Independence. That document established Jefferson as one of America’s great political poets, second only to Abraham Lincoln. And fittingly, it was Lincoln himself who recognized the signal importance of its first two paragraphs when he wrote: “All honor to Jefferson—to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times,” where it continues to stand as “a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.”

That abstract truth, of course, was that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, 
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It is surely a sign of our times that so many Americans no longer know what these words mean, or what their signal importance has been to peoples around the world. The one thing they are certain of, however, is that Jefferson was a hypocrite. How could he assert that all men were created equal and yet own slaves? What these critics fail to notice is that this is precisely what makes Jefferson’s statement so remarkable. Under no necessity for doing so, he penned the immortal words that would ultimately be invoked to put the institution of slavery on the road to extinction. His own draft of the Declaration was even stronger. In it, he made it clear that blacks were human and that slavery was a moral abomination and a blot upon the honor of his country.

Jefferson was serving as Minister in Paris while the Constitution was being drafted, and played no direct part in framing it. But he did make known his objections, the most important being the omission of a Bill of Rights. After the Constitution was ratified, he returned to the United States to serve as Secretary of State in the Washington administration. In and out of government in the 1790s, he challenged Hamilton’s expansive views of federal power, warning against a mounting federal debt, a growing patronage machine, and what he considered dangerous monarchical pretensions.

In the tumultuous contest for the presidency in 1800, Jefferson presided over the first peaceful transition of power in modern history, assuring those he had defeated that they too had rights that the majority was bound to respect. His observation, “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists,” established a standard toward which every incoming administration continues to strive.

As president of the United States, Jefferson sought to rally the country around the principles of limited government. His First Inaugural Address reminded his fellow citizens that their happiness and prosperity rested upon a “wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” This, he thought, was “the sum of good government” and all that was “necessary to close the circle of our felicities.” Although Jefferson had omitted property from the inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration, he strongly defended private property because it encouraged industry and liberality—and, most importantly, because he thought it just that each individual enjoy the equal right to the fruits of his labor.

From these political principles, Jefferson never wavered. Writing in 1816, he once again insisted that the tasks of a liberal republic were few: government should restrain individuals from encroaching on the equal rights of others, compel them to contribute to the necessities of society, and require them to submit their disputes to an impartial judge. “When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions.”

At the same time, Jefferson believed that constitutions must keep pace with the times. If the people wished to alter their frame of government, say, to fund public improvements or education, they were free to do so. But they should do so by constitutional amendment and not by allowing their representatives to construe the powers of government broadly. He particularly objected to the Court’s sitting in judgment on the powers of the legislative and executive branches, or acting as an umpire between the states and the federal government. To cede to the judiciary this authority, he believed, would render the Constitution a “ball of wax” in the hands of federal judges. In his battles with Chief Justice John Marshall, he defended the principle of coordinate construction, as Lincoln (and almost every strong president since then) did after him, arguing that each branch of government must determine for itself the constitutionality of its acts.

After his retirement from politics, Jefferson returned to Monticello, where he continued to think about the meaning and requirements of republican government. Republicanism, he was convinced, was more than just a set of institutional arrangements; at bottom, it depended upon the character of the people. To keep alive this civic spirit, he championed public education for both boys and girls, with the most talented boys going on at public expense all the way through college. He envisioned the University of Virginia, to which he devoted the last years of his life, as a temple that would keep alive the “vestal flame” of republicanism and train men for public service. And here, I cannot help but notice how the recent renovations and additions to the Hillsdale campus seem to take their inspiration from Mr. Jefferson’s university, paying graceful homage to an architecture of democracy that inspires and ennobles.

As Jefferson understood it, education had a distinctly political mission, beginning at the elementary level: schools were to form citizens who understood their rights and duties, who knew how earlier free societies had risen to greatness, and by what errors and vices they had declined. Knowing was not enough, however. Jefferson also believed that citizens must have the opportunity to act. Anticipating Tocqueville, Jefferson admired the strength of the New England townships and sought to adapt them to Virginia. The wards, as he called them, would allow citizens to have a say on those matters most interesting to them, such as the education of their children and the protection of their property. If ever they became too dispirited to care about these things, republican government could not survive.

The wards were certainly not the greatest of Jefferson’s contributions to the natural rights republic—that honor must be awarded to the Declaration—but they were his most original. Instead of consolidating power or attempting to forge a general will, Jefferson went in the opposite direction, “dividing and sub-dividing” political power, while multiplying the number of interests and views that could be heard. He saw these units of local self-government as a way of bringing the large republic within the reach of citizens and so keeping alive the spirit of republicanism so vital to its preservation. And in this day and age, when the federal government seems to intrude on every aspect of our daily lives, and people feel powerless over matters of most interest to them, can we doubt that he was right? For this insight, too, let us echo Lincoln: “All honor to Jefferson”!


Jean Yarbrough is professor of government and Gary M. Pendy, Sr. Professor of Social Sciences at Bowdoin College. She received her B.A. at Cedar Crest College and her M.A. and Ph.D. at the New School for Social Research. The author of American Virtues: Thomas Jefferson on the Character of a Free People and editor of The Essential Jefferson, she is currently completing a study of Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive critique of the Founders.

The address above was delivered at Hillsdale College on April 16, 2009, at the dedication of a statue of Thomas Jefferson by Hillsdale College Associate Professor of Art Anthony Frudakis.

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