Join 16 year old Joshua Levesque as he covers the 2009 Continental Congress in St. Charles, IL

View live video from the Congress athttp://www.biblenation.org/resources/event-live-streaming/

Original article posted at the We The People Foundation website.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 may one day be known as the day the American People convened, for the first time in over two centuries, an Assembly of representatives of the People in order to fully exercise of the “Capstone Right” — i.e., the Petition clause of the First Amendment.

At approximately 3:00 pm Wednesday, WTP Chairman Bob Schulz convened the Assembly to begin the selection of Congress officers from the ranks of elected Delegates who will preside over the 11-day long Assembly.  Constitutional scholar and former Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik was selected as the presiding officer of the Congress while Delegate .

Following the ceremonial Liberty Banquet dinner at the St. Charles, Illinois Pheasant Run venue, the Delegates gathered in the main deliberation hall for the Opening Ceremony which wasbroadcast live.  The song-centered ceremony featured presentation of the fifty state flags by the Delegates, as well as several patriotic group songs and inspirational prayers.

For over a decade, WTP Foundation has championed an intensive, well-researched and coherent effort to hold the Government accountable for its escalating violations of fundamental Rights and the Constitution through use of the Right of the People to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  Those ongoing abuses include violations of the Constitution’s tax, money, war, general welfare, privacy and other clauses that are at the heart of the conditions that now plague our nation.  (See our Petitions for Redress)

Although the public has known little about the history or nature of the Right to Petition, scholarly and historical research has established without argument, that the Right, first articulated as the cornerstone of Western Law in Magna Carta (1215), provides the People an individual Right to hold Government peacefully accountable for its abuses.

Far beyond the right to merely send “complaints” to the government (which are virtually ignored by all officials), the Right of Petition embodies the profound Right to enforce the Right to Petition by withdrawing support from the Government until Redress is secured.

Summaries of this important research can be reviewed as part of the legal pleadings of the 2004 landmark WTP lawsuit, We The People vs. United States, which sought to have the Judiciary declare – for the first time in history – the legal and constitutional meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear this controversial case involving the essence of Popular Sovereignty.

Continental Congress 2009 will take the process of holding Government accountable and restoring the Constitution to the next level by first creating a formal record of the vast violations of the Constitution and Individual Rights now suffered by the People.  Next, the Congress will debate and decide upon a series of practical but strong “Civic Actions” the People may take in order to restore their Liberty.

The agenda for the CC2009 Assembly also provides for the development and adoption of formal “Remedial Instructions” to be served upon federal and state officials, in essence ordering them to cease and desist their official abuses and giving them formal Notice as to the “Civic Actions” of (peaceful) resistance the People may take, en masse, if those officials, yet again, choose to ignore the People’s Petitions for Redress.

View a live video stream of the Continental Congress 2009 at http://www.biblenation.org/resources/event-live-streaming/

Join 16 year old Joshua Levesque as he covers the 2009 Continental Congress in St. Charles, IL

View live video from the Congress at http://www.biblenation.org/resources/event-live-streaming/

By: Jason Georges, Executive Director, Bible Nation Society

On September 5, 1774, the likes of George Washington, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Jay, John Adams, and fifty other delegates representing twelve of the thirteen colonies met in Philadelphia to begin the formal discussions that would eventually lead to the writing of the Declaration of Independence.  These men,  who today are considered patriots and founders, risked wealth, liberty, and even life to appeal to a higher authority (the God of the Bible) to separate from a repressive government.  In an attempt to form a better government, they created documents birthed from a view of a world whose ultimate judge was the God who revealed himself in the Bible.

Today, again, Americans find themselves unwilling subjects of yet another repressive government.  And, like our founders, citizens today have begun discussions of a return to the original intents of the Constitution.  In St. Charles, Illinois from November 11-22, 2009 a new Continental Congress of selected delegates from all fifty states will meet “to determine a legal and peaceful means to stop the violations of The Constitution of The United States of America and to restore Constitutional governance.” (More information about this meeting can be found at http://www.cc2009.us.)  Many today speak of reform, but to abandon one godless philosophy only to replace it with another godless philosophy regardless of how “conservative” will only lead to repression once again.  The founders appealed to the freedoms bestowed by “Nature’s God” and the “Creator” as justification to revolt.  Talk of change outside of the influence of the “Creator’s” revelation, the Bible, brings as much hope as the change promised by the current administration.  The Bible advocate understands that the only hope for meaningful reform is not simply a return to founding documents, but a return to original reliance on the Word of God.  Will these modern day dissenters recognize that the not so secret reason for our national success has been a reliance on the Scriptures?

By: Chuck Baldwin, former Presidential Candidate

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091013.html

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn,
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than
to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide
new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance
of these Colonies.”

I would argue that we, like our patriot forebears, have also endured
“patient sufferance.” For at least a half-century, we have patiently endured
the erosion and abridgment of our freedoms and liberties.  We have watched
the federal government become an overbearing and meddlesome Nanny State that
pokes its nose and sticks its fingers in virtually everything we do. We
cannot drive a car, buy a gun, or even flush a toilet without Big Brother’s
permission. We are taxed, regulated, and snooped-on from the time we are
born to the day we die. And then after we are dead, we are taxed again.

In the same way that Jefferson and Company patiently suffered up until that
shot was fired that was heard around the world, we who love freedom today
are likewise patiently suffering “a long train of abuses and usurpations.”
In fact, I would even dare say that these States United have become a
boiling caldron of justifiable frustration and even anger.

Accordingly, it is incumbent upon us to very seriously and thoughtfully
examine those principles that we absolutely will never cede or surrender. We
have already surrendered much of the freedom that was bequeathed to us by
our forefathers. We are now to the point that we must define those
principles that form our “line in the sand” and that we will not surrender
under any circumstance. Either that, or we must admit to ourselves that
there is nothing–no principle, no freedom, no matter how sacred–that we
will not surrender to Big Government.

Here, then, are those principles that, to me, must never be surrendered. To
surrender these liberties to Big Government would mean to commit idolatry.
It would be sacrilege. It would reduce us to slavery. It would destroy our
humanity. To surrender these freedoms would mean “absolute Despotism” and
would provide moral justification to the proposition that such tyranny be
“thrown off.”

*The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Men without guns are not free men; they are slaves. Men without guns are not
citizens; they are subjects. Men without guns have lost the right of
self-defense. They have lost the power to defend their families and protect
their properties. Men without guns are reduced to the animal kingdom,
becoming prey to the Machiavellians among them who would kill them for sport
or for their own personal pursuits. As King Jesus plainly ordered, “He that
hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) This we
will do–at all costs.

*The Right to Own Private Property

Like the right of self-defense, the private ownership of property is a
God-given right that is rooted in the Sacred Text. As God told Moses, “Thou
shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set
in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy
God giveth thee to possess it.” (Deut. 19:14)

In fact, the history of Western Civilization is replete with the examples of
free men who were determined (even at the cost of their very lives) to
defend the right to own property. Without private property rights, men are
reduced to serfs and servants. Like chattel, they feed themselves by
another’s leave. This we will not do.

*The Right to Train and Educate Our Children

Education has never been the responsibility of the State. From time
immemorial, education has been the right and responsibility of the family.
This, too, has its foundation in the Sacred Volume. “And, ye fathers,
provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord.” (Eph. 6:4)

Therefore, the absolute right of homeshooling or private/parochial/Christian
schooling must never be surrendered. Homeschooling, especially, is
fundamental to freedom. It is not a coincidence that throughout history,
most totalitarian governments forbade parents homeschooling their children.
Any government–federal, State, or local–that forbids, or even restricts,
the right of parents to homeschool their children has taken upon itself the
uniform of a tyrant.

*The Freedom of Speech and Worship

Speech and worship are matters of the heart and conscience (Luke 6:45;
John 4:24). Only tyrants seek authority over matters of the heart. But, of
course, that is what tyrants do: they seek to control men’s thoughts and
beliefs.

Hence, the alternative media is essential to liberty: the Internet, short
wave radio, as well as independent magazines and periodicals. It is almost
superfluous to say that there is no such thing as a free and independent
press among the mainstream news media today. In fact, the major media more
resembles a propaganda machine than it does a free press.

The same can be said for most of the mainstream churches in America today.
They more resemble havens for politically correct, Big-Government ideology
than they do bastions of Bible truth. Therefore, home-churches and
non-establishment churches are increasingly requisite to a free people.

*The Right to Determine One’s Own Healthcare

The marriage of Big Government and Big Medicine has created a healthcare
monster. Already, the dispensing of medical treatment is micromanaged by Big
Brother in a way that has resulted in skyrocketing costs and inferior care
(and in some cases, even death). President Obama’s universal health care
initiatives that are sure to come (in one form or another) will only
exacerbate an already untenable situation.

Free men and women absolutely have the right to refuse vaccinations for
themselves and their children. Forced vaccinations (of any kind) are an
assault against the very foundation of freedom. Free men have the right to
choose their own physicians, their own hospitals, their own insurance
programs, etc. They also have the right to refuse any and all of the above.

God is Creator. He is also Healer (Exodus 15:26). Therefore, how men choose
to seek God’s healing is a private matter between them and God. Alternative
medicine is a right. Already, our military personnel are used as human
guinea pigs to test a variety of drugs and chemicals. Public schools also
require forced vaccinations. And now the push is on to force the general
population to take the Swine Flu vaccine. At the current pace, it won’t be
long until all alternative medicines and treatments will be illegal and the
federal government will be America’s doctor. This is not acceptable.

*The Right to Life

2000 years of Western Civilization have perpetually reconfirmed that life is
a gift of God. Both Biblical and American history repeatedly honor God as
the Source and Sustainer of man’s existence. Therefore, evils such as
abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia must be vehemently resisted. It is bad
enough that any government (especially one such as ours) would legalize
abortion, but the concept of FORCED abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia
could only be regarded as a despotic attack on life and liberty of the
gravest proportion. In fact, under Natural Law, such an attack would remove
said government from the protection of Heaven and would place it in a state
of war.

*The Right to Live as a Free and Independent People

God separated the Nations (Genesis 11). Therefore, it is absolutely
necessary that we Americans maintain our independence and national
sovereignty. We simply cannot (and will not) allow ourselves to become part
of any hemispheric or global union.

There they are: seven freedom-principles that are not negotiable. As
Jefferson said, we are “disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.” But
cross these lines and free men must do what free men must do: “throw off
such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

By Dr. Douglas F. Levesque, Founder of The Levesque Institute

Every soldier and public servant covenants by solemn oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, “foreign and domestic.”  We sing, “land of the free and the home of the brave”, thousands of times a day across this country.  We pledge allegiance, “to the republic”, in countless venues, and a myriad of times in our life.  Are such commitments poppycock?  Is our rhetoric without understanding or truth?  I have personally preached a score of sermons related to the commitment of good citizenship and the uniqueness of our heritage, charging good Christians to be good Americans.  I have weighed the times and the seasons, the costs and the ramifications.  It is time to stand up and be counted for right, and align clearly against wrong in our National life.

Wrong War

The examples in Scripture are there for our wisdom.  Consider Judges chapter twelve.

Jephthah and the Gileadites had no difficulty of conscience in fighting against the Ammonites and Amorites when invaded.  The decision to war against such enemies was clear cut, and to fight a defensive war, dependent upon Almighty God was just, even right.  But when confronted by their own countrymen, the Ephraimites, a plea and dialogue was put forth by Jepthah as to his rightness, but to no avail.  Ultimately, the men of Gilead responded to the threats of Ephraim in order to keep themselves from enslavement by their own kin.  A battle ensued.  The tragic deaths of war bloodied the Jordan river.  Jephthah emerges victorious.  We do not want to rally against our own country men, but their incessant threats of enslavement are becoming real chains and rapidly.

Brother Against Brother

With the death of national sovereignty will no doubt come an attack upon personal liberties.  Bible preachers will become “hate mongers”, Christian educators will be labeled “child abusers”, and Christians will be pushed into a deepening silence.  What will we do about it?  What can we do?  I return to the Biblical account for help.

Ephraim, by pride and jealousy, initiated a war of enslavement and conquest.  It was the wrong war to fight.  They should have joined Jephthah against Ammon, but missed out for unknown reasons.  Why did Gilead seem like more of a threat to Ephraim than the Ammonites?  And so it is in America today.  Liberals count Bible advocates as a greater threat than Taliban terrorists, and conservatives do nothing to stop the bashing because their eye is upon the waxing and waning of their ever precious stock reports.  Christians are fighting moral corruption but will not be joined by Democrats or Republicans.  Instead, both parties struggle to free themselves of the “fundamentalist” Christians in their ranks like a leper seeks to be free of his spots.  Do we have a principled or historical leg to stand on?  Who are the real keepers of the Constitution?

A Dark Decision

The men of Gilead were forced to fight, and some day so might we.  Let us refrain from foolish bravado or untaunted saber rattling.  However, let us pledge the flag and the republic with truth.  Let us sing about our land bravely.  Quote the Constitution, herald the Declaration.  Repent of wrong.  Commit to right.  Humbly pray and seek God’s face and miraculous reform, but . . .prepare for the dark decision that faces every Bible believer.  What will you do when your child’s education is no longer your choice, or Biblical truth is considered criminal, or faithful churches are litigated against for “treason” when all thy really do is declare the Scriptures, and hold to the founding fathers own sentiments? The fight is being brought to us.  May God help us and the dark decisions we face as he aided Jephthah and the men of Gilead.

By Chuck Baldwin, former Presidential Candidate

As we approach Independence Day, it behooves us to recall the principles of
America’s founding, especially in light of the ongoing attempt by today’s
political and commercial leaders to merge the United States into a
hemispheric government. In fact, the clarion call for independence is just
as fundamental, just as revolutionary as it was 233 years ago.

Regarding the signing of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams said,
“[Independence Day] will be the most memorable epoch in the history of
America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding
generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated
as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It
ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports,
guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to
the other, from this time forward forevermore.”

Adams went on to say, “You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I
am not. I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost
us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet
through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory; I can
see that the end is more than worth all the means, that posterity will
triumph in that day’s transaction, even though we should rue it, which I
trust in God we shall not.”

Indeed, the signers of America’s Declaration of Independence endured the
sacrifice of both toil and blood. Pertaining to the lives of the signers,
David Limbaugh writes, “Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of
Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were
captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost
wives, sons or entire families. One lost his thirteen children. Two wives
were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of
manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes
completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned.”

Yes, America’s Declaration of Independence, which is our nation’s birth
certificate, was purchased at a very high price. Rightly did its primary
author, Thomas Jefferson, invoke God’s name no less than four times in the
Declaration. Without God, our struggle for independence and freedom would
surely have failed.

Jefferson, along with the vast majority of America’s founders, knew that
freedom was, first, the gift of God, not the accomplishment of men. He
further understood that man’s law must be subordinate to the natural laws of
God.

Therefore, with an appeal to Heaven for the “rectitude of [their]
intentions,” America’s Founding Fathers courageously forged a document that
would put their own lives at risk, but would also change the course of
history.

The question now is, “How long can we maintain our nation’s independence?”
The forces of global government seem to dominate both major parties in
Washington, D.C., most corporate boardrooms, and most newsrooms.

In fact, hemispheric or regional government never had more powerful and
committed allies than former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton,
George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama. Mark my words: if and when
America loses its independence, it will have been these Presidents that led
the way in making it happen.

If the United States is going to maintain its independence and freedom much
beyond the year 2010, it will only be because millions of freedom-loving
Americans (and the governments of the States in which they reside) are
willing to fight for it.

Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died on July 4, 1826. Daniel Webster
gave the eulogy for both men on August 2 of that year. Included in his
remarks on that notable day were these words: “It [the Declaration of
Independence] is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God, it shall
be my dying sentiment. Independence now, and independence forever.”

To Webster’s words, I say a hearty AMEN! I promise no loyalty to the North
American Union, the United Nations, or any other brand of global government.
When the day comes that I am required to submit to any form of global
authority, I will be an outlaw. There is no freedom without independence,
and there is no independence without eternal vigilance. To my dying breath I
will say with Daniel Webster, “Independence now, and independence forever!”

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090701.html

by David Barton, WallBuilders

Article originally published at www.WallBuilders.com 

*reposted with permission

Over the past several years, President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that America is not a Christian nation. He asserted that while a U. S. Senator, ¹ repeated it as a presidential candidate, ² and on a recent presidential trip to Turkey announced to the world that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” ³ (Why did he make that announcement in Turkey? Because he said it was “a location he said he chose to send a clear message.” ⁴ )

The President’s statement, delivered in a Muslim nation and to Muslim press, received little coverage in American media. Had it been publicized here, the President might have been surprised to learn that nearly two-thirds of Americans currently consider America to be a Christian nation ⁵ and therefore certainly might have taken exception with his remarks. But regardless of what today’s Americans might think, it is unquestionable that four previous centuries of American leaders would definitely take umbrage with the President’s statement.

Modern declarations that America is not a Christian nation are rarely noticed or refuted today because of the nation’s widespread lack of knowledge about America’s history and foundation. To help provide the missing historical knowledge necessary to combat today’s post-modern revisionism, presented below will be some statements by previous presidents, legislatures, and courts (as well as by current national Jewish spokesmen) about America being a Christian nation. These declarations from all three branches of government are representative of scores of others and are only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.”

Defining a Christian Nation

Contemporary post-modern critics (including President Obama) who assert that America is not a Christian nation always refrain from offering any definition of what the term “Christian nation” means. So what is an accurate definition of that term as demonstrated by the American experience?

Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:

[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. ⁶

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.” ⁷

Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) similarly acknowledged:

In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion. ⁸

Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed:

[W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it. ⁹

Christianity is the religion that shaped America and made her what she is today. In fact, historically speaking, it can be irrefutably demonstrated that Biblical Christianity in America produced many of the cherished traditions still enjoyed today, including:

• A republican rather than a theocratic form of government;
• The institutional separation of church and state (as opposed to today’s enforced institutional secularization of church and state);
• Protection for religious toleration and the rights of conscience;
• A distinction between theology and behavior, thus allowing the incorporation into public policy of religious principles that promote good behavior but which do not enforce theological tenets (examples of this would include religious teachings such as the Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc., all of which promote positive civil behavior but do not impose ecclesiastical rites); and
• A free-market approach to religion, thus ensuring religious diversity.

Consequently, a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations ¹⁰ but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists.

American Presidents Affirm that America is a Christian Nation

With his recent statement, President Barack Obama is the first American president to deny that America is a Christian nation – a repudiation of what made America great and a refutation of the declarations of his presidential predecessors. Notice a few representative statements on this subject by some of the forty-three previous presidents:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. ¹¹JOHN ADAMS

[T]he teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally….impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed. ¹² TEDDY ROOSEVELT

America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture. ¹³WOODROW WILSON

American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago. ¹⁴ HERBERT HOOVER

This is a Christian Nation. ¹⁵ HARRY TRUMAN

Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny. ¹⁶ RICHARD NIXON

There are many additional examples, including even that of Thomas Jefferson.

Significantly, Jefferson was instrumental in establishing weekly Sunday worship services at the U. S. Capitol (a practice that continued through the 19th century) and was himself a regular and faithful attendant at those church services, ¹⁷ not even allowing inclement weather to dissuade his weekly horseback travel to the Capitol church. ¹⁸

(The fact that the U. S. Capitol building was available for church on Sundays was due to the Art. I, Sec. 7 constitutional requirement that forbade federal lawmaking on Sundays; and this recognition of a Christian Sabbath in the U. S. Constitution was cited by federal courts as proof of the Christian nature of America. ¹⁹ While not every Christian observes a Sunday Sabbath, no other religion in the world honors Sunday except Christianity. As one court noted, the various Sabbaths were “the Friday of the Mohammedan, the Saturday of the Israelite, or the Sunday of the Christian.” ²⁰ )

Why was Jefferson a faithful attendant at the Sunday church at the Capitol? He once explained to a friend while they were walking to church together:

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. ²¹

President Jefferson even closed presidential documents with “In the year of our Lord Christ” (see below).

 

Even President Jefferson recognized and treated America as a Christian nation. Clearly, President Obama’s declaration is refuted both by history and by his own presidential predecessors.

The U. S. Congress Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

Declarations from the Legislative Branch affirming America as a Christian nation are abundant. For example, in 1852-1853 when some citizens sought a complete secularization of the public square and a cessation of all religious activities by the government, Congress responded with unambiguous declarations about America as a Christian nation:

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. . . . In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. ²² 

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: We are Christians, not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay a due regard to Christianity? ²³

In 1856, the House of Representatives also declared:

[T]he great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. ²⁴

On March 3, 1863 while in the midst of the Civil War, the U. S. Senate requested President Abraham Lincoln to “designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation” ²⁵ because:

 

[S]incerely believing that no people, however great in numbers and resources or however strong in the justice of their cause, can prosper without His favor; and at the same time deploring the national offences which have provoked His righteous judgment, yet encouraged in this day of trouble by the assurances of His word to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way through Jesus Christ, the Senate of the United States do hereby request the President of the United States, by his proclamation, to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation. ²⁶(emphasis added)

President Lincoln quickly complied with that request, ²⁷ and issued what today has become one of the most famous and quoted proclamations in America’s history. ²⁸

Across the generations, our national reliance on God, the Bible, and Christianity has been repeatedly reaffirmed. In fact, consider five representative images produced by the U. S. Government. The first three are from World War II: one shows the Nazis as the enemy because they want to attack the Bible, and the other two encourage Americans to buy War Bonds by pointing to Christian images. The fourth and fifth images are from the Department of Agriculture in the 1960s, using the Bible and even Smokey Bear in prayer as symbols to encourage Americans to be conscious of fire safety and to help preserve and conserve nature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are scores of other official actions by the U. S. Congress over the past two centuries affirming that America is a Christian nation.

The Judicial Branch Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

From the Judicial Branch, consider first some declarations of prominent U. S. Supreme Court Justices regarding America as a Christian nation.

Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was appointed to the Court by President James Madison. Story is considered the founder of Harvard Law School and authored the three-volume classic Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). In his 34 years on the Court, Story authored opinions in 286 cases, of which 269 were reported as the majority opinion or the opinion of the Court ²⁹ and his many contributions to American law have caused him to be called a “Father of American Jurisprudence.” Justice Story openly declared:

 

One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. ³⁰

His conclusion about America and Christianity was straightforward:

In [our] republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion as the great basis on which it must rest for its support and permanence. ³¹

Justice John McLean (1785-1861) was appointed to the Court by President Andrew Jackson. McLean served in the U. S. Congress, as a judge on the Ohio Supreme Court, and then held cabinet positions under two U. S. Presidents. His view on the importance of Christianity to American government and its institutions was unambiguous:

 

For many years, my hope for the perpetuity of our institutions has rested upon Bible morality and the general dissemination of Christian principles. This is an element which did not exist in the ancient republics. It is a basis on which free governments may be maintained through all time. . . . Free government is not a self-moving machine. . . . Our mission of freedom is not carried out by brute force, by canon law, or any other law except the moral law and those Christian principles which are found in the Scriptures. ³²

Justice David Brewer (1837-1910), appointed to the Court by President Benjamin Harrison, agreed. Brewer held several judgeships in Kansas and served on a federal circuit court before his appointment to the Supreme Court. Justice Brewer declared:

We constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. ³³

Brewer then chronicled the types of descriptions applied to nations:

 

We classify nations in various ways: as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallio, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that Court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, “these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” ³⁴

Brewer did not believe that calling America a Christian nation was a hollow appellation; in fact, he penned an entire book setting forth the evidence that America was a Christian nation. He concluded:

[I] have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a mighty factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian nation. . . . [T]he calling of this republic a Christian nation is not a mere pretence, but a recognition of an historical, legal, and social truth. ³⁵

Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974) agreed with his predecessors. Before being appointed as Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Warren had been the Attorney General of California. Warren declared:

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. ³⁶

There are many similar declarations by other Supreme Court Justices, but in addition to the declarations of individual judges, the federal courts have repeatedly affirmed America to be a Christian nation – including the U. S. Supreme Court, which declared that America was “a Christian country,” ³⁷filled with “Christian people,” ³⁸ and was indeed “a Christian nation.” ³⁹Dozens of other courts past and present have repeated these pronouncements ⁴⁰ but so, too, have American Presidents – as in 1947 when President Harry Truman quoted the Supreme Court, declaring:

This is a Christian Nation. More than a half century ago that declaration was written into the decrees of the highest court in this land [in an 1892 decision]. ⁴¹

In addition to its “Christian nation” declarations, the Supreme Court also regularly relied on Christian principles as the basis of its rulings on issues such as marriage, citizenship, foreign affairs, and domestic treaties.

For example, when some federal territories attempted to introduce the practice of bigamy and polygamy, the Supreme Court disallowed those practices because:

Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. ⁴²

In another case, the Court similarly explained:

The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is . . . . contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world. ⁴³

And when the issue arose of whether marriages made in foreign nations would be recognized in the United States, the federal court held that foreign marriages would be recognized only if they were not “contrary to the general view of Christendom.” ⁴⁴

The Supreme Court also decided military service issues in accord with Christian principles and standards. For example, in 1931, when a Canadian immigrant refused to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, the Supreme Court explained why he was therefore excluded from citizenship:

We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States. 143 U.S. 457, 470 , 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God. But also we are a nation with the duty to survive; a nation whose Constitution contemplates war as well as peace; whose government must go forward upon the assumption (and safely can proceed upon no other) that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land, as well those made for war as those made for peace, are not inconsistent with the will of God. ⁴⁵

The Supreme Court also relied on Christian principles in its rulings on international policies. For example, if an American citizen living in a foreign land was accused of a crime under the laws of a fundamentally different nation (such as in Islamic nations, secular nations, and most recently in Japan following World War II), by means of international treaties, the U. S. citizen would be tried in front of the U. S. Consul in that nation (in what were called Consular Tribunals) rather than before the courts of that country. Of this practice, the Supreme Court explained:

In other than Christian countries, they [the Consuls] were by treaty stipulations usually clothed with authority to hear complaints against their countrymen and to sit in judgment upon them when charged with public offenses. . . . The intense hostility of the people of Moslem faith to all other sects, and particularly to Christians, affected all their intercourse [transactions] and all proceedings had in their tribunals. Even the rules of evidence adopted by them [the Muslims] placed those of different faith on unequal grounds in any controversy with them. For this cause, and by reason of the barbarous and cruel punishments inflicted in those countries and the frequent use of torture to enforce confession from parties accused, it was a matter of deep interest to Christian governments to withdraw the trial of their subjects, when charged with the commission of a public offense, from the arbitrary and despotic action of the local officials. Treaties conferring such jurisdiction upon these consuls were essential to the peaceful residence of Christians within those countries. ⁴⁶

For example, an Islamic nation might charge an American with the capital-offense crime of blasphemy merely because the American attended Christian worship or used a Bible in that country; or a secular nation might accuse an American of the crime of proselytizing simply for sharing his faith with another (currently a crime in France, ⁴⁷ across India, ⁴⁸ Pakistan,⁴⁹ Saudi Arabia, ⁵⁰ Malaysia, ⁵¹ and many other nations). In such cases, the Consul tried the offense under America’s laws as a Christian nation. However, if another nation accused an American of a crime such as murder, the charge would stand since murder was also a crime in our Christian nation. ⁵²

The Supreme Court commended this position ⁵³ and federal courts observed the policy until deep into the twentieth century, ⁵⁴ when many foreign nations finally began to adopt what the Supreme Court had earlier called “a system of judicial procedure like that of Christian countries.” ⁵⁵

Federal domestic treaties were yet another area in which the federal judiciary relied on Christian principles and standards. For example, by 1877 a number of disputes had arisen in which Indian lands were wrongly being taken for timber, minerals, and other resources. When those cases reached the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the occupancy rights of the tribes to the lands because:

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 . . . ⁵⁶

The Court repeated this position on numerous subsequent occasions – as in 1903 when it reiterated:

[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 . . . ” ⁵⁷

The Court’s position was subsequently enacted into federal statutory law in 1906, ⁵⁸ and in 1955, the Supreme Court was still praising this position ⁵⁹ – a position regularly cited by other courts for decades, ⁶⁰ including in the late 1990s. ⁶¹

These are just a few examples of the literally hundreds of similar cases at both federal and state levels affirming that America is indeed a Christian nation.

American Jewish Leaders Agree with History

Jewish leaders, although firmly committed to their own faith, understand that by defending Christianity they are defending what has provided them their own religious liberty in America. For example, Jeff Jacoby, a Jewish columnist at the Boston Globe explains:

This is a Christian country – it was founded by Christians and built on broad Christian principles. Threatening? Far from it. It is in precisely this Christian country that Jews have known the most peaceful, prosperous, and successful existence in their long history. ⁶²

Aaron Zelman (a Jewish author and head of a civil rights organization) similarly declares:

[C]hristian America is the best home our people have found in 2,000 years. . . . [T]his remains the most tolerant, prosperous, and safest home we could be blessed with. ⁶³

Dennis Prager, a Jewish national columnist and popular talkshow host, warns:

If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles (its Founders’ guiding text), we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America’s non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe.⁶⁴

Prager further explained:

I believe that it is good that America is a Christian nation. . . . I have had the privilege of speaking in nearly every Jewish community in America over the last 30 years, and I have frequently argued in favor of this view. Recently, I spoke to the Jewish community of a small North Carolina city. When some in the audience mentioned their fear of rising religiosity among Christians, I asked these audience-members if they loved living in their city. All of them said they did. Is it a coincidence, I then asked, that the city you so love (for its wonderful people, its safety for your children, its fine schools, and its values that enable you to raise your children with confidence) is a highly Christian city? Too many Americans do not appreciate the connection between American greatness and American Christianity. ⁶⁵

Don Feder, a Jewish columnist and long time writer for the Boston Herald, similarly acknowledges:

Clearly this nation was established by Christians. . . . As a Jew, I’m entirely comfortable with the concept of the Christian America. ⁶⁶The choice isn’t Christian America or nothing, but Christian America or a neo-pagan, hedonistic, rights-without-responsibilities, anti-family, culture-of-death America. As an American Jew. . . . [I] feel very much at home here. ⁶⁷

In fact, Feder calls on Jews to defend the truth that America is a Christian Nation:

Jews – as Jews – must oppose revisionist efforts to deny our nation’s Christian heritage, must stand against the drive to decouple our laws from Judeo-Christian ethics, and must counter attacks on public expressions of the religion of most Americans – Christianity. Jews are safer in a Christian America than in a secular America. ⁶⁸

Michael Medved, a Jewish national talkshow host and columnist, agrees that America is indeed a Christian nation:

The framers may not have mentioned Christianity in the Constitution but they clearly intended that charter of liberty to govern a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. Their noble and unprecedented experiment never involved a religion-free or faithless state but did indeed presuppose America’s unequivocal identity as a Christian nation. ⁶⁹

Burt Prelutsky, a Jewish columnist for the Los Angeles Times (and a freelance writer for the New York Times, Washington Times, Sports Illustrated, and other national publications) and a patriotic Jewish American, gladly embraces America as a Christian nation and even resents the secularist post-modern attack on national Christian celebrations such as Christmas:

I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. . . .How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Turkey is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn’t mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country’s population is of one religion, and most Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a darn fool would deny the obvious. . . . This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many millions of Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. It should never be forgotten that, in the main, it was Christian soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany and who liberated the concentration camps. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends. ⁷⁰

Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the Jewish Policy Center unequivocally declares

[I] understand that I live . . . in a Christian nation, albeit one where I can follow my faith as long as it doesn’t conflict with the nation’s principles. The same option is open to all Americans and will be available only as long as this nation’s Christian roots are acknowledged and honored. ⁷¹

In fact, with foreboding he warns:

Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the west is doomed. Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah, and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in. ⁷²God help Jews if America ever becomes a post-Christian society! Just think of Europe! ⁷³

— — — ◊ ◊ ◊ — — —

President Obama’s declaration that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” is a repudiation of the declarations of the national leaders before him and is an unabashed attempt at historical revisionism. Of such efforts, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wisely observed, “no amount of repetition of historical errors . . . can make the errors true.” ⁷⁴

Americans must now decide whether centuries of presidents, congresses, and courts are correct or whether President Obama is, but historical fact does not change merely because the President declares it.

The best antidote to the type of revisionism embodied by President Obama’s statement is for citizens (1) to know the truth of America’s history and (2) share that truth with others.

---

Endnotes
 Aaron Klein, “Obama: America is ‘no longer Christian’,” June 22, 2008,WorldNetDaily (at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735).(Return)

 

 

 David Brody, The Brody File, “Exclusive: Barack Obama E-mails the Brody File,” CBN News, July 29, 2007 (at:http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/204017.aspx).(Return)

 “Obama says U.S., Turkey can be model for world,” April 6, 2009, CNN (at:http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/obama.turkey/index.html).(Return)

 “Obama says U.S., Turkey can be model for world,” April 6, 2009, CNN (at:http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/obama.turkey/index.html).(Return)

 “Survey Reports: Beyond Red vs. Blue,” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, March 17-27, 2005 (at: http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=953), reports that in 1996, 60% of Americans believed that America was indeed a Christian nation and that by 2004, the number had risen to 71%; the 2009 poll showed that the number had dropped to 69% and then to 62% (see “Newsweek Poll: A Post-Christian Nation?,” Newsweek, April 3, 2009 (at:http://www.newsweek.com/id/192311), in which 62% answered Yes, 32% answer No, and 6% answered Don’t Know to the question “Do you consider the United States a Christian nation, or not?” See also “This Easter, Smaller Percentage of Americans are Christians,” Gallup, April 10, 2009 (at:http://www.gallup.com/poll/117409/Easter-Smaller-Percentage-Americans-Christian.aspx), in which this statement appears: “The United States remains a dominantly Christian nation. More than three-quarters of all Americans identify as Christian,” according to this poll 77% of Americans identify themselves as Christians (55% Protestant, 22% Catholic). (Return)

 David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 13. (Return)

 David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 40. (Return)

 Edward Mansfield, American Education, Its Principle and Elements (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), p. 43. (Return)

 John Marshall, The Papers of John Marshall, Charles Hobson, editor (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), Vol. XII, p. 278, to Rev. Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833. (Return)

 Stephen Cowell, The Position of Christianity in the United States in its Relations with our Political Institutions (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambio & Co., 1854), pp. 11-12, Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1847), p. 260, §442. (Return)

 John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813. (Return)

 Ferdinand Cowle Iglehart, D.D., Theodore Roosevelt, The Man As I Knew Him (New York: The Christian Herald, 1919), p. 307. (Return)

 Paul M. Pearson and Philip M. Hicks, Extemporaneous Speaking (New York: Hinds, Noble & Eldredge, 1912), 177, printing Woodrow Wilson, “The Bible and Progress;” The Homiletic Review: An International Monthly Magazine of Current Religious Thought, Sermonic Literature and Discussion of Practical Issues (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1911), Vol. LXII, p. 238, printing Woodrow Wilson, “The Bible and Progress,” May 7, 1911. (Return)

 Herbert Hoover, “Radio Address to the Nation on Unemployment Relief,”American Presidency Project, October 18, 1931 (at:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=22855).(Return)

 Harry S. Truman, “Exchange of Messages With Pope Pius XII,” American Presidency Project, August 28, 1947 (at:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=12746).(Return)

 Richard Nixon, “Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast,” American Presidency Project, February 1st, 1972 (at:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3597).(Return)

 See, for example, Bishop Claggett’s (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives; The First Forty Years of Washington Society, Galliard Hunt, editor (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), p. 13; William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 119, to Joseph Torrey, January 3, 1803, and p. 113, his entry of December 12, 1802; James Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1998), p. 84. (Return)

 William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114). (Return)

 See, for example, Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U.S. 457, 465, 470-471 (1892); City Council of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 2 Strob. 508, 518-520 (S.C. 1846); State v. Ambs, 20 Mo. 214, 1854 WL 4543 (Mo. 1854); Neal v. Crew, 12 Ga. 93, 1852 WL 1390 (1852); Doremus v. Bd. of Educ., 71 A.2d 732, 7 N.J. Super. 442 (1950); State v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 143 S.W. 785, 803 (Mo. 1912); and many others. (Return)

 Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502, 509 (1858). (Return)

 Hutson, Religion, p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen. (Return)

 Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), pp. 6, 8. (Return)

 The Reports of Committees of the Senate of the United States for the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress, 1852-53 (Washington: Robert Armstrong, 1853), p. 3. (Return)

 Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States: Being the First Session of the Thirty-Fourth Congress (Washington: Cornelius Wendell, 1855), p. 354, January 23, 1856. See also Lorenzo D. Johnson, Chaplains of the General Government With Objections to their Employment Considered (New York: Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., 1856), p. 35. (Return)

 Journal of the Senate of the United States of America Being the Third Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1863), p. 379, March 2, 1863. (Return)

 Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Being the Third Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1863), pp. 378-379, March 2, 1863. (Return)

 Abraham Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Roy P. Basler, editor (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953), Vol. VI, pp. 155-157, “Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day,” March 30, 1863.(Return)

 A May 2009 Google search for this proclamation resulted in 18,000+ hits.(Return)

 “United States Founding Fathers,” Party of 1776 (at:http://www.partyof1776.net/p1776/fathers/contents.html) (accessed on May 1, 2009). (Return)

 Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, William W. Story, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. II, pp. 8, 92. (Return)

 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States(Boston: Hillard, Gray, and Company, 1833), Vol. III, p. 724, § 1867. (Return)

 B. F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic(Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), p. 639. (Return)

 David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 12. (Return)

 David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 11. (Return)

 David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), pp. 40, 46. (Return)

 “Breakfast in Washington,” Time, February 15, 1954 (at:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,936197,00.html).(Return)

 Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 43 U. S. 126, 198 (1844). (Return)

 U.S. v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (1931). (Return)

 Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 465, 470-471 (1892).(Return)

 See for example, Warren v. U.S., 177 F.2d 596 (10th Cir. 1949); U.S. v. Girouard, 149 F.2d 760 (1st Cir.1945); Steiner v. Darby, Parker v. Los Angeles County, 199 P.2d 429 (Cal. App. 2d Dist 1948); Vogel v. County of Los Angeles, 434 P.2d 961 (1967). (Return)

 Harry S. Truman, “Exchange of Messages with Pope Pius XII,” American Presidency Project, August 6, 1947 (at:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=12746).(Return)

 Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333, 341-344, 348 n. (1890). (Return)

 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States 136 U.S. 1, 49 (1890). (Return)

 U.S. ex rel. Modianos v. Tuttle, 12 F.2d 927 (E.D. La. 1925). (Return)

 U.S. v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (1931). (Return)

 Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453, 463 (1891). (Return)

 Patrick Goodenough, “French Anti-Sect Law: Christian Lawyers Prepare for Action,” Center for Studies on New Religions, June 4, 2001 (at:http://www.cesnur.org/2001/fr_june01.htm).(Return)

 “India ‘Anti-Conversion’ Law Takes Effect in Fifth State,” WorthyNews, May 2, 2008 (at: http://www.worthynews.com/1641-india-anti-conversion-law-takes-effect-in-fifth-state). See also “India ‘Anti-Conversion’ Law Considered in Karnataka,” Compass Direct News, March 2, 2009 (at:http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news〈=en=long&idelement=5829). Seven of India’s 28 states have passed an anti-conversion law (which has been implemented in 5) and one additional state has a law in process that has not yet been passed. (Return)

 “Congressional Hearings on Anti-Conversion Laws this Friday,” Free Copts, April 6, 2006 (at: http://freecopts.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70).(Return)

 Jerry Dykstra “A Leader in Religious Intolerance: In Saudi Arabia, conversion to Christianity is punishable by death,” Today’s Christian, July 1, 2006 (at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/2006/004/11.53.html).(Return)

 Jane Perlez “Once Muslim, Now Christian and Caught in the Courts,” New York Times, August 24, 2006 (at:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/world/asia/24malaysia.html?ex=1157083200&en=48413500adb50796&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVERNEWS).(Return)

 Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453 (1891). (Return)

 See, for example, Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470 (1956); Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). (Return)

 See, for example, U.S. v. Best, 76 F. Supp. 857 (D. Mass. 1948); U.S. v. Robertson, Court of Military Appeals (May 27, 1955); U.S. v. Tiede, 86 F.R.D. 227, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13805 (D. Berlin Mar. 14, 1979); and many others.(Return)

 Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453, 480 (1891). (Return)

 Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U.S. 517, 525 (1877). (Return)

 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 565 (1903). See also the same language in Yankton Sioux Tribe of Indians v. U. S., 272 US 351 (1926); U. S. v. Choctaw Nation, 179 U.S. 494 (1900); Atlantic & P R Co v. Mingus, 165 U.S. 413 (1897); Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company v. Roberts, 152 U.S. 114 (1894); Buttz v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 119 U.S. 55 (1886). (Return)

 “Act of April 26, 1906, Public Number 129,” Access Genealogy Indian Tribal Records (at:http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/laws/act_april_26_1906.htm) (accessed May 4, 2009). (Return)

 Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955). (Return)

 Sioux Tribe of Indians v. U.S., 146 F. Supp. 229 (Ct. Cl. Nov. 7, 1956);Seminole Nation v. White, 224 F.2d 173 (10th Cir. 1955); U.S. v. Drumb, 152 F.2d 821 (10th Cir. 1946); Appeal of Brunt, 5 B.T.A. 134, 1926 WL 47 (October 21, 1926); Parr v. U.S., 153 F. 462 (D. Or. 1907). (Return)

 Cohen v. Little Six, Inc., 543 N.W.2d 376 (Minn. App. 1996). (Return)

 Jeff Jacoby, “The freedom not to say ‘amen’,” Jewish World Review, February 1, 2001 (at:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby020101.asp).(Return)

 Aaron Zelman, “An open letter to my Christian friends,” Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (at: http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/christian-selfdefense.htm).(Return)

 Dennis Prager, “America founded to be free, not secular,” Townhall.com, January 3, 2007 (at:http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/01/03/america_founded_to_be_free,_not_secular).(Return)

 Dennis Prager, “Books, Arts & Manners: God & His Enemies – Revie,”BNet, March 22, 1999 (at:http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_5_51/ai_54022321).(Return)

 Don Feder, A Jewish Conservative Looks at Pagan America (Lafayette: Huntington House Publishers, 1993), pp. 59-60. (Return)

 Don Feder, “Yes – Once and For All – American is a Christian Nation,”DonFeder.com, February 16, 2005 (at:www.donfeder.com/articles/0502chrisAmerica.pdf).(Return)

 Don Feder, “The Jewish Case for Merry Christmas,” DonFeder.com, December 5, 2006 (at:www.donfeder.com/articles/0612jewishCase.pdf).(Return)

 Michael Medved, “The Founders Intended a Christian, not Secular, Society,” Townhall.com, October 3, 2007 (at:http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/10/03/the_founders_intended_a_christian,_not_secular,_society).(Return)

 Burt Prelutsky, “The Jewish grinch who stole Christmas,” Townhall.com, December 11, 2006 (at:http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2006/12/11/the_jewish_grinch_who_stole_christmas).(Return)

 Daniel Lapin, America’s Real War (Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 1999), p. 116. (Return)

 Rabbi Daniel Lapin, “A Rabbi’s Call to American Christians – Wake Up! You’re Under Attack,” End Time Prophetic Division, January 19, 2007 (at:http://www.etpv.org/2007/acwuyua.html).(Return)

 Rabbi Daniel Lapin, “Which Jews does the ADL really represent?”WorldNetDaily, August 25, 2006 (at:http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51671).(Return)

 Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 106-107 (1984), Rehnquist, J. (dissenting). (Return)

By Jason Georges, Executive Director of The Bible Nation Society

BNS:  What worldview, in your opinion, influenced the thinking of the founding fathers?

I think the first thing to keep in mind is the founding fathers were not a monolithic  group.   They didn’t come out of the same religious tradition, or the same political, or regional backgrounds.  They came from different parts of the country with different interests, different professional backgrounds.  And they were influenced by a variety of worldviews, perspectives, and the like.  Clearly they lived in a Biblically-literate culture.  Christianity was, I would say, probably the most dominant cultural influence.  But they were also being influenced by other ideas, some of which are coming from the other side of the Atlantic.  Some of them, a small number of them, were being influenced by Enlightenment ideals, or the ideas of classical Republicanism, Whig political tradition.  So, they were influenced by a variety of perspectives.  But I think most of them are going to be viewing these different perspectives largely through a Christian lens.

BNS:  Did our founding fathers reference the Bible from a personal knowledge and interest, or was it a political thing to do at the time?

I think that’s a very good question because it really gets to the heart of what I think is one of the most important questions when talking about the Bible in the American founding, and that is for what purposes did this generation use the Bible?  Now the truth of the matter is they used the Bible for a whole variety of reasons, depending on the context, or the time at which they used the Bible.  There are times they used the Bible for purely literary allusions.  They are trying to pick examples from history, from literature, that their audience will know and understand.  And the Bible would have been one of the major sources for that kind of literary allusion.  Sometimes they would have used the Bible for rhetorical effect.  The language of the Bible, especially the King James Bible, carries with it a certain authority, a certain seriousness.  And so, occasionally you’d find this generation using the Bible, or Bible-like language, to convey that kind of authority or seriousness, or to bring solemnity to a particular discourse.  There are other times when you’re going to find them using the Bible to paint a parallel between their own experience and perhaps the experience of the children of Israel as described in the Old Testament.  Other times they use the Bible to make theological points about who is God, the nature of God, and most especially from their perspective how God deals with human beings in the here and now.  So, you find this generation using the Bible for a lot of different reasons, a lot of different purposes.  You have to read this literature in its context.  I don’t think we can make a generalized statement about why they used the Bible, but understand they used the Bible for a variety of reasons and we have to read each example in its context to understand and appreciate why they’re using the Bible.

BNS:  Does one historical figure come to mind where you would say he had an adamant Biblical worldview, even almost ignoring any other influence?

There were certainly founding fathers who are very devout and pious Christians, who want to reflect that piety in all their actions including their involvement in politics.  I would identify people like John Jay, first chief justice of the United States and one of the co-authors of the Federalist Papers.  I would also include Samuel Adams, Elias Boudinot president of the Continental Congress, Oliver Ellsworth, Roger Sherman two men that came out of the state of Connecticut.  Roger Sherman is very much involved in the founding of the American republic.  He was one of only two men to sign three organic expressions of American law:  the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution.  Sherman was a member of the first congress involved in framing the first amendment.  Someone else that I would include is someone like John Witherspoon, leader of the Presbyterian community in the United States, also very involved in politics.  He sat on over one hundred communities in the continental congress, president of what was then called the College of New Jersey, today known as Princeton.  A very devout man who brought his faith with him into the public realm.

BNS:  Did Thomas Jefferson intend for any reference to religion to be excluded from all public discourse when he used the metaphor ‘wall of separation’?

Well, I think the wall of separation metaphor is used today in ways that Jefferson probably would not recognize and might even repudiate.  Looking at his record as a public official I think we would have to conclude that Jefferson did not mean and did not intend to exclude all references to religion and even references to God from public life.  Jefferson himself in numerous public statements made references to God.  You might want to look at what today we call the state of the union address, in his annual messages to Congress he would frequently make references to God and our need to be thankful to God.  Now I wouldn’t suggest that Jefferson was an Orthodox Christian necessarily, but I don’t think he intended to exclude religion and religious expressions from all aspects of public life.

BNS:  In your opinion, what are the dangers of a Bible-illiterate society?

I think that to the extent that many of our expressions, many of our idioms, our manners of communicating with each other are based on ideas, concepts, and allusions to the Bible.  I think it hinders our ability to communicate to each other.  If you take a common expression like, ‘lion’s den’, or ‘Damascus road experience’, or ‘handwriting on the wall’, or ‘forbidden fruit’, the kinds of expression that work their way into popular discourse, if you lack or lose knowledge where these phrases come from it really hinders our ability to communicate to each other.  So, to that extent I think it’s useful, valuable, to be literate in the Bible and how the Bible has informed our culture and in our manner of expression and speaking to one another.

BNS:  What, if any, major events in history participated in the decline of Bible literacy? 

I think there have been certain forces of modernity, perhaps, in the last several hundred years that have emphasized the rational over the transcendent, that have wanted to marginalize matters of faith, to privatize matters of faith.  We see this not only in political ideas but we see it in decisions of our courts, limiting the expression of our religiosity in the public square, those kinds of things.  I think to some extent that has had an impact on the ability of traditional Christianity and Biblical faith in particular to influence the broader culture.

Professor Dreisbach’s principal research interests include American constitutional law and history, First Amendment law, church-state relations, and criminal procedure. He has written extensively on these topics. He has authored or edited five books and numerous articles in scholarly journals. Among the courses that Professor Dreisbach teaches are American Legal Culture, Issues in Civil Justice, Civil Justice Systems and the Constitution, and The Constitution and Criminal Procedure.