The following take from the Christian Science Monitor website which interviewed Dr. Levesque on Saturday, September 12th concerning the murder of James Pouillion.

Killing of anti-abortion protester has both sides questioning violence

Already, there are small signs that common ground is being found regarding the use of violence, no matter where it’s directed.

By Mark Guarino

CHICAGO

The murder of an anti-abortion protester outside Detroit Friday is forcing both sides of the abortion issue to address their traditional roles in the long-standing debate.

James Pouillon, a local man known in the community for his 20-year street protests aimed at ending abortion, was shot and killed outside a high school in suburban Owosso early Friday morning while staging his usual protest involving large photos of mutilated fetuses.

Within hours police named a suspect: Harlan James Drake. Mr. Drake killed two people that day, but the death of Mr. Pouillon is drawing attention because it is the first abortion-related murder since the May shooting death of Dr. George Tiller, a Wichita, Kan. physician who performed abortions, in the foyer of a Catholic church. A staunch anti-abortion advocate was charged.

Since news of the shootings broke Friday, national organizations representing both the anti-abortion and abortion rights movements released statements to frame the murder against data — either aborted fetuses or assassinated medical personnel — they say is essential in understanding how their side deals with violence or the threat of violence every day.

Shaun Kenney, executive director of the American Life League in Washington, one of the nation’s largest pro-life organizations, called Pouillon a “true pro-life hero” and said his murder on Sept. 11 was “a terrible irony” for bringing “to mind the 50 million innocent lives lost to abortion.”

On Saturday, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, condemned the murder and said the pro-choice side knows “all too well the chilling effect that shootings and other forms of violent intimidation have on people who have strongly held beliefs about this most personal issue.” The organization reports that eight abortion clinic workers in the US have been murdered since 1993.

Because the majority of violence surrounding the abortion issue usually involves threats or acts against clinics, resulting in federal and state protection laws, the murder of an anti-abortion advocate is reversing the traditional roles of both sides and, in that process, perhaps even forcing both to look at it with a new perspective.

Already, there are small signs that common ground is being found regarding the use of violence, no matter where it’s directed.

Keenan called Pouillon’s murder “senseless violence” and offered condolences to the families involved. Kenney said it wanted to “renew” its “call for peace and prayer as the only remedies for the culture of violence.”

Doug Levesque, the pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church outside Owosso, says he is already sensing “a solidarity of spirit” among people in the city, population 15,000, who share different points of view on abortion.

“I think people are [saying] ‘this is just craziness’. There are so many other things we can do. We can argue, we can rally. It’s not worth shooting each other over,” he says.

Mr. Levesque says Pouillon attended his church “numerous times” over the past few years and was known as a “caustic” abortion protester who “would have been thrilled” to learn that his murder was considered the antithesis of the Tiller case.

After the Tiller case, Levesque says he wrote op-ed pieces to the local newspaper condemning the use of violence in the abortion debate, even though he personally agreed that Tiller’s efforts resulted in “cold-blooded murder.” He said Pouillon felt the same.

“Jim would say Dr. Tiller killed 60,000 babies but Jim would never say, ‘let’s kill somebody’,” says Levesque. “I think the pro-choicers are the same way when they say ‘we support women’s right but it’s not worth senseless violence’. Even Jim didn’t deserve that.”

Since the shootings, he says he is sensing people around Owosso are making efforts to “look into each others eyes” and find “a connection” rather than decamp. It can only happen “by living together.”

Article can be seen at http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/12/killing-of-anti-abortion-protester-has-both-sides-questioning-violence/

Also see Dr. Levesque’s article concerning the Tiller murder. http://biblenation.org/2009/06/“tiller-murder”-a-sad-saga-of-abortion-in-america/

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

In 2003, Judge Sonia Sotomayor joined a Second Circuit order that excused government hostility toward religion. In 2000, Rev. Kristopher Okwedy and Keyword Ministries, Inc. – a Christian Church – put up a billboard sign quoting a verse of the Holy Bible, Leviticus 18:22, that says, “Thou shall not lie with a male as with a female – it is an abomination.” The sign included the postscript, “I AM YOUR CREATOR.” After three days and much public outcry, Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari called the display “mean spirited” and said the Bible verse “conveys an atmosphere of intolerance which is not welcome in our Borough.” He then attempted to have the sign removed or covered up.

Okwedy and Keyword Ministries sued in federal court, contending that Molinari’s statements violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, i.e., that the government must remain neutral in matters of religion. The district court dismissed the case and Okwedy appealed. A Second Circuit panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals that included Judge Sotomayor found no Establishment Clause violation because Molinari’s statement did not target a particular religious denomination or disapprove of religion.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that government must remain neutral in matters of religion,” said AFA General Counsel Patrick J. Vaughn. “Judge Sotomayor joined a summary order that said it’s okay for government to condemn the Bible,” he added. Don Wildmon, Chairman of American Family Association, observed that Sotomayor’s opinion “places a judicial stamp of approval on the comment of renowned communist Karl Marx that ‘religion is the opiate of the masses’ and further would permit a government official to say that the Bible is akin to Aesop’s Fables.” Wildmon added that Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court would have “grave consequences for religious freedom.”

The case is Okwedy v. Molinari, 01-7941 (2d Cir. 2003) (unpublished summary order).

American Family Association is a pro-family advocacy organization with over 2.5 million online supporters.

http://action.afa.net/

Commentary by Dr. Douglas F. Levesque, Founder of The Levesque Institute

I am often dismayed at the lack of public outcry and denouncement of evil by common folk. Such lamenting should not be reserved for courts and media alone. While liberals scream, “Save the whales!”, they often remain strangely silent on the useless and cold-blooded murder of yet to be born children. Conservatives are often the first to shout, “Off with his head!” before a fair hearing is complete. I am staunchly conservative and against abortion in any form, yet I am also against pre-meditated vengeful murder in any form. Murder is wrong! Killing of our fellow man should make us shudder. I will not be hypocritical in my silence or in my public denunciations. Abortion is murder! Also . . .

The murder of Dr. Tiller was wrong.

It is hard for most of America to “feel bad” for such a character. I admit my heart does not ache for Dr. Tiller the way it breaks for the victims of abortion. (In fact, I have had to actually work up any sorrow for him at all.) However, our sense of right and wrong must remain in tact. We must not become the monsters we oppose by delineating between the murder of a middle aged doctor, and an unseen infant. And yet, we must remain confident in the ways and means of God to dispense judgment.

The judgment of Dr. Tiller was complete.

While murder and judgment seem to go together, they are two different things. The ‘Tiller Killer’ will receive justice through courts and laws. Such enforcement is ordained in Scripture. But what of justice for the countless humans killed at the point of their own birth? Such a cold blooded killer for hire cannot and will not escape the just hand of God – in this life or the next. Allowing a long cruel bout with a debilitating disease, frustrating and sickening treatments, and dying a thousand painful deaths while losing all fortune and family would have been my choice for such a man. Then again, I am not God, and he did not die that way.

The repentance and reformation of Dr. Tiller would have been more desirable.

Dr. Tiller died in a few horror filled moments, after a reasonably long and experienced life – something he denied his own victims. What if he would have practiced a different form of medicine? Would his end have been different? We will never know. God reformed certain killers, like Moses or Paul, but the grace of God seemed absent from Dr. Tiller’s life. And now I imagine an eternity of torment in the hottest flames of hell for such a tyrant. Like Pharaoh, Nero, and Hitler, Tiller will forever be a bad guy, numbered among baby killers. His opportunity to change, to do right, to be saved, is over. Cold blooded, premeditated murder is wrong and will always be judged.

The legacy of Dr. Tiller will forever be bloody and despicable.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” -Prophet Isaiah (5:20)

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 James R. Patrick, Founder of The MacArthur Institute
Excerpted from the “Foundations of Liberty” Series

An Overview of “The New Deal”

“He has great imagination. . .  If he had been President at the time when the Treasury was overflowing, he would have gone down in history as the greatest builder since the world began,” so stated interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes in 1934 of Franklin D. Roosevelt. ¹

Former President Herbert Hoover did not agree.  He stated, “Along with currency manipulation, the New Deal introduced to America the spectacle of fascist dictation to business, labor, and agriculture.” ²

Curtis B. Dall, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s son-in-law, made these comments:

“Speaking politically, I regard Woodrow Wilson as a man who sold his soul to the internationalists’ program, to the One World Debt-Finance Forces, and thereby opened the first big holes in our Constitutional and financial “dikes.”  I regard Franklin Roosevelt, after 1932, as likewise selling his political soul to the same One-World, Internationalist Debt-Finance Forces and, under their coercion; he made larger the Woodrow Wilson “holes in the dike.” The net result, devoid of political and ideological fanfare, if such could ever happen, is obvious.  Both men failed in providing a sound leadership for America, but succeeded in furthering themselves and a pattern of policy which advanced various alien backed programs, our Foreign Policy.  This result was especially noticeable in respect to FDR as his health began to fail and his Advisers took over.” ³    

Adlai E. Stevenson said of Franklin Roosevelt:

The Democratic Party took over when the nation was almost in a state of receivership in 1933.  Fortunately, we had a great and revered leader, Franklin Roosevelt. Under his leadership the Democratic Party dedicated itself to improving opportunity and security for all citizens.” ⁴

Journalist H. L. Mencken provides us with a different slant.

“If [President Roosevelt] became convinced tomorrow that coming out for cannibalism would get him the votes he so sorely needs, he would begin fattening a missionary in the White House backyard come Wednesday.” ⁵

It is obvious that he, more than the average President, tended to bring raves of approval or highly critical remarks.  Roosevelt sent mixed signals.  It was hard to discern where he really stood and what he really believed.  To the casual listener, he seemed to be conservative in philosophy with a clear understanding of the Constitution, but if you listened closely to what he said, you would find his choice of words implied a belief that government needed to add just a little bit more to the kettle of freedom.

 

After carefully reading the measures passed into law (The Social Security Act), it is obvious that Franklin Roosevelt does not stand on par with the original intent of the Founding Fathers.  They envisioned a limited constitutional republic wherein the federal branch of government would be very limited in authority.  They envisioned federal union wherein the states would retain all powers not specifically granted to the federal branch.  The responsibility of the government was to provide for the people a shield of defense, but they were bringing about their own success.   

By contrast, President Roosevelt believed that the government best served the people when it assisted their efforts.  He saw the state as a benevolent helper, advisor, guide, or an overseer.  To him, the master planners were wiser in that they could direct the total program.  To accomplish that feat would require unlimited power and control over the national treasury-and that is the material of which despots are made. 

FDR’s First Inaugural Address

President Hoover, Mr. Chief Justice, my friends:

This is a day of national consecration, and I am certain that my fellow-Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our nation impels.

This is pre-eminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly.  Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today.  This great nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.

So first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.  I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.  I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties.  They concern, thank God, only material things.  Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen, government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return.  Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance.  We are stricken by no plague of locusts.  Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered, because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for.  Nature still offers her bounty, and human efforts have multiplied it.  Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply.

Primarily, this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the courts of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True, they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition.  Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. 

Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence.  They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers.

They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization.  We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths.

The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.

The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits.  These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow-men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing.

Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance.  With them it cannot live.  [speech continues...]        

In the field of world policy, I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor – the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others – the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never before, our interdependence on each other; that we cannot merely take, but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline, no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective.

We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good.

This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.

With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people, dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.

Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors.

Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes to emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form.

That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced.  It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.

It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us.  But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from the normal balance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require.

These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me.

I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis – broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time.  I can do no less.

We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike.

We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy.  The people of the United States have not failed.  In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action.

They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership.  They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift, I take it.

In this dedication of a nation we humbly ask the blessing of God.  May He protect each and every one of us!  May He guide me in the days to come.

(Editor’s Note: All underlined portions represent the “Bible-speak” then understood by a Biblically literate population.  Although Roosevelt represented a great shift left in American politics, even the left, were fully aware of his Scriptural references.  Too bad even the political right is devoid of such ‘Bible-speak’ today.  The greater population are in the dark regarding even a rudimentary understanding of the Bible.  The Bible Nation Society seeks to remedy this sad circumstance by an energetic advocacy.)

James R. Patrick founded the Victory Baptist Church in 1967 and the East Moline Christian School in 1978.  He is the Director of the MacArthur Institute which publishes the Foundation of Liberty Series, an extensive conservative curriculum for homes, schools and churches.  For more information or to order materials write to:

The MacArthur Institute,  900  46th Avenue,  East Moline, Illinois 61244-4406. 

Footnotes: 
1 The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes: The First Thousand Days, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1953, p. 206
2 Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, New York: Macmillan, 1951-1952, Vol. III, p. 408.
3  F.D.R.-My Exploited Father-in-Law, Curtis B. Dall, pp. 134-135.
4  Bert Cochran, Adelai Stevenson: Patrician among the Politicians, New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1969, p. 217.
5  Coley Taylor and Samuel Middlebrook, The Eagle Screams, New York: Macauley, 1936, p. 171.

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

Nations—their leaders and citizens—can and should understand the factors that are integral to their country’s prosperity or demise.  Historical observation can give some insight as to the identity of these crucial factors.

Many political seers have endeavored to define which factors interplayed and finessed could determine national success, but have done so armed only with a humanistic foundation.

This treatise will seek to go one step further in the identification and application of these societal factors by adding Christian thought as disseminated from the canon of the Biblical Scriptures.

Such a premise as this goes beyond simply promoting the Judeo-Christian ethic or reeducating naysayers about a God-centered worldview.  But, in fact, is written precisely because the practical use of these definable factors is a useful tool to any culture, group, and societal leader—Christian or not. 

It is with an assurance that nations and their peoples can change for the better, that a systematic handbook of national principles applicable to any society or subset of population should be written and read.  Considering the state the world is in today with a great number of national failures at hand, it is time to offer another voice countering the narrow models afforded to emerging political leaders and decision makers from overconfident humanistic agencies such as the United Nations or European Union.  These impotent bodies are made up of well-meaning but misled individuals, diplomats, and bureaucrats, who press forward with ideologies learned from decades of robust globalist dogma and evangelism.  Entities such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Economist, and Carnegie Endowment, continue to lead nations astray by skewing the definitions of these critical factors and wrongly coaching their applications.  Their publications and platforms are certainly missing any Biblical perspective.

The consequences of ignorance in this matter of maintaining healthy nations will inevitably lead to regional aristocracies and a global dictatorship.  The good news is that these national factors well-learned and committed to, can and will bring about positive change.  Like gravity, these cultural phenomenon are a force for good when rightly applied.  One wonders if when presidents and kings pray for wisdom, God has not already granted it to them in the precepts of the Bible.  Its pages claim to hold the unique answers to the soul’s salvation.  Could it herald the provisions for national salvation as well?  A resounding yes is this author’s proposition. 

It is these twelve universal factors and their applications highlighted and defined from history, reason, and Scripture, that make up the “Design and Destiny of Nations.”

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

A man named Demas once left his chosen path of Christian service because he “loved this present world.”  The minefield of choices lying astride of God’s prescribed path was a danger two millennia ago and prompted Paul of Tarsus to warn young Timotheus that, in the last days, men would be “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.” (II Timothy 3:4).  These last days are certainly more perilous than ever and the proliferation of pleasures have compounded the difficulty to pursue right paths an hundred fold.

Roots and Fruits

We Americans have received the fruits of a Biblical culture including prosperity and consumer freedoms.  However, we have exported these cultural blessings without exporting with equal vigor their foundational premises.  The world, in turn, and in a great degree sees us as a devouring demon of all that men can produce.  They imagine a greedy never-satisfied dragon whose insatiable appetite will destroy all that is decent and good.  Can we blame them?  Are we proud of such a self-centered and incongruous reputation?  Is this ill repute also being passed off by other competing ideologies as the fruits of Christianity?  We must do more to defend and promote the roots of our Biblical ideology.

Love Not the World

Bible advocates must heed what we read and practice the principles that we preach.  It does us no service to play into Madison Avenue’s marketing schemes and become consumed with houses, cars, techno-gadgets, and passing fashions.  Do we need hair plugs, teeth whiteners, and imported shoes in order to set ourselves apart as lovers of God or are we copying worldly errors?  As adamantly as we proclaim a right to life and the institution of marriage we must herald the principles of self-restraint, holy living, and decrying evil. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

The Bible’s Focus

A final and ultimate objective of a culture whose core is from Biblical thought and conscience should be to champion truth, speak only faith filled-reason, and unashamedly herald the Gospel of Jesus Christ (John 14:6,Acts 3:26,Romans 1:16).  It is no crime to love God or to carry that love into every aspect of life and society.  It is both possible and practical to be a courier of the love of God into the courtroom and the classroom; the boardroom and the battlefield; the legislative forum and the lights of Broadway (II Corinthians 2:14-17).  Jesus gave the greatest commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” (Matthew 22:37).

Comparative Statistics:

In 2004, Americans gave 65.5 billion to churches and other charitable organizations.1

 

In comparison, in 2005 the average American spent 589 billion on entertainment and food away from home. It is estimated that Americans will spend over $40 billion on their pets in 2007, and by 2010 over $60 billion will be spent on weight-loss programs.2

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics the average American in 2006 spent 12 minutes a week involved in religious and spiritual activities.

In comparison during the same year Americans spent 8.5 hours each week involved in leisure and sport activities. 3

 

 

 

 

 

1Data from www.generousgiving.org, Statistics & Trends: Spending Priorities.

2Consumer Expenditures in 2005, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics Report 998.

3Data from www.bls.gov