USH
American Religious Tradition
Mayflower Compact
The Pilgrims
IN THE name of God, Amen.
We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King
James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the
faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian
faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern
parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and
one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our
better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue
hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts,
constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and
convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission
and obedience.
In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of
November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France,
and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620.
A Model of Christian Charity
John Winthrop
GOD ALMIGHTY in His most holy and wise providence, hath so disposed of the condition
of mankind, as in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in
power and dignity; others mean and in submission.
3rd Reason. Thirdly, that every man might have need of others, and from hence they
might be all knit more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection. From hence it
appears plainly that no man is made more honorable than another or more wealthy etc.,
out of any particular and singular respect to himself, but for the glory of his Creator and
the common good of the creature, man…
This law of the Gospel propounds likewise a difference of seasons and occasions. There is
a time when a Christian must sell all and give to the poor, as they did in the Apostles’
times. There is a time also when Christians (though they give not all yet) must give beyond
their ability, as they of Macedonia (2 Cor. 8). Likewise, community of perils calls for
extraordinary liberality, and so doth community in some special service for the church…
Lastly, when there is no other means whereby our Christian brother may be relieved in his
distress, we must help him beyond our ability rather than tempt God in putting him upon
help by miraculous or extraordinary means. This duty of mercy is exercised in the kinds:
giving, lending and forgiving (of a debt)...
First of all, true Christians are of one body in Christ (1 Cor. 12). Ye are the body of Christ
and members of their part. All the parts of this body being thus united are made so
contiguous in a special relation as they must needs partake of each other's strength and
2
infirmity; joy and sorrow, weal and woe. If one member suffers, all suffer with it, if one be
in honor, all rejoice with it…
"Beloved, there is now set before us life and death, good and evil," in that we are
commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another, to walk in his
ways and to keep his Commandments and his ordinance and his laws, and the articles of
our Covenant with Him, that we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God
may bless us in the land whither we go to possess it. But if our hearts shall turn away, so
that we will not obey, but shall be seduced, and worship other Gods, our pleasure and
profits, and serve them; it is propounded unto us this day, we shall surely perish out of
the good land whither we pass over this vast sea to possess it.
Therefore let us choose life,
that we and our seed may live,
by obeying His voice and cleaving to Him,
for He is our life and our prosperity.
Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639)
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/fo_1639.htm
For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine
providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of
Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the
River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a
people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and
union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established
according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as
occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public
State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be
adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together,
to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we
now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the
said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and
governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered,
and decreed as followeth…
The New England Primer
http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/neprimer.html
The New England Primer was a textbook used by students in New England and in other
English settlements in North America. It was first printed in Boston in 1690 by Benjamin
Harris who had published a similar volume in London. It was used by students into the
19th century. Over five million copies of the book were sold.
3
In the 1700's schools in the colonies were strongly influenced by religion. It was the intent
of the colonists that all children should learn to read and in 1642 Puritan Massachusetts
passed a law stating this. They believed that an inability to read was Satan's attempt to
keep people from the Scriptures.
The New England Primer followed a tradition of combining the study of the alphabet with
Bible reading. It introduced each alphabet letter in a religious phrase and then illustrated
the phrase with a woodcut. The primer also contained a catechism of religious questions
and answers. Emphasis was placed on fear of sin, God's punishment and the fact that all
people would have to face death.
A Lesson for Children.
Pray to God. Call no ill names. Love God. Use no ill words. Fear God. Tell no lies. Serve
God. Hate Lies. Take not God's Speak the Truth. Name in vain. Spend your Time well. Do
not Swear. Love your School. Do not Steal. Mind your Book. Cheat not in your play. Strive
to learn. Play not with bad boys. Be not a Dunce.
4
A
In ADAM'S Fall
We sinned all.
B
Heaven to find;
The Bible Mind.
C
Christ crucify'd
For sinners dy'd.
D
The Deluge drown'd
The Earth around.
E
ELIJAH hid
By Ravens fed.
F
The judgment made
FELIX afraid.
G
As runs the Glass,
Our Life doth pass.
H
My Book and Heart
Must never part.
J
JOB feels the Rod,-Yet blesses GOD.
K
Proud Korah's troop
Was swallowed up
L
LOT fled to Zoar,
Saw fiery Shower
On Sodom pour.
M
MOSES was he
Who Israel's Host
Led thro' the Sea
N
NOAH did view
The old world & new.
O
Young OBADIAS,
DAVID, JOSIAS,
All were pious.
P
PETER deny'd
His Lord and cry'd.
Q
Queen ESTHER sues
And saves the Jews.
R
Young pious RUTH,
Left all for Truth.
S
Young SAM'L dear,
The Lord did fear.
T
Young TIMOTHY
Learnt sin to fly.
V
VASHTI for Pride
Was set aside.
W
Whales in the Sea,
GOD's Voice obey.
X
XERXES did die,
And so must I.
Y
While youth do chear
Death may be near.
Z
ZACCHEUS he
Did climb the Tree
Our Lord to see.
Who was the first man ?
Who was the first woman ?
Who was the first Murderer ?
Who was the first Martyr ?
Who was the first Translated ?
Who was the oldest Man ?
Who built the Ark ?
Who was the Patientest Man ?
Who was the Meekest Man ?
Who led Israel into Canaan ?
Who was the strongest Man ?
Who killed Goliah ?
Who was the wisest Man ?
Who was in the Whale's Belly?
Who saves lost Men ?
Who is Jesus Christ ?
Eve.
Cain.
Abel.
Enoch.
Methuselah.
Noah.
Job.
Moses.
Joshua.
Sampson.
David.
Soloman.
Jonah.
Jesus Christ.
The Son of God.
Who was the Mother of Christ ?
Mary.
Who betrayed his Master ?
Judas.
Who denied his Master ?
Peter.
Who was the first Christian Martyr?
Who was chief Apostle of the Gentiles ?
5
Adam.
Stephen.
Saul.
The Declaration of Independence
Thomas Jefferson
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the
powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right
of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 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, it 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; and such is now the
necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history
of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all
having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To
prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Various Quotes from the Founding Fathers
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm
"I believe in one God, Creator of the universe.... That the most acceptable service we can
render Him is doing good to His other children.... As to Jesus ... I have ... some doubts as to
his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and
think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of
knowing the truth with less trouble."
"When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support
itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for
help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-Benjamin Franklin
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and
torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible
is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word
of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by
the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that
6
I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I
disbelieve them all."
"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all
conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do
therewith."
-Thomas Paine
Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his
own conscience."
-George Washington
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not
advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make
one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all
over the earth."
-Thomas Jefferson
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial.
What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy,
ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor
shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience
be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''
-James Madison
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not
by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall
not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations."
"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be
directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are
equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience."
-Patrick Henry
Federalist No. 2
Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
John Jay
Independent Journal
Wednesday, October 31, 1787
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa02.htm
…It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed
of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country
was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner
blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable
streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable
waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most
noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways
7
for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange
of their various commodities.
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give
this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same
ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the
same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by
their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody
war, have nobly established general liberty and independence…
First Inaugural Address of George Washington
George Washington
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres13.html
…Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons,
repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official
act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who
presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human
defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people
of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes,
and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success
the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every
public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my
own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to
acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than
those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an
independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential
agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united
government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct
communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by
which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude,
along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.
These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on
my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none
under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more
auspiciously commence…
Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury (CT) Church
Thomas Jefferson
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the
Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as
to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest
satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my
8
constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the
discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his
god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate
powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign
reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress
thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute
their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion
presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but
subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each
respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of
the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those
sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural
right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common
Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association,
assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction - his conviction was
that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business
getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of
the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and for his criticism of such biblical truths
as the Great Flood and the theological age of the Earth. As president, he discontinued the
practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming
days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church
and state.
Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a
letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here.
The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that
in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but
as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not
address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only of
establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation
between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that
we use today: "Separation of church and state."
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a
couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still
conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do
anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.
Second Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln
http://www.christianitytoday.com/holidays/memorial/features/33h010.html
"Neither [side] anticipated that the cause of the conflict [i.e., slavery] might cease with, or
even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a
result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same
God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should
dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's
faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be
answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.
'Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but
woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!' If we shall suppose that American Slavery
is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which,
9
having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives
to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offence
came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the
believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope—fervently do we
pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it
continue, until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of
unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be
paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it
must be said, 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.' "
Psalm 19:9 (King James Version) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2019:9;&version=9;
9The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and
righteous altogether.
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
370 U.S. 421
United States Supreme Court
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421
Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law
"respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the
Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and
require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school
day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may
remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park,
New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District's
principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a
teacher at the beginning of each school day:
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy
blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."
This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents,
a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York
Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and [370 U.S. 421, 423] legislative
powers over the State's public school system. 1 These state officials composed the prayer
which they recommended and published as a part of their "Statement on Moral and
Spiritual Training in the Schools," saying: "We believe that this Statement will be
subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in
giving life to our program."
We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents'
prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the
Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily
classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious
activity. It is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessings of the
Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been [370 U.S. 421, 425] religious, none
of the respondents has denied this and the trial court expressly so found:
10
"The religious nature of prayer was recognized by Jefferson and has been
concurred in by theological writers, the United States Supreme Court and State
courts and administrative officials, including New York's Commissioner of
Education. A committee of the New York Legislature has agreed.
The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting
use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause
because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental
program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of
the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of
separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that
the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at
least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose
official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious
program carried on by government.
It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed
prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early
colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting.
A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may
join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day, acknowledging their dependence
upon God and asking His blessing upon them [370 U.S. 421, 445] and upon their parents,
their teachers, and their country. The Court today decides that in permitting this brief
nondenominational prayer the school board has violated the Constitution of the United
States. I think this decision is wrong.
The Court does not hold, nor could it, that New York has interfered with the free exercise
of anybody's religion. For the state courts have made clear that those who object to
reciting the prayer must be entirely free of any compulsion to do so, including any
"embarrassments and pressures." Cf. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624 . But the Court says that in permitting school children to say this simple
prayer, the New York authorities have established "an official religion."
With all respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot
see how an "official religion" is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say
it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting
this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our
Nation.
The Court's historical review of the quarrels over the Book of Common Prayer in England
throws no light for me on the issue before us in this case. England had then and has now
an established church. Equally unenlightening, I think, is the history of the early
establishment and later rejection of an official church in our own States. For we deal here
not with the establishment of a state church, which would, of course, be constitutionally
impermissible, but with whether school children who want to begin their day by joining in
prayer must be prohibited from doing so. Moreover, I think that the Court's task, in this as
in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical
invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to [370 U.S. 421,
446] be found in the Constitution. What is relevant to the issue here is not the history of
an established church in sixteenth century England or in eighteenth century America, but
the history of the religious traditions of our people, reflected in countless practices of the
institutions and officials of our government.
At the opening of each day's Session of this Court we stand, while one of our officials
invokes the protection of God. Since the days of John Marshall our Crier has said, "God
save the United States and this Honorable Court." 1 Both the Senate and the House of
Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer. 2 Each of our Presidents, from
11
George Washington to John F. Kennedy, has upon assuming his Office asked the
protection and help of God. 3 [370 U.S. 421, 447]
The Court today says that the state and federal governments are without constitutional
power to prescribe any particular form of words to be recited by any group of the
American people on any subject touching religion. 4 One of the stanzas of "The StarSpangled Banner," made our National Anthem by Act of Congress in 1931, 5 contains
these verses:
"Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto `In God
is our Trust.'"
In 1954 Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag so that it now
contains the words "one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 6 In
1952 Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to proclaim a
National Day of Prayer. 7 Since 1865 the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" have been impressed
on our coins. 8 [370 U.S. 421, 450]
Countless similar examples could be listed, but there is no need to belabor the obvious. 9
It was all summed up by this Court just ten years ago in a single sentence: "We are a
religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Zorach v. Clauson, 343
U.S. 306, 313 .
I do not believe that this Court, or the Congress, or the President has by the actions and
practices I have mentioned established an "official religion" in violation of the
Constitution. And I do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case. What
each has done has been to recognize and to follow the deeply entrenched and highly
cherished spiritual traditions of our Nation - traditions which come down to us from those
who almost two hundred years ago avowed their "firm Reliance on the Protection of
divine Providence" when they proclaimed the freedom and independence of this brave
new world. 10
I dissent.
Adland v. Russ (1962)
ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2002 FED App. 0354P (6th Cir.)
File Name: 02a0354p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=02a0354p
The Resolution contains two primary substantive provisions - Section 2, which authorizes a
public school teacher to post the Ten Commandments in a classroom when incorporated
into a historical display, and Section 8, which directs the Department for Facilities
Management to "relocate the monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments which
was displayed on the Capitol grounds for nearly three decades to a permanent site on the
Capitol grounds near Kentucky's floral clock to be made part of a historical and cultural
display including the display of this order to remind Kentuckians of the Biblical
foundations of the laws of the Commonwealth…
In a careful and thoughtful opinion, the district court declared Section 8 of Kentucky
Senate Joint Resolution Number 57 unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment and permanently enjoined the defendant from complying with
Section 8. We AFFIRM…
12
The Ten Commandments monument was presented to the Commonwealth by the
Fraternal Order of Eagles, a national service organization dedicated to promoting liberty,
truth and justice, in 1971. In offering to donate the monument to the Commonwealth,
the Eagles explained in a March 14, 1971, letter that:
Most of today's younger generation either have not seen the Ten
Commandments or have not been taught them. In our opinion the youth of
today is in dire need of learning the simple laws of God if we are to attain love
and charity necessary to create peace among the peoples of all nations.
The Resolution contains a preamble consisting of seventeen "Whereas" clauses that recite
the Senate's purpose in enacting this Resolution. Ten of the clauses quote famous
Americans - Samuel Adams, Fisher Ames, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, John
Quincy Adams, Abigail Adams, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter - professing their
beliefs in the Bible, God, or Christianity. For example, the Resolution quotes Andrew
Jackson's May 29, 1845, statement:
My lamp of life is nearly out, and the last glimmer has come. I am ready to depart when
called. The Bible is true. The principles and statutes of that Holy Book have been the rule
of my life, and I have tried to conform to its spirit as nearly as possible. Upon that sacred
volume I rest my hope for eternal salvation, through the merits and blood of our blessed
Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Similarly, the Resolution quotes George Washington's September 19, 1796, declaration:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality
are indispensable supports." The Resolution also quotes Woodrow Wilson's statement:
The Bible is the word of life. I beg that you will read it and find this out for yourselves . . .
.You will find it full of real men and women not only, but also of things you have
wondered about and had been troubled about all your life, as men have been always; and
the more you read, the more it will become plain to you what things are worthwhile and
what are not, what things make men happy - loyalty, right dealings, speaking the truth,
readiness to give everything for what they think their duty, and most of all, the wish that
they may have the real approval of the Christ, who gave everything for them . . . .When
you have read the Bible, you will know it is the Word of God, because you will have found
it the key to your own heart, your own happiness, and your own duty.
In addition, the Resolution also employs quotes from a 1892 United States Supreme
Court decision which, viewed in isolation, conclude that the Supreme Court has declared
the United States to be a "Christian nation." Four other clauses incorporate miscellaneous
quotations regarding God or the Bible in pre-Revolutionary legislative sources or in
Kentucky law. One of the clauses also references the presence of the Ten Commandments
in the United States Supreme Court chambers as part of a frieze containing several
historical law givers.
… In Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Public Schools, 33 F.3d 679, 681 (6th Cir. 1994), we held
that a high school graduate had standing to challenge his high school alma mater's display
of a portrait of Jesus Christ because he continued to visit the school and encounter the
portrait. We noted that "[t]he use of governmental authority to encourage a sectarian
religious view is a sufficient injury if directed toward the plaintiff." Id. at 682; see also
Suhre v. Haywood County, 131 F.3d 1083, 1088 (4th Cir. 1997) ("The cognizable injury
caused by personal contact with a public religious display may thus satisfy the injury-infact requirement for standing to bring an Establishment Clause case."); Murray v. City of
Austin, 947 F.2d 147, 151 (5th Cir. 1991) (ruling that plaintiff had standing to challenge
City's inclusion of a cross in municipal logo); Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687,
691-93 (11th Cir. 1987) (holding that plaintiffs had standing because plaintiffs were
directly confronted by presence of word "Christianity" on the city seal.) An Establishment
13
Clause plaintiff need not allege that he or she avoids, or will avoid, the area containing the
challenged display. As the Fourth Circuit noted:
Compelling plaintiffs to avoid public schools or buildings is to impose on them a burden
that no citizen should have to shoulder. A public school or county courthouse exists to
serve all citizens of a community, whatever their faith may be. Rules of standing that
require plaintiffs to avoid public places would make religious minorities into outcasts.
Forcing an Establishment Clause plaintiff to avoid the display of which he complains in
order to gain standing to challenge it only imposes an extra penalty on individuals already
alleged to be suffering a violation of their constitutional rights.
Suhre, 131 F.3d at 1088.
The complaint, which the individual plaintiffs each verified, indicates that Rabbi Adland,
Reverend Bos, Reverend Greenlee, Reverend Schroerlucke and Executive Director Vessels
frequently travel to the State Capitol to engage in political advocacy for a variety of
organizations and that they will endure direct and unwelcome contact with the Ten
Commandments monument. In light of Washegesic, we conclude that the plaintiffs satisfy
the injury-in-fact requirement. We also find that the this injury is plainly caused by the
defendant's statutory directive to erect the Ten Commandments and that an injunction
can redress plaintiffs' injury. Thus, we are satisfied that the individual plaintiffs had
standing to pursue this action in the district court.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to states through the
Fourteenth Amendment, see Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 8, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed.
711 (1947), provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment of
religion." U.S. Const., Amend. I. "The Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits
government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious beliefs or from
'making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political
community.'" County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573, 594, 109
S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct.
1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984)).
Under the Lemon test, we consider whether (1) the government activity in question has a
secular purpose, (2) whether the activity's primary effect advances or inhibits religion, and
(3) whether the government activity fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.
Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612. Although this remains the original formulation, we have
recognized that in recent years, the Supreme Court has applied what is known as the
"endorsement" test, which looks to whether a reasonable observer would believe that a
particular action constitutes an endorsement of religion by the government.
Concurrence
SARGUS, District Judge. I concur in the opinion of Chief Judge Martin. I write separately to
note that our decision is compelled by the Supreme Court's decision in Stone v. Graham,
449 U.S. 39, 101 S. Ct. 192, 66 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1980) (per curiam) which found
unconstitutional a Kentucky statute requiring the placement of the Ten Commandments
in all public school classrooms. Further,
[T]he Ten Commandments are not in peril. They may be displayed in every church,
synagogue, temple, mosque, home and storefront. They may be displayed on lawns and in
corporate board rooms. Where this precious gift cannot, and should not, be displayed as a
religious text is on government property.
Harvey v. Cobb County, Ga., 811 F. Supp. 669, 670 (N.D. Ga. 1993) (emphasis added), aff'd
15 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1129 (1994).
Finally, as the majority opinion makes clear, the Ten Commandments, which played a
most significant role in the development of positive law and western civilization, may be
14
displayed on public property in the context of their historical significance. Our
Constitution does not permit, however, a state to select or favor one religious creed over
another.
Dissent
The Supreme Court used similar reasoning in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 668, where the
Court upheld a town's Christmas display consisting of a creche scene and a large variety of
both religious and nonreligious items. Id. at 671. Finding an "unbroken history of official
acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American
life," the Court reviewed the country's history of governmental recognition of, and in fact,
subsidizing of holidays having a religious significance, as well as the governmental
acknowledgment of the country's religious heritage. Id. at 674-77…
Third, the plaintiffs have not shown that they would suffer any hardship now if relief is
denied. They would not suffer any immediate economic harm, Abbot Labs., 387 U.S. at
152-53, nor would they suffer risk of prosecution by the state, Babbitt v. United Farm
Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298-99 (1979), nor would their constitutional speech or
conduct be chilled, Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass'n, 484 U.S. 383, 393 (1988).
Supreme Court bars student led prayer at football games
Raju Chebium
CNN Interactive Correspondent
June 19, 2000
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/scotus.schoolprayer.01/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that prayer does not
belong in public schools, even if students initiate and lead the prayers.
The court ruled 6-3 in a Texas case that public schools cannot allow student-led prayer
before high school football games, a decision that reinforces the wall between church and
state erected by the First Amendment.
The ruling came in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, a case involving the
Sante Fe Independent School District in Galveston, Texas, which allowed student-initiated
and student-led prayer to be broadcast over the public address system before high school
football games.
The central question was whether allowing prayer violates the First Amendment's
establishment clause, which states that Congress "shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion."
"We recognize the important role that public worship plays in many communities, as well
as the sincere desire to include public prayer as a part of various occasions so as to mark
those occasions' significance," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
"But such religious activity in public schools, as elsewhere, must comport with the First
Amendment," he added.
The school district policy
Two students and their mothers filed suit in 1995 and were joined by the American Civil
Liberties Union. The students, one Mormon and one Catholic, and their mothers were not
named in court papers.
15
The 4,000-student southern Texas school district, until 1995, had a policy in which
students elected student council chaplains to deliver prayers over the public address
system before the start of high school football games.
While the lower courts were considering the legal challenge, the school district adopted a
new policy under which student-led prayer was permitted but not mandated. Students
were asked to vote on whether to allow prayer and to vote again to select the person to
deliver them.
A lower court retooled that policy to allow only non-sectarian, non-proselytizing prayer.
An appeals court found the modified policy constitutionally invalid. The nation's highest
court agreed with the appeals court Monday.
Details of the majority ruling
The high court rejected the argument that the pre-football prayer was an example of
"private speech" because the students, not school officials, decided the prayer matter.
But Stevens wrote that the students were able to deliver only religious messages deemed
"appropriate" by the school district. That meant, he wrote, "that minority candidates will
never prevail and that their views will be effectively silenced.
"Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as
purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer
has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious
worship," he wrote.
The other justices in the majority were Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David
Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
The dissent
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing a strongly-worded dissenting opinion, accused the
majority of "distorting existing precedent" to rule that the policy violated the First
Amendment, which gives the freedom of speech.
"But even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the Court's opinion; it bristles
with hostility to all things religious in public life. Neither the holding nor the tone of the
opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause," Rehnquist wrote, noting
that the nation's first president, George Washington, himself had called for a day of
"public thanksgiving and prayer."
Rehnquist also pointed out that the Santa Fe policy allowed students to discuss purely
secular topics, not just prayer, though he acknowledged prayer would be the topic of
choice nine times out of 10. He said the choice of topics and speakers was to be made by
the students, not the school.
"The students may have chosen a speaker according to wholly secular criteria -- like good
public speaking skills or social popularity -- and the student speaker may have chosen, on
her own accord, to deliver a religious message. Such an application of the policy would
likely pass constitutional muster," he wrote.
Joining him in the dissent were justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs and the school district were not immediately available for
comment on the decision.
Previous prayer cases
16
The current Supreme Court has been steadfast in its objection to large prayer
ceremonies in government-funded schools.
In the 1992 Lee v. Weisman case, the court said no to a rabbi's prayer at a public middle
school.
The next year, the Supreme Court refused to hear the Jones v. Clear Creek Independent
School District case, in which the lower court allowed "non-sectarian, non-proselytizing,
student-initiated, student-led" prayers at graduation ceremonies.
The Santa Fe case was filed to challenge both the Supreme Court's decision to reject the
Jones case and to void the Santa Fe district's policy.
In 1963, the Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools.
The case is Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe.
Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State
R. P. Nettelhorst
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
Introduction
Many well-meaning Christians argue that the United States was founded by Christian
men on Christian principles. Although well-intentioned, such sentiment is unfounded. The
men who lead the United States in its revolution against England, who wrote the
Declaration of Independence and put together the Constitution were not Christians by any
stretch of the imagination.
Why do some Christians imagine these men are Christians? Besides a desperate
desire that it should be so, in a selective examination of their writings, one can discover
positive statements about God and/or Christianity. However, merely believing in God does
not make a person a Christian. The Bible says that "the fool says in his heart, there is no
God." Our founding fathers were not fools. But the Bible also says "You say you believe in
God. Good. The demons also believe and tremble."
Merely believing in God is insufficient evidence for demonstrating either Christian
principles or that a person is a Christian.
Perhaps, to start, it might be beneficial to remind ourselves of what a Christian might
be: it is a person who has acknowledged his or her sinfulness, responded in faith to the
person of Jesus Christ as the only one who can redeem him, and by so doing been given
the Holy Spirit.
The early church summarized the Christian message in six points:
1. Jesus came from God.
2. You killed him.
3. He rose again on the third day.
4. He sent the Holy Spirit
5. Repent and be baptized.
6. He's coming back.
An individual who would not acknowledge this much of the Christian message could
not, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a Christian. The founding fathers of this
country did not acknowledge this message. In fact, they denied it.
Founders of the American Revolution
Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the gospels; he was uncomfortable with
any reference to miracles, so with two copies of the New Testament, he cut and pasted
them together, excising all references to miracles, from turning water to wine, to the
resurrection.
There has certainly never been a shortage of boldness in the history of biblical
17
scholarship during the past two centuries, but for sheer audacity Thomas Jefferson's two
redactions of the Gospels stand out even in that company. It is still a bit overwhelming to
contemplate the sangfroid exhibited by the third president of the United States as, razor
in hand, he sat editing the Gospels during February 1804, on (as he himself says) "2. or 3.
nights only at Washington, after getting thro' the evening task of reading the letters and
papers of the day." He was apparently quite sure that he could tell what was genuine and
what was not in the transmitted text of the New Testament...(Thomas Jefferson. The
Jefferson Bible; Jefferson and his Contemporaries, an afterward by Jaroslav Pelikan,
Boston: Beacon Press, 1989, p. 149. Click to go to a copy of The Jefferson Bible).
In his Notes on Virginia, Jefferson wrote:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to
others. But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It
neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. (Dumas Malon, Jefferson The President: First
Term 1801-1805. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191)
Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestoes encouraged the faltering spirits
of the country and aided materially in winning the War of Independence. But he was a
Deist:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church,
by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church
that I know of. My own mind is my own church. (Richard Emery Roberts, ed. "Excerpts
from The Age of Reason". Selected Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: Everbody's
Vacation Publishing Co., 1945, p. 362)
Regarding the New Testament, he wrote that:
I hold [it] to be fabulous and have shown [it] to be false...(Roberts, p. 375)
About the afterlife, he wrote:
I do not believe because a man and a woman make a child that it imposes on the
Creator the unavoidable obligation of keeping the being so made in eternal existance
hereafter. It is in His power to do so, or not to do so, and it is not in my power to decide
which He will do. (Roberts, p. 375)
John Adams, the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and
became a Unitarian. It was during Adams' presidency that the Senate ratified the Treaty of
Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI that:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the
Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or
tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act
of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext
arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing
between the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International
Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab
Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072).
This treaty with the Islamic state of Tripoli had been written and concluded by Joel
Barlow during Washington's Administration. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on June 7,
1797; President Adams signed it on June 10, 1797 and it was first published in the Session
Laws of the Fifth Congress, first session in 1797. Quite clearly, then, at this very early stage
of the American Republic, the U.S. government did not consider the United States a
Christian nation.
Benjamin Franklin, the delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional
Convention. He has frequently been used as a source for positive "God" talk. It is often
noted that Franklin made a motion at the Constitutional convention that they should bring
in a clergyman to pray for their deliberations:
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth,
and scarce able to distinguish it when present to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we
have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate
our understandings?....I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more
convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. (Catherine
Drinker Bowen. Miracle at Phaladelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May
to September 1787. New York: Book-of-the-Month Club, 1966, pp. 125-126)
It is rarely noted that Franklin presented his motion after "four or five weeks" of
deliberation, during which they had never once opened in prayer. More significantly, it is
never mentioned that Franklin's motion was voted down! Fine Christians, these founding
fathers. Furthermore, the context is usually ignored, too. He made the motion during an
especially trying week of serious disagreement, when the convention was in danger of
18
breaking up. Cathrine Drinker Bowen comments:
Yet whether the Doctor had spoken from policy or from faith, his suggestion had been
salutary, calling an assembly of doubting minds to a realization that destiny herself sat as
guest and witness in this room. Franklin had made solemn reminder that a republic of
thirteen united states - venture novel and daring - could not be achieved without mutual
sacrifice and a summoning up of men's best, most difficult and most creative efforts.
(Bowen, p. 127)
About March 1, 1790, he wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of
Yale, who had asked him his views on religion. His answer would indicate that he
remained a Deist, not a Christian, to the end:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the
System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is
likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with
most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a
question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy
myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less
Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)
He died just over a month later on April 17.
Deism
Certainly it is generally the case that these people believed in God, but it was not the
God of Christianity. Deism began in the eighteenth century and was very popular in
America. According to the dictionary, it was "a system of thought advocating natural
religion based on human reason rather than revelation." Jefferson wrote that the religious
doctrines of Jesus that he accepted, and which he regarded as consistent with his deistic
perspective were three:
1. that there is one God, and he all-perfect:
2. that there is a future state of rewards and punishments
3. that to love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.
Why do Christians want the founding fathers to be Christians?
Is it because they wish the best for these people?
Hardly.
It is because they hope that by demonstrating they were Christians, they can justify
their political agenda. Rather than wanting something new (the injection of Christianity
into government) they seek to restore something they imagine has been lost.
Reality: nothing has been lost. It wasn't there to start with. Therefore the whole
concept of "taking back America" is a lie. America was never Christian.
Margaret Sanger
Her crusade to legalize birth control spurred the movement for women’s liberation
Gloria Steinem
http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/sanger.html
…It was this injustice that inspired Sanger to defy church and state. In a series of articles
called "What Every Girl Should Know," then in her own newspaper The Woman Rebel and
finally through neighborhood clinics that dispensed woman-controlled forms of birth
control (a phrase she coined), Sanger put information and power into the hands of
women.
While in Europe for a year to avoid severe criminal penalties, partly due to her political
radicalism, partly for violating postal obscenity laws, she learned more about
contraception, the politics of sexuality and the commonality of women's experience. Her
case was dismissed after her return to the States. Sanger continued to push legal and
social boundaries by initiating sex counseling, founding the American Birth Control League
(which became, in 1942, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America) and organizing
the first international population conference. Eventually her work would extend as far as
19
Japan and India, where organizations she helped start still flourish.
Sanger was past 80 when she saw the first marketing of a contraceptive pill, which she
had helped develop. But legal change was slow. It took until 1965, a year before her
death, for the Supreme Court to strike down a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of
contraception, even by married couples. Extended to unmarried couples only in 1972, this
constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy would become as important to women's
equality as the vote. In 1973 the right to privacy was extended to the abortion decision of
a woman and her physician, thus making abortion a safe and legal alternative — unlike
the $5 illegal butcheries of Sanger's day.
One can imagine Sanger's response to the current anti-choice lobby and congressional
leadership that opposes abortion, sex education in schools, and federally funded
contraceptive programs that would make abortion less necessary; that supports
ownership of young women's bodies through parental-consent laws; that limits poor
women's choices by denying Medicaid funding; and that holds hostage the entire U.S.
billion-dollar debt to the United Nations in the hope of attaching an antiabortion rider. As
in her day, the question seems to be less about what gets decided than who has the
power to make the decision.
One can also imagine her response to pro-life rhetoric being used to justify an average of
one clinic bombing or arson per month — sometimes the same clinics Sanger helped
found — and the murder of six clinic staff members, the attempted murder of 15 others,
and assault and battery against 104 more. In each case, the justification is that potential
fetal life is more important than a living woman's health or freedom.
David Souter’s Departure
Phyllis Schlafly
http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2009/05/05/david_souters_departure
On his 100th day in office, President Barack Obama started campaigning for re-election in
2012. He went to a small town in Missouri, a red state he didn't carry last year, and
boasted that "we've begun the work of remaking America."
Indeed, he has begun to do exactly that with trillions of dollars turned over to the
executive branch of government by the legislative branch. A few days later, the
announced resignation of Supreme Court Justice David Souter gave Obama the additional
power to use the judicial branch to remake America into Obama-nation.
When asked what sort of a justice he will be looking for to fill Souter's seat, Obama replied
that his major criteria will be the candidate's "empathy" for the poor, the gays and other
minorities. This embellished Obama's previously proclaimed view of the judiciary's
mission: to engage in socio-economic redistribution rather than to enforce the U.S.
Constitution as written.
Obama revealed his long-term goals for the judiciary in a radio interview on Chicago's
WBEZ-FM in 2001, when he complained that the very activist Earl Warren court had
limited itself to changing some of our laws but had failed to order "redistributive change"
of our economic system by breaking "free from the essential constraints that were placed
by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." Students of the judiciary know that it was
the Earl Warren court that started the long lines of activist decisions in many areas,
including religion, elections, property rights, immigration and criminal law.
David Souter, who was President George H.W. Bush's mistake, flipped from presumed
conservative to liberal as soon as the media began ridiculing him for tardiness in
completing opinions. The same month that Souter voted for the only time with
20
conservatives on the abortion issue, in Rust v. Sullivan (1991), Linda Greenhouse of The
New York Times declared, "Lawyers who watch the Court closely have taken to referring
to Justice Souter's chambers as a black hole, from which nothing emerges."
Then, in rapid-fire attack, ABC World News Tonight and even Souter's close-to-home
Boston Globe wrote scathing criticisms of Souter. They were angry that he voted against
abortion, but their criticisms humiliated him for his slow writing abilities.
Souter got the message and rarely voted again with conservatives in high-profile cases.
The liberal media, in gratitude, never criticized him again.
At the oral argument before the Supreme Court in the 2004 Pledge of Allegiance case,
when plaintiff Michael Newdow was trying to get the Court to remove the words "under
God," Souter came up with the novel argument that "under God" doesn't really mean
under God. He suggested that the phrase is so "diluted" that it should be "beneath the
constitutional radar."
Under the radar is exactly where the secularists want to conceal all mention of God and
religion.
Confirmation hearings should ascertain how much Souter's successor will rely on foreign
law. This has become a live issue because of recent remarks by Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg.
For example, does Obama's nominee agree with Souter, who joined in the Roper v.
Simmons (2005) decision, in which the Court cited foreign laws, "international opinion"
and even an unratified treaty to rationalize overturning the death penalty for a 17-yearold who had committed a particularly brutal and premeditated murder? This decision
overturned more than 200 years of U.S. law and history, rewrote the Eighth Amendment
and knocked out the laws of 20 states.
Since Obama calls himself a "citizen of the world," he may agree with incorporating
foreign law into Supreme Court decisions. He chose a committed globalist as his State
Department legal adviser, former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh.
Koh calls himself a transnationalist, which means believing that the "living" Constitution
allows us to import the fiction of what is called international law into U.S. law, thereby
putting the United States under a global legal system. The Senate should require all
judicial nominees to proclaim their adherence to the U.S. Constitution as written reject
the use of any foreign laws.
We would also like to know if Obama's Supreme Court nominee is cut from the same cloth
as his first judicial nomination, David F. Hamilton. He's a former fundraiser for ACORN and
a former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU.
Hamilton made national news in 2005 when, as district judge, he enjoined the speaker of
Indiana's House of Representatives from permitting "sectarian" prayers. In Hamilton's
ruling, using "Christ's name or title" is "sectarian," but it is not sectarian for a Muslim
imam to offer a prayer to "Allah."
The Seventh Circuit overturned Hamilton's peculiar parsing of the liberal dogma of
separation of church and state. However, in seeking to elevate him to the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals, White House officials praised Hamilton as a judge who has shown
"empathy with real people."
21
Ten Arguments for Abortion and Against Abortion
Linda Lowen
http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionArgumen.htm
Pro-Life
1.
Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of
taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea
of the sanctity of human life
2. No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of
another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.
3. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result.
And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such
thing as an unwanted child.
4. An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic
pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory
disease also increases.
5. In the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman
will not get pregnant. Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no
crime; instead, it is the perpetrator who should be punished.
6. Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception.
7. For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include
preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of
contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence.
8. Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally
wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion.
9. Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient
life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong
regrets afterwards.
10. Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress.
Pro-Choice
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
22
Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist
independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord,
its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate
entity as it cannot exist outside her womb.
The concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. Human
life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also
human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder,
and if not, then how is abortion murder?
Adoption is not an alternative to abortion, because it remains the woman's
choice whether or not to give her child up for adoption. Statistics show that very
few women who give birth choose to give up their babies - less than 3% of white
unmarried women and less than 2% of black unmarried women.
Abortion is a safe medical procedure. The vast majority of women - 88% - who
have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions have less than
0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future
ability to become pregnant or give birth.
In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act
would cause further psychological harm to the victim. Often a woman is too
afraid to speak up or is unaware she is pregnant, thus the morning after pill is
ineffective in these situations.
Abortion is not used as a form of contraception. Pregnancy can occur even with
responsible contraceptive use. Only 8% of women who have abortions do not
use any form of birth control, and that is due more to individual carelessness
than to the availability of abortion.
The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take
away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the
government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a
woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?
8. Taxpayer dollars are used to enable poor women to access the same medical
services as rich women, and abortion is one of these services. Funding abortion
is no different from funding a war in the Mideast. For those who are opposed,
the place to express outrage is in the voting booth.
9. Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are
much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on
public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced.
10. Like any other difficult situation, abortion creates stress. Yet the American
Psychological Association found that stress was greatest prior to an abortion,
and that there was no evidence of post-abortion syndrome.
God and Gays
Cathy Lynn Grossman
May 19, 2009
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-05-19-gay-marriage_N.htm
Most mainline Protestant clergy do not support legalizing gay marriage, even if they're not
required to officiate at same-sex ceremonies.
It was the only point on which the majority did not support gay rights, according to a
survey of clergy from the seven historic mainline Protestant denominations to which 18%
of Americans belong.
The Clergy Voices Survey, conducted by Public Religion Research, is based on 2,658
responses from clergy from the United Methodist Church; Evangelical Lutheran Church of
America; Episcopal Church; United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church USA; American
Baptist Church; and the Disciples of Christ.
It asked 60 questions on sexuality and the "the role of (lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender) people in the church and broader society" as well as theological questions on
views on Bible.
It finds overall support for hate crimes legislation (67%), for workplace protections for gay
and lesbian people (66%), and for adoption rights (55%).
Only 33% say gay couples should be allowed to marry, 32% would allow civil unions, and
35% call for "no legal recognition" for same-sex couples.
Support for same-sex marriage grew to 46% if laws specified that clergy would not be
required to perform a religious ceremony in contradiction with their denomination's
teachings.
"We find that on these issues, the clergy views are fairly in line with the laity views," said
Robert Jones, president of Public Religion Research.
Jones said clergy were asked to estimate how their views on gay and lesbian issues had
changed in 10 years: 45% called themselves more liberal now, 40% unchanged, and 14%
more conservative.
23