Ignoring Original Intent by David Barton

Yet, amazingly, most of the contemporary rulings currently proceeding from that Amendment involve neither “Congress” nor the “making of a law.” It is truly remarkable that the Court now considers a rabbi to be the equivalent of “Congress,” and that offering an invocation or benediction is now the equivalent of “making a law.” The free exercise of religion is no longer the inalienable right recognized by our Founding Fathers.

In fact, the First Amendment’s guarantee for the free exercise of religion is now often ruled by the Court as the unconstitutional establishment of religion prohibited by that same Amendment. Therefore, because of the current Court’s absurd interpretation, public free exercise of religion is now an unconstitutional establishment of religion, thus causing the First Amendment to violate itself.

Recall that when school prayer was struck down in Engel, the Court acknowledged that it had failed to cite a single precedent. From that point, the use of precedents by the Court has been haphazard and unpredictable. Quite simply, the Court makes its decisions almost solely on the basis of its own current prejudices rather than with any regard to original intent. In fact, when invoking authority for its decisions, it almost exclusively cites only its own recent case law.

To illustrate this, simply count the post 1947 citations the Court uses in its cases. Why use that year? Recall that it was the 1947 Everson case in which the Court began its radical reconstruction of the intent of the First Amendment, introducing not only its religion-hostile separation rhetoric but also extending its jurisdiction over religious issues into States and local communities rather than just the federal government.

Interestingly, despite the Court’s haphazard use of historical precedents, it can invoke them with purpose if so inclined. For example, when the Court upheld the constitutionality of Congressional Chaplains in Marsh v. Chambers, 1983, it relied heavily upon history and original intent. However, such cases are infrequent.

The Creator and Preserver by David Barton

Let it simply be asked, “Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?” George Washington

When the minds of the people in general are viciously disposed and unprincipled, and their conduct disorderly, a free government will be attended with greater confusions and evils more horrid than the wild, uncultivated state of nature. It can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed and their manners regulated. This is an influence beyond the reach of laws and punishments and can be claimed only by religion and education. Abraham Baldwin, Signer of the Constitution

The first point of justice consists in piety; nothing certainly being so great a debt upon us as to render to the Creator and Preserver those acknowledgments which are due to Him for our being and the hourly protection He affords us. Samuel Adams

All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. Noah Webster

The Court had declared unconstitutional the very embodiment of a system which the Founders had embraced as the basis of civilized society. Justice Rehnquist summarized the illogical position taken by the Court:

The Establishment Clause does not require that the public sector be insulated from all things which may have a religious significance or origin. The words of Justice Jackson, concurring in McCollum v. Board of Education merit quotation at length: “I think it remains to be demonstrated whether it is possible, even if desirable, to comply with such demands as plaintiff’s completely to isolate and cast out of secular education all that some people may reasonably regard as religious instruction . The fact is that, for good or for ill, nearly everything in our culture worth transmitting, everything which gives meaning to life, is saturated with religious influences. One can hardly respect the system of education that would leave the student wholly ignorant of the currents of religious thought that move the world society for a part in which he is being prepared.”

The Constitution and Bill of Rights by David Barton

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.” Aside from the fact that the Court had affronted the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment by striking down a voluntary prayer, in a comment the following year, the Court itself noted another irregularity of its decision:

Finally, in Engel v. Vitale, only last year, these principles were so universally recognized that the Court, without the citation of a single case reaffirmed them. The Court had failed to cite even a single precedent to justify its prohibition of New York’s voluntary prayers a significant departure from a bedrock rule of jurisprudence. Why did it fail to cite precedent cases? There were none which would support its decision. For 170 years following the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, no Court had ever struck down any prayer, in any form, in any location.

While the Court invoked no judicial precedent to sustain its decision, it did employ some strategic psychological rhetoric. Recall the Court’s comment that: these principles were so universally recognized. Lacking precedent, the Court simply alleged a widespread public support; that is, since “everybody” knew school prayer was wrong, the Court needed cite no precedent. However, the so-called “universally recognized” principles were actually foreign to most, and many observers commented on the Court’s new direction. For example, the World Book Encyclopedia 1963 Yearbook observed:

The significance of the 1962 decision regarding this school prayer was enormous, for the whole thorny problem of religion in public education was thus inevitably raised. According to this source, prior to the Engel case, the issue of separating prayer from education had not been “raised.” Legal authorities also noted: The Court has broken new ground in a number of fields. Few Supreme Court decisions of recent years have created greater furor than Engel v. Vitale.

The American Bible Society by David Barton

Jesus Christ has in the clearest manner inculcated those duties which are productive of the highest moral felicity and consistent with all the innocent enjoyments, to which we are impelled by the dictates of nature. Religion, when fairly considered in its genuine simplicity and uncorrupted state, is the source of endless rapture and delight. Zephaniah Swift, Author of America’s First Legal Text

Pray that God would graciously pour out His Spirit upon us and make the blessed Gospel in His hand effectual to a thorough reformation and general revival of the holy and peaceful religion of Jesus Christ. Jonathan Trumbull, Governor of Connecticut

I shall now conclude my discourse by preaching this Savior to all who hear me, and entreating you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for “there is no salvation in any other” Acts 4:12 .

If you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish. John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

There are numerous additional examples, and to apply the term “deist” to this group is a completely erroneous characterization. Further testimony of the strong religious convictions of so many Founding Fathers is evidenced through their leadership roles in establishing and guiding numerous religious societies or through serving in active ministry. Notice these representative examples:

John Quincy Adams: Vice President of the American Bible Society; member of the Massachusetts Bible Society.

Abraham Baldwin Signer of the Constitution: Chaplain in the American Revolution for two years.

Joel Barlow Diplomat under Washington and Adams: Chaplain in the American Revolution for three years.

Joseph Bloomfield Governor of New Jersey: Member of the New Jersey Bible Society.

Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress: Founder and first President of the American Bible Society; President of the New Jersey Bible Society; member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; member of the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

The Nature of Religion by David Barton

The John Adams’ quote is taken from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817, in which Adams illustrated the intolerance often manifested between Christians in their denominational disputes. Adams recounted a conversation between two ministers he had known: Seventy years ago. Lemuel Bryant was my parish priest, and Joseph Cleverly my Latin schoolmaster. Lemuel was a jocular humorous and liberal scholar and divine. Joseph a scholar and a gentleman.

The parson and the pedagogue lived much together, but were eternally disputing about government and religion. One day when the schoolmaster Joseph Cleverly had been more than commonly fanatical and declared “if he were a monarch, he would have but one religion in his dominions;” the parson Lemuel Bryant coolly replied, “Cleverly! You would be the best man in the world if you had no religion.” Lamenting these types of petty disputes, Adams declared to Jefferson:

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!” But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell. In reality, Adams’ position on religion was exactly the opposite of what is put forth by many groups.

Adams believed that it would be “fanatical” to desire a world without religion, for such a world would be “hell.” Jefferson wrote back and declared that he agreed. Amazingly, while the assertion concerning Adams was completely inaccurate, the words attributed to Washington are totally false “The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion”.