A REAL History Lesson - IGNORED & FORGOTTEN

[southerngale]

It's time for a history lesson. We need to remember our roots.


HISTORY IGNORED & FORGOTTEN


This is worth remembering, because it is true. It's familiar territory, but..... Those of you that graduated from school after the early 60's were probably never taught this. Our courts have seen to that!


Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of "The Declaration of Independence" were orthodox, deeply committed, Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention. It is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society, immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of Scripture for the people of this nation.


Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, "Give me liberty or give me death"; but in current textbooks, the context of these words is omitted. Here is what he actually said: "An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."


These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.


Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."


Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the front of his well-worn Bible: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator." He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role.


On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: "It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."


Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States reaffirmed this truth when he wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."


In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."


William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation." Listen to these word of Mr. McGuffey: "The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our nation, on the character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free Institutions. >From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. >From all these extracts from the Bible, I make no apology."


Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first, Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook, rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the Scriptures: "Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies, is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."


James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this: "We have staked the whole future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."


Today, we are asking God to bless America. But, how can He bless a Nation that has departed so far from Him? Prior to September 11, He was not welcome in America. Most of what you read in this article has been erased from our textbooks. Revisionists have rewritten history to remove the truth about our country's Christian roots.


You are encouraged to share with others, so that the truth of our nation's history will be told.


John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life!


This information shared is only a drop of cement to help secure a foundation that is crumbling daily in a losing war that most of the country doesn't even know is raging on, in, and around them...


Please do your bit and share this with as many as possible and make the ill-informed aware of what they once had.

[JCT777]

Very good history lesson!

[timNms]

I like that. Where did you find it?

[GalvestonDuck]

Sidenote -- did you know that Mr. "Give me liberty or give me Death" Patrick Henry kept his wife bound and locked in a cellar?

Actually, it was probably a good thing. She suffered from post-partum depression and may have ended up killing their children, like Andrea Yates.

But it is ironic.

[Anonymous]

An informative article indeed. It should not, however, be construed as having major implications on how modern society should function (in my opinion).

Yes, many of the founders of this nation were Christian. At that time, to be anything else in Western society meant to be ostracized (and indeed to risk physical harm or death in the case of Colonial times -- religious extremism running amok).

Yes, Congress passed laws during that time period that promoted religion in public life. Again, it wasn't an issue at the time, partially because there were very few foreign immigrants from places in the world with different religions and cultures.

But here's the crucial point... it is the constitution that is the supreme law of the land, and overrides all statutes and laws. The Constitution itself does not in any way shape or form imply that Christianity should be part of public life; it is essentially silent on the issue (except for providing freedom of religion and separation of church and state). It was probably made this way so that individual laws could change over time; in 1804, integrating Christianity into the nation's public schools caused virtually no conflicts, and only served to supplement the lessons on the faith that 99.9% of kids were receiving at home. In 2004, of course, things are much different, and we have a large number of immigrants from traditionally non-Christian parts of the globe... and of course we have a much larger number of atheists, agnostics (like myself), and others who reject organized religion. I would argue that the founding fathers intended for these individuals to have every right in the world to avoid having Christianity shoved in their face daily simply because they are in the minority.

So, like I said, I believe the information and quotes in the article, but what bothers me is that it may be used as an excuse by some Christians to claim that America should be biased in favor of Christianity, for the mere reason that its founders were Christian.

[stormchazer]

An informative article indeed. It should not, however, be construed as having major implications on how modern society should function (in my opinion).

Yes, many of the founders of this nation were Christian. At that time, to be anything else in Western society meant to be ostracized (and indeed to risk physical harm or death in the case of Colonial times -- religious extremism running amok).

Yes, Congress passed laws during that time period that promoted religion in public life. Again, it wasn't an issue at the time, partially because there were very few foreign immigrants from places in the world with different religions and cultures.

But here's the crucial point... it is the constitution that is the supreme law of the land, and overrides all statutes and laws. The Constitution itself does not in any way shape or form imply that Christianity should be part of public life; it is essentially silent on the issue (except for providing freedom of religion and separation of church and state). It was probably made this way so that it could change over time; in 1804, integrating Christianity into the nation's public schools caused virtually no conflicts, and only served to supplement the lessons on the faith that 99.9% of kids were receiving at home. In 2004, of course, things are much different, and we have a large number of immigrants from traditionally non-Christian parts of the globe... and of course we have a much larger number of atheists, agnostics (like myself), and others who reject organized religion. I would argue that the founding fathers intended for these individuals to have every right in the world to avoid having Christianity shoved in their face daily simply because they are in the minority.

So, like I said, I believe the information and quotes in the article, but what bothers me is that it may be used as an excuse by some Christians to claim that America should be biased in favor of Christianity, for the mere reason that its founders were Christian.

There is no seperation clause! Show it to me in the Constitution!

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

That does not say "seperation of church and state". It says the government can not squash the "freedom of religion". It does it everyday. Despite a majority supporting prayer, faith-based inititives, and a slew of other religious activity, the government has actually done the opposite of what the Constitution says. That phrase guarantees all religions freedom and protects it from the government, not the other way around.

As one of many efforts to limit the power of the federal government, the Constitution left authority over religious matters to the States. The Supreme Court consistently adhered to this constitutional principle until well into the twentieth century.

But in the 1925 ruling, Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court began ignoring its predecessors and precedents. The Court reasoned that one of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States. (This would obviously expand the powers of the federal courts to a great degree.) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment does not support their contention, nor do the earlier Courts.

Nonetheless, the 1925 Court ignored the historical record and the opinions of their predecessors, establishing a new precedent. Gitlow dealt with freedom of speech and the press; religious matters would soon follow.

In the context of religion, the Court's first and most abusive reinterpretation began in a 1940 Supreme Court ruling, Cantwell v. Connecticut. Here, the Court applied the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment to the states. Again, religion was a State matter. State courts were, and are, completely capable of handling the issue. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in direct opposition to the original intentions of the Constitution, applied yet another portion of the Bill of Rights to the States. They did not stop there.

The next landmark ruling came down in 1947. In the case, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment to the states. In the context of the "separation of church and state," the Court's foundational reinterpretation of the Constitution was complete. From 1947 forward, the Court has ruled with regularity on religious issues, in direct violation of the original meaning of the First Amendment. Their rulings, and those of lower courts (federal and State) have become the "law" of "separation of church and state."

That was a very brief description of how the federal courts have taken authority over religious issues, reinterpreting the First Amendment and applying it to the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. All of this was done in clear violation of the actual wording of the Constitution, as well as the intentions of its framers. The modern concept of "separation of church and state" can not be justified using the historical record.
We are forced, however, to work with the existing court doctrines. Therefore, what does the phrase mean today as it is applied in American public policy? The First Amendment, which prohibited any "law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," has evolved into something entirely new. During the last generation, the courts, at all levels, have ruled in ways that essentially guarantee the freedom from religion, instead of the freedom of religion.


"Separation of church and state," as applied to education, means that a prayer at a graduation ceremony is unconstitutional. It also means that students may not pause for a moment of silence at the beginning of their school day. It means that a nativity scene may not be displayed on public property unless there are other displays (e.g. Santa Clause or Christmas trees) that secularize the presentation.

Today's conception of "separation of church and state" has also been used to remove historic crosses from public property, and religious symbols from city seals. It has been used to remove the Ten Commandments from courtrooms, even though they are carved in stone within the architecture of the Supreme Court building. The concept has been used to prevent religious expressions on personalized license plates. And these are but a few of the official applications of the concept, or "law" of "separation of church and state."

One should understand that "separation of church and state" is not actually a law. It is a doctrine, or a legal concept, that has been implemented by the various courts primarily over the last fifty years. If this concept, as originally understood, would have been applied with consistency over the years, America would certainly be a different country right now. Religious expression would flourish, and the courts would not be micromanaging the religious life of the American people.

The doctrine of "separation of church and state" has been used, and is being used, to effectively purge religion from the public square. The historical perspective on church/state issues reveals a much different story. The government was to accommodate the religious communities; religion and religious expression were to be encouraged.


This is why, for example, the first Congress asked President George Washington to issue a Thanksgiving Proclamation upon completion of the Bill of Rights. Today, that practice would be viewed as unconstitutional. It would violate the "separation of church and state."
Read the Federalists Papers. This is Jeffersons answer to the misinterpretation of the misconstruing of the Seperation of Church and State not mentioned in the Constitution.
=====================================================
Jeffersons Letter Great Answer to Danbury Concil

On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the 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. 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 man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

All religions have right to excist, unfortunately, our government is slowly eroding that away.

[Anonymous]

Jara... the problem is that even if you want to interpret it as saying "everyone has the right to exercise religion in public," you STILL don't get your way, because that means that Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and everyone else have the right to have their religions integrated into public schools... there is nothing exclusive the Christianity, even if that was the religous preference of the founders. Honestly... why should Christianity be promoted or involved in public schools unless all other religions in the world are as well?

Times have changed since the writing of the Constitution, and the most practical way to stay in line with the first amendment is to reduce the role of religion in public life (at least government-sponsored public life such as schools, courts, etc.). The only alternative would be to allow ALL religions to be represented EQUALLY... and that would mean that if the extremist judge in Alabama wanted to keep his big Ten Commandments monument, then a slew of other religions being practiced by those in his district would also have the right to see a large monument for their religion go up at their request. Both methods would be in line with the constitution... but which is more reasonable and practical?

As far as your opinion that allowing religious views other than Christianity to play an equal role in American society is eroding the government, I strongly disagree.