David Barton

And Elias Boudinot, a President of Congress during the American Revolution, served as president of the “Society for Ameliorating the State of the Jews,” and made personal provision for bringing persecuted Jews to America. This tolerance for other faiths and religions, however, did not negate nor alter the fact that America was founded by Christians, on Christian principles. In fact, in 1854, following an extensive one-year investigation, the U. S. Congress succinctly declared: Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one [denomination]. . . . In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity. . . . That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendents.

Half-a-century later in 1892, the U. S. Supreme Court also conducted a thorough review of American history. After citing more than sixty historical precedents, the Court concluded: There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. . . . this is a Christian nation.

But today’s pseudo-historians, not willing to let truth or historical fact stand in the way of their personal secularist convictions, proclaim just the opposite, asserting that neither our nation nor its leaders were influenced by Christianity. One article declares, “Our Founding Presidents Were Not Christians.” Another similarly announces “The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians” (notice the emphasis on the word “not”). Another proclaims that the “Signers of the Declaration were Enemies of Christ.” The L. A. Times heralds “America’s Unchristian Beginnings,” with an inset box declaring, “The founding fathers: Most, despite the preachings of our pious right, were deists who rejected the divinity of Jesus.”

According to these and many other writers, our Founding Fathers were a collective group of atheists, agnostics, and deists; they didn’t believe in Jesus; they weren’t Christians. And since our Founders were allegedly nothing more than atheists, agnostics, and deists, the title of a current university textbook seems to make complete sense: The Godless Constitution.

Many Americans today would not disagree with these characterizations. After all, in the painting of the signers of the Declaration, who are the two Founders that most Americans can immediately recognize? Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, of course! But can they identify which one in the picture is Samuel Huntington – or Robert Livingston, George Clinton, Robert Morris, Stephen Hopkins, Richard Henry Lee, George Read, Roger Sherman, Elbridge Gerry, or the others? Americans seem to know nothing about these other signers.

We have been trained to recognize the two “least religious” Founders, Franklin and Jefferson. While we don’t know the others, we nevertheless are told that they were just like Franklin and Jefferson. However, in defense of Franklin and Jefferson, while they may have been the two “least religious” Founders, “least” is a comparative term; even they would be much more religious than most “religious” individuals today.

After all, Benjamin Franklin not only drafted a statewide prayer proclamation for his own State of Pennsylvania but he also recommended Christianity in the State’s public schools and worked to raise church attendance in the State. He also desired to start a colony in Ohio with the Rev. George Whitefield to “facilitate the introduction of pure religion among the heathen” in order to show the Indians “a better sample of Christians than they commonly see in our Indian traders.” He enthused, “In such an enterprise I could spend the remainder of life with pleasure, and I firmly believe God would bless us with success.” Franklin also made one of the nation’s most forceful defenses of religion when it was attacked by Thomas Paine, the author of the infamous Age of Reason. And it was Franklin – citing numerous Bible verses to prove his point – who called for the establishment of chaplains and daily prayer at the Constitutional Convention. These are the documented actions of one of the “least religious” Founding Fathers.

And then there is Thomas Jefferson. Not only did he recommend that the Great Seal of the United States depict a Bible story and include the word “God” in the national motto but President Jefferson also negotiated a federal treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians in which he included direct federal funding to pay for Christian ministers to work with the Indians and for the building of a church in which the Indians could worship – and this treaty was ratified by the U. S. Senate! Furthermore, Jefferson closed presidential documents with the appellation “In the year of our Lord Christ,” thus invoking Jesus Christ into official government documents. And this is Thomas Jefferson – the other “least religious” Founder! Most Americans really don’t know that much even about the Founders they think they know best! But what of the other signers about whom most Americans know less? Of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration, over half were educated in schools established for the purpose of training ministers for the Gospel, and they received what today would be considered degrees from seminaries or Bible schools. Many of the Founders also served as ministers or were active in Christian service.

david barton david barton

Those renewed Biblical teachings on protecting the rights of conscience were eventually carried to America, where they took root and grew to maturity at a rapid rate, having been planted in virgin soil completely uncontaminated by the apostasy of the previous twelve centuries. Hence, Christianity – especially as imported to America – became the world’s single greatest historical force in securing non-coercion and the rights of conscience.

For example, in 1640 when the Rev. Roger Williams established Providence, he penned its governing document declaring:

We agree, as formerly hath been the liberties of the town, so still, to hold forth liberty of conscience. [i]

Similar protections also became part of subsequent early American documents, including the 1649 Maryland “Toleration Act,” [ii] the 1663 charter for Rhode Island, [iii] the 1664 Charter for Jersey, [iv] the 1665 Charter for Carolina, [v] and the 1669 Constitutions of Carolina. [vi] Christian minister William Penn incorporated the same protections into the governing documents he authored, including in 1676 for West Jersey, [vii] in 1682 for Pennsylvania, [viii] and in 1701 for Delaware. [ix] There are many additional examples.

Historically speaking, it was the followers of Biblical Christianity who vigorously pursued and first achieved the protection for the rights of conscience that subsequently became an XXXa crucial???XXX- T indispensable??? characteristic of the American civil fabric. Even Roscoe Pound (1870-1964; a professor at four different law schools and the Dean of the law schools at Harvard and the University of Nebraska) acknowledged that it was the Biblical-minded Puritans who first brought these rights to the forefront of civil protection; [x] and in the words of an 1824 court:

c[xi]

So thoroughly was American thinking inculcated with protecting conscience that when America separated from Great Britain in 1776, the original state constitutions immediately secured the rights of conscience so long expounded by Christian leaders. (See, for example, the constitutions of Virginia, 1776; [xii] Delaware, 1776; [xiii] North Carolina, 1776; [xiv] Pennsylvania, 1776; [xv] New Jersey, 1776; [xvi] Vermont, 1777; [xvii] New York, 1777; [xviii] South Carolina, 1778; [xix] Massachusetts, 1780; [xx] New Hampshire, 1784; [xxi] etc.)

America’s Framers openly praised those protections. For example, Governor William Livingston (a devout Christian and a signer of the U. S. Constitution) declared:

Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. [xxii]

John Jay (an author of the Federalist Papers, original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, and President of the American Bible Society) likewise rejoiced that:

Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience. [xxiii]

Thomas Jefferson (a signer of the Declaration and a U. S. President) repeatedly praised America’s protections for the rights of conscience:

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience. [xxiv]

[O]ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted. [xxv]

A right to take the side which every man’s conscience approves . . . is too precious a right – and too favorable to the preservation of liberty – not to be protected. [xxvi]

It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences. [xxvii]

James Madison (a signer of the Constitution, a framer of the Bill of Rights, and a U. S. President) similarly affirmed:

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . [and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. [xxviii]

david barton david barton

Some of the first acts of the new presidential administration make it clear that there has been a dramatic change in the way that traditional religious faith is going to be handled at the White House. For example, when the new White House website went public immediately following the inauguration, it dropped the previously prominent section on the faith-based office.

A second visible change was related to hiring protections for faith-based activities and organizations. On February 5, President Obama announced that he would no longer extend the same unqualified level of hiring protections observed by the previous administration but instead would extend those traditional religious protections to faith-based operations only on a “case-by-case” basis. [i]

Significantly, hiring protections allow religious organizations to hire those employees who hold the same religious convictions as the organization. As a result, groups such as Catholic Relief Services can hire just Catholics; and the same is true with Protestant, Jewish, and other religious groups. With hiring protections, religious groups cannot be forced to hire those who disagree with their beliefs and values – for example, Evangelical organizations cannot be required to hire homosexuals, Pro-life groups don’t have to hire pro-choice advocates, etc.

Hiring protections are inherent within the First Amendment’s guarantee for religious liberty and right of association, and were additionally statutorily established in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress subsequently strengthened those protections, declaring that any “religious corporation, association, education institution, or society” could consider the applicants’ religious faith during the hiring process. [ii] The Supreme Court upheld hiring protections in 1987, [iii] and Congress has included those protections in numerous federal laws. [iv] But when Democrats regained Congress in 2007, on a party-line vote they began removing hiring protections for faith-based organizations. [v]

The current concern about the weakening of traditional faith-based hiring protections is heightened by the White House’s announcement of President Obama’s commitment to “pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation” – the second attack on traditional religious practices. [vi] This act would fully repeal faith-based hiring protections related to Biblical standards of morality and behavior, thus directly attacking the theological autonomy of churches, synagogues, and every other type of religious organization by not allowing them to choose whether or not they want to hire homosexuals onto their ministry staffs.

The administration’s third attack on religion occurred in the President’s stimulus bill, which included a provision specifically denying stimulus funds to renovate higher educational facilities “(i) used for sectarian instruction or religious worship; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.” [vii] As Republican Senator Jim DeMint (SC) explained, “any university or college that takes any of the money in this bill to renovate an auditorium, a dorm, or student center could not hold a National Prayer Breakfast.” [viii] Sen. DeMint therefore introduced an amendment to “allow the free exercise of religion at institutions of higher education that receive funding,” [ix] but his amendment was defeated along a party-line vote.

The fourth attack on traditional religious faith is the White House’s announcement that it will seek the repeal of conscience protection for health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other health activities that violate their consciences. [x]

In order to fully understand the far-reaching ramifications of this announcement, it will be helpful to review the history of conscience protection in the United States.

david barton david barton

[W]hilst we are using the means in our power, let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the universe, Who loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity. And having secured the approbation of our hearts by a faithful and unwearied discharge of our duty to our country, let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of Him Who raiseth up and pulleth down the empires and kingdoms of the world as He pleases.

The man who is conscientiously doing his duty will ever be protected by that righteous and all powerful Being, and when he has finished his work he will receive an ample reward.

The sum of the whole is that the blessing of God is only to be looked for by those who are not wanting in the discharge of their own duty.

Biblical voters can find a particularly excellent model of this virtue in John Quincy Adams. Historians who later studied and wrote about his life and numerous accomplishments (including his lifelong and relentless but largely unsuccessful fight to abolish slavery) observed that Adams’ life was guided by one simple principle:

Duty is ours; results are God’s.

It is vital that Biblical voters develop an attitude of resolute steadfastness and unswervable duty. In recent years, too many believers have manifested a short-term mentality toward the civic arena – they get involved in an election or two and if they don’t see a complete turnaround, they throw up their hands, declare that they tried and that it didn’t make any difference, and then scurry off to their next inspiration. Biblical voters must realize that it took almost three quarters-of-a-century to arrive at the situation in which we find ourselves today, and that situation will not be reversed in just one election or two. And even if the recovery turns out to be just as lengthy as was the illness, a recovery will come – if we faithfully persist (Galatians 6:9).

The principle of retaking lost ground slowly, one election at a time, is neither appealing nor gratifying to our natural impatience but it is a well-articulated Biblical principle; therefore, arm yourself with the mentality of a marathon runner, not a sprinter: be willing to stay and compete until you win. This attitude is much easier to adopt once we accept the truth that voting is an obligatory duty we owe not only to our country but also to God. As Samuel Adams explained:

Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. He may then reflect, each one on his own integrity, and appeal to the Monitor within his breast that he has not trifled with the sacred trust reposed in him by God and his country.

Founder Peter Muhlenberg articulated the same conviction. (Peter was a minister of the Gospel who left his pulpit during the American Revolution to defend the liberties he enjoyed and to which he had become accustomed; three hundred men from his congregation followed him into military service. He became a Major General and then a Member of Congress, where he helped frame the Bill of Rights.) Once, when criticized for being a minister involved in the civic arena,  he pointedly responded:

I am convinced it is my duty so to do – and duty I owe to God and my Country.
The viewpoint expressed by these and other early leaders simply reflected their understanding of Jesus’ command in Matthew 22:21 (a command frequently turned on its head today). In that verse, Jesus told His followers:

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.
Today, too many mistakenly think that the conjunction in Jesus’ command is “or” – that is, “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, or unto God the things that are God’s,” but that is not what the verse says. To the contrary, it deliberately uses the conjunction “and” – that is, “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” People of faith are clearly commanded to do their duty in both the spiritual and the civil arenas.

The Founders believed that this dual responsibility was so self-evident we would never neglect it. As George Washington explained:

No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass.

Yet in recent years, far too many God-fearing individuals have neglected their responsibilities as national voting stewards, and the impact of that neglect is now measureable. Consider the area of abortion.
Over the four elections from 1992-2002, Christian voter turnout declined by almost forty percent,  but in 2002, that trend reversed and there was a 2 percent increase above the 2000 turnout numbers (which was actually a sizeable increase since 2002 was a non-presidential year when voter turnout is traditionally much lower). Exit polling in 2002 showed that 41 percent of voters in that election identified abortion as an important issue affecting their vote: 23 percent said they voted a pro-life ticket, and 16 percent voted a pro-abortion ticket,  thus giving a 7 percent advantage to those running as a pro-life candidate. The result was evident: of the 54 freshmen elected to the U. S. House in 2002, 36 were pro-life  (67 percent), and of the 10 freshmen elected to the U. S. Senate, eight (80 percent) were pro-life.

In 2004, Christian voter turnout increased 93 percent over the 2002 numbers (part of this surge was due to the fact that it was a presidential year when turnout typically rises and part to the fact that the percentage of Christian voters actually increased). In that election, 42 percent of voters identified abortion as an important issue: 25 percent voted pro-life, and 13 percent pro-abortion, resulting in a 12 percent advantage for pro-life candidates. The 2004 elections sent 40 new freshmen to the U. S. House, of whom 25 were pro-life (63 percent), and nine new freshmen to the U. S. Senate, of whom seven (77 percent) were pro-life.

david barton david barton

Just as the Scriptures direct individuals to care for the poor, so, too, do they direct the church and congregation. For example, if a poor individual is unable to meet his obligations, the priests are specifically instructed to examine that person, determine the extent of his needs, see what he was capable of paying, and then grant appropriate relief (see Leviticus 27:8). Similarly, in Esther 9:22, after God had delivered His people from their enemies, the Scriptures note that Mordecai “wrote them to observe the days as days of feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor.” This command was to the collective people of God.

Also notice the New Testament’s powerful directives to the church to take care of the poor. For example, Acts 4:34-35 reveals that in the early church under the leadership of the Apostles, “there was not a needy person among them” because the church “distributed to each as any had need.” And when the Apostles James, Peter, and John later met with Paul in Jerusalem, they specifically charged him to “remember the poor” (Galatians 2:10), which Paul reports “was something I was already committed to doing” (v. 10). As he made his subsequent missionary journeys, he proudly reported of the churches he started in Macedonia and Achaia that they “were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Romans 15:26). In fact, he specifically noted that “They were pleased to do it – and indeed they owe it to them” (v. 27).

Clearly, then, the church or congregation is also directed to help the poor.

david barton david barton

•  The law is not made for a righteous person but for . . . homosexuals . . . and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching. I TIMOTHY 1:9-11
•  If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. LEVITICUS 20:13

 There were sodomites in the land, and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out. I KINGS 14:24

•  Were they ashamed because of the abomination they have done? They were not even ashamed at all. JEREMIAH 6:15
•  God gave them up to vile passions. The men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. ROMANS 1:26-27
•  The crime not to be named sodomy, I pass in a total silence.
•  It sodomy, though repugnant to every sentiment of decency and delicacy, is very prevalent in corrupt and debauched countries where the low pleasures of sensuality and luxury have depraved the mind and degraded the appetite below the brutal animal creation.
• Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time.

If a candidate is willing to accept, empower, and advance homosexuality, it is a clear indication that he does not embrace the moral absolutes of the Bible.

Historically speaking, Biblically-established rights and wrongs formed the basis of morals and thus of law in the civilized nations of the Western World, and nowhere was this more manifest than in America. Notice some of the many American courts that unabashedly acknowledged this fact:

Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?
The morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity. . . . We are people whose manners . . . and whose morals have been elevated and inspired . . . by means of the Christian religion.

The Christian concept of right and wrong, or right and justice, motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled.

Christianity has reference to the principles of right and wrong . . . it is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed; it is their basis.

The Christian religion is . . . the basis of our morals and the strength of our government.

Today, however, some have begun to reject the Judeo-Christian moral absolutes of the Bible in favor of their own personal preferences – a situation thrice denounced in the Scriptures as “every man doing that which is right in his own eyes” (Deuteronomy 12:8, Judges 17:6, and 21:25). The Supreme Court recently bestowed its blessing on individual preference as the national moral standard in its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision ,a decision made before the arrival of the two new Justices, when it struck down Texas’ law banning sodomy – a decision which one of the Justices said “effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.” He also noted that “state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise. . . . called into question.” By that ruling, if something is sexually consensual, it is constitutional.

Consequently, in North Carolina a federal judge threw out charges against a man arrested for soliciting sodomy in a public park. And certainly, if solicitation of homosexual sex in public is now permissible, so, too, must be the public solicitation of heterosexual sex, for prostitution is definitely consensual.

In Utah, three adults used the Court’s decision in an attempt to obtain a marriage license that would enable the husband to marry an additional wife; after all, since polygamy is consensual and agreed to by all parties involved, that behavior must be constitutional.

In Ohio, an attorney defending his client from prosecution under anti-pornography and anti-obscenity laws similarly asserted that such laws were no longer constitutional, for those who purchase obscene videos to view abominable and societally horrendous sexual acts, including bestiality, human sex with animals, are doing so consensually.

david barton david barton

• You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I am fearfully and wonderfully made. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in secret. Your eyes saw my substance when I was yet unformed, and in Your book the days fashioned for me all were written when as yet there were none of them. PSALM 139:13-16

• The Lord made you and formed you from the womb. The Lord your Redeemer formed you from the womb. ISAIAH 44:2, 24

• The Declaration of Independence . . . will tell you that its authors held for self-evident truth that the right to life is the first of the inalienable rights of man –  to secure and not to destroy, governments are instituted among men. 51 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, PRESIDENT; DIPLOMAT; LEGISLATOR

• With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close is protected by the common law. In the contemplations of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, that life is protected.

In fact, experience regularly attests that if a government leader is willing to violate the foremost of all inalienable rights , then he will also disregard other inalienable rights. That is, if a leader does not support the inalienable right to life, then he will almost certainly be wrong on the protection of private property , the Biblical right of self defense , the right of religious expression , the sanctity of the home , etc. In short, if a leader refuses to recognize the role of God in the creation of life and does not pledge himself to protect that first of all inalienable rights, then all other individual rights are also in danger. Barack Obama has never voted to protect unborn life either as a state senator in Illinois 55 or as a U. S. Senator. 56 Furthermore, he is a sponsor of the deplorable Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) 57 – a federal law that would prohibit all restrictions on abortion, including even the current state bans on partial-birth abortions as well as parental consent and parental notification laws.

Thomas Jefferson’s clarion warning from two centuries ago still rings true today:

    Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? – that they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just – that His justice cannot sleep forever.

    Where a candidate stands on the issue of abortion is of paramount importance and is also the most accurate indicator of how likely he is to protect other inalienable rights.

david barton david barton

This is a completely wrong conclusion, based on several inaccurate theses – at least if the statement is based on the original intent established in the Constitution and explained through the early writings. The “Senate’s mandate to represent all states equally, regardless of their populations” is not the basis for (1) a “priority assigned to deliberation”; (2) “satisfying the overall body”; or (3) becoming “a special forum for the airing of minority points of view.” Rather, the basis for all of these functions is neither constitutional mandate nor Framers’ intentions but rather the Senate’s own rules, for according to Article I, §5, ¶2: “Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Indeed, it is the Senate’s own rules – and neither the Constitution nor original intent – that makes the Senate different from the House in these three respects.

In fact, should the House so decide, it could adopt the Senate rules for its own and would then exhibit the same three traits. As a confirmation of this point, in the early years, filibusters occurred in the House as often if not more so than in the Senate; the House subsequently changed its rules to eliminate this practice and thus today appears “less deliberative” and less open to “express minority views” and “satisfy the overall body.” Furthermore, despite the much larger size of the House as compared to the Senate even two centuries ago, its rules nevertheless allowed for each member to participate individually; it has subsequently changed those rules, but could easily return to them should it so decide. Therefore, the reason that the House does not look like the Senate in its technical day-to-day operation is the different rules that it has set for itself. The wording in this entire paragraph needs to be reworked substantially.

As pointed out in the discussion accompanying p. 17, ¶1 above, “the policy of virtually unlimited debate” is definitely not “what the framers of the Constitution intended.” They intended (and practiced) open debate by all sides, but no where is there any basis for asserting they intended “unlimited debate.” (Even more clear and conclusive evidence on this fact will be included below.) As previously noted, the Senate’s practice of “virtually unlimited debate” is a result of its own rules and not of any constitutional intent.

Often ignored in examining Senate rules is the fact that the Senate is a continuing body; the House is not. While the House completely reorganizes itself every two years (and can easily change its rules), the Senate does not. In fact, the Senate has never gone out of session; for since only a maximum of one-third of its members can be replaced in any election, the Senate has never at any point since 1789 had less than a quorum still sitting in office. Therefore, the real difficulty in altering Senate rules is their requirement for a two-thirds concurrence on any rules change.

The adoption of the two-thirds rule as related to “virtually unlimited debate” (a rule adopted well after the organization of the Senate under the Constitution) has proven to be unfortunate. In Federalist 75, Alexander Hamilton explained why the Framers had not required a two-thirds majority for votes (except for the passage of constitutional amendments) – and thus forewarned about the difficulties that today regularly pervade the Senate under its practice of “virtually unlimited debate”:

david barton david barton

What can Christians do to return the U.S. to a “Christian nation?’

As a final thought in response to your question, why would America not be considered a Christian nation today? After all, of the four most recent national surveys on religion, Americans, when given the option to identify with which (if any) of the 1700 religions in America they affiliated, from 82 to 88 percent affixed the name “Christian” to themselves. In any other part of the world, if a nation were composed of from 82-88 percent of self-described Christians, it would be considered a Christian nation; and if 82-88 percent were self-described Muslims, it would be considered a Muslim nation – or Buddhist, or Jewish, or whatever.

Significantly, I hear from nations across the world that most other countries teach students in their world history courses that America is a Christian nation; this fact is borne out by surveys of immigrants arriving in America who frequently declare that they believed that they were arriving in a Christian nation and were surprised to find it considered otherwise by Americans. What keeps America from being a “Christian nation” today is perception more than reality. First, national pundits and mouthpieces, including professors and teachers, regularly reject any claim that America every was (or is, or will be) a Christian nation; thus, most citizens believe that we are not, for thus they have regularly been told.

Second, judicial policy portrays the nation as being too pluralistic to be a Christian nation – especially since 1992 in the Lee v. Weisman decision when the Court erected a “classes of religion” policy, a policy criticizingly described by Justice Scalia: [T]he Supreme Court of the United States has concluded that the First Amendment creates classes of religions based on the relative numbers of their adherents. Those religions enjoying the largest following must be consigned to the status of least-favored faiths so as to avoid any possible risk of offending members of minority religions.

This “classes of religion” judicial policy is why the Koran can be passed out in New York City schools but the Bible cannot; this is why a Jewish Menorah can be displayed in public parks in December while nativity scenes cannot; this is why Milwaukee can teach training courses to its city officials on Buddhism but not on Christianity; this is why school libraries in Colorado can retain books on Native American and eastern oriental religions but must remove the Bible and books on Christianity; this is why military chaplains of other faiths can pray according to the articles of their faith but Christian chaplains are instructed to pray “non-sectarian (i.e., non-Christian)” prayers at public gatherings; and there are dozens of other examples.

david barton david barton

What can Christians do to return the U.S. to a “Christian nation?’

The fifth societal product of Christianity was benevolence. Consider: our nation is the most benevolent on the face of the earth. When tragedy – whether earthquake, famine, tsunami, war, or whatever – strikes any nation, Americans rush in to help. We are the first there, even if it is the nation of an enemy or that of a completely different faith. Where did Americans learn this benevolence that is lacking in so many other nations?

The Founders believed they knew the answer. For example, signer of the Declaration Richard Henry Lee declared: “Christianity, in its tenderness for human infirmities, strongly inculcates principles of benevolence.” Founder James Kent (a famous judge and a “Father of American Jurisprudence”) also declared: “Christianity introduces a better and more enlightened sense of right and justice. It teaches the duty of benevolence to strangers.” And John Adams similarly explained: “Christian benevolence makes it our indispensable duty to lay ourselves out to serve our fellow-creatures to the utmost of our power.” Many others made similar statements.

The truth remains, that Americans – even non-Christian ones – have been instructed in Christian benevolence as a general principle, even if they do not recognize the source of that trait. Finally, the Founders believed that teaching Judeo-Christian principles produced a cohesive system of common values, without which it would eventually become impossible successfully to govern a nation composed of millions of individuals of diverse backgrounds and from scores of different ethnic and religious groups. These common values were inculcated throughout society in a number of manners, including through public education.

For example, on August 7, 1789, President George Washington signed the first federal law on education, declaring that schools were to teach the “religion, morality, and knowledge” which was “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.” And numerous other Founding Fathers – including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin who often rejected fundamental tenets of orthodox Christian theology – openly promoted the inculcation of Judeo-Christian principles throughout American society. Therefore, even an American atheist learned that it was wrong to steal, to murder, to commit adultery, etc. Americans, from the most pious minister to the most ardent atheist, had been taught a common value system.

Therefore, in conclusion, a “Christian nation,” in my opinion, is a nation whose society benefits from the effects of the open and widespread teaching of Christianity. Therefore, its civil government tolerates and even embraces Judeo-Christian principles in the public arena rather than opposes and penalizes them (as we currently do through our judicial and educational systems).

david barton david barton