Search

Friday, September 10, 2010

Founded on Religious Tolerance, What?

The President said, "The idea that we would burn the sacred texts of someone else's religion is contrary to what this country stands for. It is contrary to what this nation was founded on. And you know, my hope is that this individual prays on it and refrains from doing it."

http://www.eurasiareview.com/201009108055/amid-anti-muslim-acts-obama-urges-americans-to-maintain-religious-tolerance.html (9/10/2010)

Our country wasn't founded on religious tolerance but was founded on keeping the government out of the church's business. The first settlers were far from tolerant.

I don't understand how the imam can have a mosque near ground zero, which is highly offensive, and call it a legal issue but when a paster in Florida wants to burn religious books the government feels it must step in and stop him.

Ummm, Mr. President you staying out of the church's business is what this nation was founded on not tolerance.

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Blog Publishing Software

So, I am trying a new way to update the blog so that I can keep this update far more frequently then I have in the past. Lets see if this works.





Burning the Koran

News Article

Umm, why?

This paster and church have every right to burn the Koran but what I don't understand is why would you? I know some people will say the terrorist will use this to fuel more hatred or that the church is showing hatred toward muslims but none of that is the real issue.

If this is a christian church they need to stand up and display the superiority of the Bible by what the Bible teaches and not by burning the opposition. This is what bullies do. They tear down others to make themselves appear superior.

I think they are making the wrong decision and should re-evaluate their goals.

Friday, April 07, 2006

Attacking Jesus

Recently I have noticed that the attack on Jesus has become fore-front. It started with the DeVinci Code, witch I could have ignored as artistic license but the attack has become more frequent and more pointed.
Now they are saying that Jesus didn't walk on the water but walked on ice.

"The second “study” is more of an elastic theory. Some scientist has put forth the following as a possible theory to explain how Jesus may have “appeared” to have walked on water:

Rare conditions could have conspired to create hard-to-see ice on the Sea of Galilee that a person could have walked on back when Jesus is said to have walked on water.

So, not only was Jesus the son of God, but he could have been the world’s first hockey player as well?

If Jesus was in fact walking on ice, I would think that skeptics of the day would have been able to figure that one out. It’s amazing how far out some people will go to explain stories they may consider far out, often ending up farther out than the original far out. Make sense? Me neither."

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/04/04/study-churchgoers-live-longer/


What? My first question was what then did Peter walk on? Was he distracted by the rolling ice waves.

Now front and center is the Gospel of Judas trying again to challenge the diety of Christ. The manuscript is not Biblical and conflicts with doctrine. It paints Jesus as a false teacher. I believe this is a Satanic attempt to make Satan look better. The bible says that Satan entered Judas at the last supper.

I know this will continue and get worse before it gets better but God will triumph.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Schools almost out

School is almost over and I will be working toward next year. Today was interesting I preached on Stephen in chapel and I think will really use this message. My college Algebra class is finishing up soon also and next semester will be starting soon.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Something I wrote recently

Roth 1
Recently, there has been a fiery controversy in the United States Senate. The President’s nominations for Federal Courts have been filibustered. The United States Senate has corrupted the original intent of the filibuster and is now using it as an obstructionist’s tool. The filibuster should not be used as an attempt to impede the necessary judicial nominations.
The filibuster has been changed from the Founder’s original intent and it is broken. Senator Schumer wrote, in a letter to the President, that the “judicial nomination and confirmation process” was busted. He agreed with the President that it was the job of the Senators to correct the process (1).
The Senators are not correcting the problem but are using the filibuster to block judicial nominations. They know that they cannot defeat the nomination with a straight up or down vote so they stall the nomination with the filibuster. The Senate’s part in the nomination process is clearly established by the Framers. Alexander Hamilton defines the Senator’s responsibility in the nominations progress as:
To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate?
... It would be an excellent check on the spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State

Roth 2
prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity (qtd. in Cornyn, “Broken” 189 n29).
Hamilton does not say that the Senate should block the President’s appointments but protect the government from unsavory nominees. By using the filibuster, they are trying to impose their will over that of the President. The Senators agree that filibustering nominees is not their job as defined in the Constitution. Senator Tom Harking stated in 1994, “I really believe that the filibuster rules are unconstitutional” (3-4). Senator Joe Lieberman mirrored the sentiment in 1995 stating, “In fact, the Framers of the Constitution considered other cases in which a supermajority [The filibuster rules] might be required and rejected them. And we by our rules have effectively amended the Constitution-which I believe, respectively, is not right” (2).
President Woodrow Wilson remarked, in his speech “Little group of willful men”, that Senators were allowed to debate on the Senate floor as long as they wanted, as long as they had the
“physical endurance” (qtd. in Murphy 6). This ability is tied to legislation and not confirmations and to do so is to overstep their Constitutional bounds.

Roth 3
The filibuster was a very open and public action. The Senator had to stand on the Senate floor and physically speak. When the Senator relinquished the floor the filibuster was over. The filibuster rules have been changed to make it a silent action. Catherine Fisk and Erwin Chemerinsky wrote about the Senate rules for filibusters:
Filibusters are ubiquitous but virtually invisible, for the contemporary Senate practice does not require a Senator to hold the floor to filibuster; senators filibuster simply by indicating to the Senate leadership that they intend to do so. The prevalence and invisibility of this “stealth filibuster” dramatically affects which legislation is passed and which nominees are confirmed. The stealth
filibuster also raises serious constitutional questions (1).
A Senator only has to request a “motion to proceed” and the filibuster is on (Murphy 11). With the filibuster being a silent and hidden action, it is used more often than necessary.
The filibuster has the ability to change the principle of government that our Founders established. The Senate minority has replaced the rules that the Framers of the Constitution fashioned in order to delay the will of the majority.

Roth 4
The filibuster is intended to block legislation that may be, according to David Crockett, “hasty action, or action that has only the support of a narrow majority.” He goes on to say, “it is inappropriate for the Senate to employ a delaying tactic normally used in internal business – the construction of legislation – in a nonlegislative procedure that originates in a co-equal branch of government” (qtd. in Kristol 1-2).
It is appropriate to block legislation that may not be in the majority’s interest or even in the minority’s interest.
This does not mean that it is suitable for blocking judicial confirmations. The Senators have taken a suitable parliamentary procedure and applied it inappropriately to judicial confirmations. The filibuster was intended for internal Senate use, not as a weapon against another branch of government.
This practice has been eliminated in other Senate business. Senator Daschle remarked, “Even the Senate, with its veneration for the filibuster rule, limits its reach when it comes to the budget” (2). Not filibustering Senate business is not a new concept and has, according to John Cornyn, been abolished in 27 other laws (“Broken” 214). Why has it not been removed from the confirmation process? Senator Reid, when asked how many hours of debate he would need, is quoted as saying, “There is not a

Roth 5
number in the universe that would be sufficient” (qtd. in York 22). The minority in the Senate does not want to lose its obstructionist tool.
It is not the job of the Senate to obstruct the President as Senator Boxer said, “According to the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor” (2).
The obstructionist tactic employed by the Senate hurts the judiciary branch of government. The judicial branch has many vacancies and the docket is overflowing. Both Rehnquist and the ABA think this needs to be corrected as quickly as possible (ABA 6; Rehnquist 4 ). According to Senator John Cornyn, “current filibusters of judicial nominations pose a serious threat to our independent judiciary” (Cornyn, “Broken” 191). The Judiciary cannot do its job without judges sitting on the bench. The filibuster is keeping qualified judges off the bench.
The filibuster steals power from the President. It seeks to remove the authority invested in the President and put it into the Senate. D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Harry Edwards has remarked that if the Senate acted “unilaterally” it would
Roth 6
“increase its own authority at the expense of the President.” He concluded that if the Senate continued, “increasing its own authority” it would usurp the nomination process (n.p.).
Susan Low Bloch, a Georgetown Law Professor, has also remarked that the filibuster would:
upset the carefully crafted rules concerning appointment of both executive officials and judges and to unilaterally limit the power the Constitution gives the President in the appointment process. This, I believe, would allow the Senate to aggrandize its own role and would unconstitutionally distort the balance of powers established by the Constitution (qtd. in Cornyn, “Broken” 202).
By filibustering the judicial nominations the Senators have tried to steal the appointment power invested in the President. The Framers separated the powers for a reason but the Senators are ignoring those reasons. Senators, who are looking to put their own will above the will of the majority, should not usurp the power of appointment. The People elected the President with full knowledge of the type of judge that he would choose. The Senate, by filibustering, has told the People of the United States that they are incompetent.

Roth 7
The filibuster, in essence, goes against the majority rule that was established in the framework of the Constitution. John Cornyn, quoting from the Federalist Papers No. 22, wrote, “the fundamental maxim of republican government … requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.” He continued, “And as the Supreme Court has unanimously held, our Constitution is premised on the democratic doctrine of majority rule” (“The Constitution”, 1).
The majority must be able to set the rules of the Senate. It would be foolish to ignore the minority completely but when the minority is log-jamming a Constitutional process it becomes necessary for the majority to straighten the logs (“Voting” 16). The minority was never supposed to impose its will on the majority it is antithesis to the founding principles of democracy.
The filibuster requires a vote of cloture to end the debate. The cloture rules, set by the Senate, require 60 votes to pass. This is called a supermajority and was not required by the Framers. The Framers had other ideas about how the Senate rules for majorities should work. The Senate’s rules were originally defined in the Manual of Parliamentary Procedure,


Roth 8
written by Thomas Jefferson, which stated, “[t]he voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris parties is the law of all
councils, elections, &c. where not otherwise expressly provided” (qtd. in Cornyn, “Broken” 196). A supermajority is not defined in the Constitution for the confirmation process.
The cloture rule requires a supermajority to break the filibuster. This is unconstitutional because it allows a minority to supersede the will of the majority. Edward Kearny and Robert Heineman wrote that, “Placing additional limits on congressional majorities through operation rules and procedures of one or both houses of Congress is not constitutionally legitimate” (4). The cloture rule needs to be changed to allow a majority to bring the filibuster to an end. Closing the filibuster would allow the candidates to come before the Senate to receive a confirmation vote. Voting on the nominations would allow the Senate to complete their constitutionally imposed duty.
The continued use of a supermajority to close the filibuster would continue to threaten the Senate. Clinton advisor Michael Gerhardt has spoken against the supermajority in the cloture rule saying that it “would be more likely to frustrate rather then facilitate the making of meritorious appointments” (qtd. in Cornyn, “Broken” 194). James Madison
Roth 9
wrote in Federalist #58 that if supermajorities were required for a decision there would no longer be a free government. The power of government would be transferred to the minority effectively reversing majority rule (qtd. in Murphy 14).
The supermajority required to bring cloture has not determined the outcome of the up or down vote of the nominations.
Judges Confirmed With Fewer Than 60 Votes
(97th – 106th Congresses
Judge
Court
Vote
Date of Vote
J. Harvie Wilkinson III
4th Cir.
58-29
Aug. 9, 1984
Alex Kozinski
9th Cir.
54-43
Nov. 7, 1985
Sidney A. Fitzwater
N.D. Tex.
52-42
Mar. 18, 1986
Daniel A. Mansion
7th Cir.
48-46
June 26, 1986
Clarence Thomas
S. Ct.
52-48
Oct. 15, 1991
Susan O. Mollway
D. Haw.
56-34
June 22, 1998
William A. Fletcher
9th Cir.
57-41
Oct. 8, 1998
Richard A. Paez
9th Cir.
59-39
Mar. 9, 2000
Dennis W. Shedd
4th Cir.
55-44
Nov. 19, 2002
Timothy M. Tymkovich
10th Cir.
58-41
April 1, 2003
Jeffrey Sutton
6th Cir.
42-41
April 29, 2003
Victor J. Wolski
Fed. Cl.
54-43
July 9, 2003

(qtd. in Cornyn, “Broken” 225).
These judges are all confirmed by a majority vote not a supermajority. The same vote that confirmed them would not have
Roth 10
been enough to close the filibuster. The supermajority is not only unconstitutional but it is also impractical for good democracy. The supermajority replaces majority rule with minority supremacy. It also does not predict the outcome of confirmations but only delays needed judges.
The filibuster has not helped the confirmation process but has only allowed the minority to impose its will on the majority. It has also allowed the Senate to supersede constitutional authority of the President. The filibuster has directly attacked the principles the Framers instilled into our constitution. Instead of helping, the confirmation process has harmed the judiciary and the United States of America. Ronald Rotunda, paraphrasing Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, wrote, “to vote without debate is unwise, but to debate without even being able to vote is ridiculous” (2). The filibuster needs to end now and the confirmations need to move forward.







Roth 11
Works Cited
American Bar Association. “An Independent Judiciary Report of

the ABA Commission on Separation of Powers and Judicial

Independence.” (1997): 6. (last pulled 27 July 2005).



Boxer, Senator Barbara. “Judicial Vacancies.” Congressional

Record. S4420-21. 14 May 1997: 2. <http://thomas.loc.gov/>.

Cornyn, John. “Our Broken Judicial Confirmation Process And The

Need For Filibuster Reform.” Harvard Journal of Law &

Public Policy 27 (24 Jan. 2004): 181-230.

committeeforjustice.org/contents/reading/

cornyn.pdf>.

Cornyn, John. “The Constitution and the Judiciary: Where’s the

Check on Senate Filibusters?”. WSJ.com. Opinion Journal. (6

May 2003): 1-2.

www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003456>.

Daschle, Senator Tom. “Balanced Budget Amendment To The

Constitution.” Congressional Record. S1748. 30 Jan. 1995:4.

<http://thomas.loc.gov/>.

Edwards, Chief Judge. “Skaggs v. Carle.” United States Court of

Appeals for D.C 22 April 1997..


Roth 12

Fisk, Catherine, and Erwin Chemerinsky. “The Filibuster.”

Stanford Law Review 49.181 n.26 (1997): 187.

Harking, Senator Tom. “Balanced Budget Amendment.” Congressional

Record. S2160. 1 Mar. 1994: 3-4. <http://thomas.loc.gov/>.

Kearny, Edward N., and Robert A. Heineman. “The Senate

Filibuster: A Constitutional Critique.” Perspectives On

Political Science 26 (1997): 1-5.

Kristol, William. “Break the Filibuster.” The Weekly Standard

10.32 (May 2005): 1-2. <http://www.weeklystandard.com/%20%20%20Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/551vzoao.asp

Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/551vzoao.asp>.

Lieberman, Senator Joe. “Amending Paragraph 2 of Rule XXV.”

Congressional Record. S434. 5 Jan. 1995: 2.

<http://thomas.loc.gov/>.

Murphy, Troy “American Political Mythology and the Senate

Filibuster.” Argumentation and Advocacy 32.2 (Fall 1995):

1-19.

Rehnquist, Chief Justice William. “The 1997 Year-End Report On

The Federal Judiciary.” Newsletter of the Federal Courts

30.1 (Jan. 1998): 4. < http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/

jan98ttb/january.htm>.

Rotunda, Ronald D. “The Filibuster.” The Cato Institute (16 July
2003): 1-2. <http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-16-03.html>.

Roth 13
Schumer, Senator Charles E. Letter to President George W. Bush
(April 30, 2003). <http://www.schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/%20press_releases/PR01655.html>.
“Voting For Democracy.” Editorial. National Review 57.10 (June
2005): 14-16.
York, Byron “The Record.” National Review 57.10 (June 2005): 20-
22.

Monday, August 15, 2005

Schools In

Teachers week begins today and this year I will be teaching the Sciences. It should be interesting.

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Myself and Myblog

This is my first blog and I can't wait to get started. Hugh Hewitt is a primary source of encouragement in starting this blog. For the most part this blog will be about my views on history and politics and anything else that catches my interest.
I'm a history and math teacher at a christian school and enjoy myself immensely.


I'm going to post my thesis from last semester at the University I hope you all enjoy.



Is the current definition of the Separation of Church and State really what was intended?



The elderly janitor shuffled into the storage shed behind the
building and promptly turned on the lights, illuminating the
room. Setting his mop in the slot and the bucket full of cleaners
on the shelf to the left, he noticed the tarp covering a huge
object in the corner covered in dust. He remembered when
the object had been prominently displayed in the lobby of the
courthouse, but the judges had it removed because of its religious
significance.
This scene is playing out continually in our nation and in our
courts across this country, ruling against religious displays in
public places or schools. Is this adaptation of the principle of
“Separation of Church and State” really what the founders
intended by the First Amendment of the Constitution?
The United States was founded on religious principles, virtues,
and the freedom to practice any chosen religion. John White,
a clergyman in the early 1600’s said, “The most eminent and
desirable end of planting colonies is the propagation of Religion.” 1
Jamestown, which included the conversion of the Indians in
their charter, and Plymouth, which was started in the New
World for religious freedom from the Anglican Church of
England, were started for religious purposes. One was in
service to a national religion and the other was fleeing a
national religion, which gives our nation an interesting
founding, a founding with religious undertones.
During the early years of the colonies, religion saturated
society so much that Bibles were in every home, children
learned to read from the Bible, and church on Sunday was
an all-day event. 2 In orthodox Calvinist New England one
had to be a church member even to vote,3 and policies like
these permeated the colonies. The Delaware State Constitution
stated one had to profess Christ as his personal Savior and to
acknowledge the trinity to take public office.4
The original charters and constitutions of the colonies showed a
respect toward religion, for example, The Fundamental
Constitution of the Carolinas, written by John Locke, in 1663
stated, “No man shall be permitted to be a freeman of Carolina,
or to have any estate of habitation within it that doth not
acknowledge a God, and that God is publicly and solemnly to
be worshipped,”5 and the Constitution of South Carolina in 1778
stated, “Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies
who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of
rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped,
shall be freely tolerated…That all denominations of Christian[s]… in
this State…shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.” 6 Even
though it was required that a person be religious there was no
stipulation to what type of religion must be worshiped, showing that
a government could be religious without establishing a national
or state religion.
Religion was a major part of the Founders’ lives. Most of the signers
of the Constitution were devoutly religious: they included religion
in all they did and many encouraged others to read the Bible on a
daily basis. Dr. Miles Bradford of the University of Dallas has shown
that only 3 of the 55, or 5 percent, of the signers of the Constitution
were Deist, the others included: seven Congregationalists,
twenty-five Episcopalians, two Dutch Reformed, ten Presbyterians,
three Quakers, two Catholics, two Methodist, and one Lutheran.7
The original signers were a perfect example of the religious freedom
they implemented within the First Amendment of the Constitution, a
mixture of religion with politics not a removal of religion from
politics. William Johnson, one of the original signers of the Constitution,
said “Your first great duties, you are sensible, are those you owe to
Heaven, to your Creator and Redeemer. Let these be ever present
to your minds, and exemplified in your lives and conduct.”8 The
signers believed that they could and should have religion in every part
of their lives, including their political lives. They could not separate
their religious lives from their political lives; and in fact, studies have
proven that the Bible has directly contributed to thirty-four percent
of all their quotes.9 They never suggested that they must check their
religion at the door when they entered politics; in fact, they emphasized
the opposite: they needed their religion more when they entered politics.
The original Founders believed that government derived its powers
from God and that belief is exemplified in their writings. Since God is
the source of all governmental powers, it only stands to reason that
religion must be infused into politics like a human body must have
blood in order to survive. John Adams wrote on August 28, 1811,
“Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism
and all of free government, but of social felicity under all governments
and in all combinations of human society.” 10 Timothy Dwight, the
president of Yale, said in 1798, “Religion and liberty are the meat and
drink of the body of politic” and he goes on to say, “If our religion were
gone, our state of society would perish with it, and nothing would be left.”11
Alexander Hamilton admitted that without the finger of God such various interests
would never have established the Constitution12 and the whole Congress admitted the
same thing in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which states, “SECTION 13. And, for
extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis
whereon these republics, their laws, and constitutions are erected.”13 These men believed
that religion was the basis for all government. With that reasoning they chose to
include religion in their politics, as well as their laws, for without it the body of our
nation would die.
In his first inaugural address George Washington prayed to God. Today, he
would be criticized for flagrantly wearing his religion on his sleeve and for his
intolerance of other religions. He lived what he believed and constantly referred to God,
prayed, and read his Bible daily.13 Under his presidency the Congress actually issued an
order to print 20,000 Bibles for the Indians, an order that would violate today’s definition
of separation;14 and they appointed Mr. J. Duche chaplain of the Congress,15 something
they still do to this day. Their blending of religion into politics did not stop here; they
included religion’s ideas and ideals into many laws issued on the state and federal level.
The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, issued by Congress
on July 6, 1775, asked for God’s mercy throughout the Revolutionary conflict; and on
March 16, 1776, they appointed a day of prayer and fasting, which has reoccurred many
times throughout the history of the United States.16 In 1783, the peace treaty with Great
Britain began with these words, “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,”
another inclusion of religion within a governmental document.17
Jefferson and Madison were both against the state government of Virginia funding
churches and disagreed with Patrick Henry on the issue but nowhere in the 2,000 printed
letters between them is there any hostility towards religion. They both hated the
intolerance of religious practice by those would not accept the authenticity of diverse
beliefs.18
These inclusions of religion within governmental policy stretched into the
government’s involvement in education, involvement which today has been all but
banned. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states “Article III. Religion, morality, and
knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools
and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”19 Benjamin Franklin wrote in
his Proposal Relating to the Education of Youth that religion needed to be included in the
curriculum, which Horace Mann included in his public school system in Massachusetts.20
Benjamin Rush said, in reference to education in 1798, “I shall proceed in the next
place, to inquire, what mode of education we shall adopt so as to secure to the state all the
advantages that are to be derived from the proper institution of youth; and here I beg
leave to remark, that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid
in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no
liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. “ 21 The Founders
believed that religion was necessary not only for good government but also in
the education of the youth so that they would develop into productive citizens. They
believed that if the U.S. were to lose religion in education, the quality of her citizens
would devalue; and in order to have good citizens, the nation needed to incorporate
religion into education. Mr. Rush believed that the loss of religion in education would
lead to the loss of virtue and inevitably liberty, which is the foundation of our nation.
Today, religion has been removed from schools under the auspices of the separation of
the church and state, completely opposing the Founders’ intent and whether the quality of
the citizens has declined would be opened to debate.
We may ask ourselves that if these men were so religious why have a First
Amendment at all; but when the original discussions on the First Amendment are
reviewed some interesting things come to light. James Madison wrote the initial draft but
the House Select Committee revised the words on August 15, 1789 to “No religion shall
be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.” 22 Peter
Sylvester, New York’s representative, objected to the Select Committee’s revision
because he feared that it would lead to the abolishment of religion altogether.23
Congressmen Benjamin Huntington feared that the words would hurt the cause of
religion and suggested that “The amendment be made in such a way as to secure the
rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.”24 These
men wanted to preserve religion’s rights but not require religious observance from all
citizens. The First Amendment was to limit the government from establishing a national
religion but without harming or hindering religion; in fact, Daniel Adams refused to have
Massachusetts ratify the Constitution because there was no guarantee that the government
would support religion’s growth.25
Jefferson is quoted many times as the creator of the phrase “wall of separation” and
as a proponent of the separation of church and state, which he was. He believed the
government shouldn’t regulate churches but even he was never against religion being in
politics or guiding politics with ideological policies. In a letter to the Danbury Baptist,
who also supported a separation of church and state, he said that the government needs to
stay out of the churches but nowhere in that letter does he support the removal of religion
from government. 26
The Founders were all deeply religious people who devoted themselves to their God
and nation and would not divorce their religion from their politics, keeping them
irrevocable separate. They believed that religion was the only secure foundation for
government, and in that belief, they included references to God and religion
continuously, which the current state laws and constitutions still contain references to,
and many presidents have declared days of fasting and prayer. They believed that the
education of the youth was dependent on religion to raise upstanding citizens and to
preserve liberty and republic government. The current definition of separation does not
allow for the inclusion of God or religion into politics in any form and actively seeks to
remove it from government, but the Founders actively sought to include religion in
government. The First Amendment was their way of protecting religion from
government’s intrusion by limiting government’s ability to establish a national religion. It
was never meant to sever all ties between government and religion; and in fact, they
actually feared the consequences of that travesty. I believe the current definition of
separation is completely opposed to the original intent of the First Amendment and the
founders of our nation. The old man shook his head and ambled back out of the room
thinking to himself, “I guess we have forgotten how our nation was founded.” He turned
off the light and with one more look back at the tarp, turned off the light and shut the
door.

Source Notes

1. Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, (New York: Harper Collins,
1999), 30.
2. Ibid., 40.
3. Ibid., 72.
4. William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (St. Louis, Amerisearch, Inc.,
1999), 203.
5. Ibid., 568.
6. Ibid.
7. Rick Gardiner, Primary Source Documents,
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/denom.html, 11/22/2004.
8. Federer, America’s God and Country, 337.
9. Ibid., 48-49.
10. Ibid., 12.
11. Ibid., 222.
12. Ibid., 273.
13. Tim LaHaye, Faith Of Our Founding Fathers, (Green Forest, Arizona:
Master Books Inc., 1999), 103-104.
14. Ibid., 96.
15. Federer, America’s God and Country, 145.
16. Ibid., 139-140.
17. Ibid., 149.
18. Johnson, A History of the American People, 207.
19. Federer, America’s God and Country, 484.
20. Johnson, A History of the American People, 302.
21. Rick Gardiner, Primary Source Documents,
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/rush.html, 11/22/2004.
22. Federer, America’s God and Country, 158-159.
23. Ibid., 159.
24. Ibid.
25. David Brion Davis and Steven Mintz, ed., The Boisterous Sea of
Liberty, (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1998), 250.
26. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptist,
http://www.loc.gov/lcib/9806/danpost.html 12/01/04.

Bibliography

Brodie, Fawn M. Thomas Jefferson An Intimate History. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company Inc., 1974.
Bruun, Eric. Our Nation’s Archive. New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers,
1999.
Cayton, Andrew. America, Pathways to the Present. Needham, Massachusetts: Prentice
Hall, 2000.
Colbert, David. Eyewitness to America. New York: Pantheon Books, 1977.
Davidson, James West. Nation of Nations, A Narrative History of the American Republic.
New York: McGraw Fill, Inc., 1990.
Davis, David Brion. The Boisterous Sea of Liberty. New York: Oxford University Press,
Inc., 1998.
Federer, William. America’s God and Country. St. Louis, Amerisearch, Inc., 1999.
Gardiner, Rick. Primary Source Documents,
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/rush.html. 11/22/2004.
Grady, Bill. What Hath God Wrought. Merrillville, Indiana: Grady Publications, Inc.,
1996.
Jefferson, Thomas. Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptist.
http://www.loc.gov/lcib/9806/danpost.html. 12/01/04.
Johnson, Paul. A History of the American People. New York: Harper Collins, 1999.
LaHaye, Tim. Faith of Our Founding Fathers. Green Forest, Arizona: Master Books,
Inc., 1999.
Nash, Gary. The American People, Creating a Nation and a Society, Volume One: To
1877. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2004.