David Barton

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect denomination. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendents. Senate Judiciary Committee: The clause speaks of “an establishment of religion.” What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother country which was an endowment, at the public expense, in exclusion of or in preference to any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship or religious observances.

These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided. They the Founders intended, by this Amendment, to prohibit “an establishment of religion” such as the English Church presented, or anything like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy.

The First Amendment was enacted only for a very narrow purpose and to prohibit a very specific offense. The Founders, however, not only chose not to establish federally any particular denomination of Christianity, they further never intended the First Amendment to become a vehicle to promote a pluralism of other religions. As Justice Story explained in his Commentaries: The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.

Some people raise two objections against the original intent of the First Amendment. First, they argue that its purpose is no longer valid today since at the time of the Founders the nation was completely homogeneous in its faith. This assertion is incorrect. The Founders openly acknowledged the presence of numerous religious groups in America, including Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, etc. In fact, in 1790, Dr. Benjamin Rush a signer of the Declaration and one of America’s top educators authored the first work calling for free public schools.

Additionally, school officials have taken the position that students at school may: invite their friends to meetings unless the meetings are religious, share literature with their friends unless the literature is religious, receive personal gifts from friends unless the gift is a Bible or has a religious message, wear the clothing of their choice unless it has Christian messages, pass out valentines to classmates unless the valentines have a religious message, wear costumes at Halloween unless the costume depicts a religious personality  and there are numerous additional examples.

While all of this transformation has occurred since the 1947 introduction of the “separation” metaphor in Everson, significantly, none of the activities currently restricted represent any violation of the actual wording of the First Amendment. That Amendment places prohibitions only against the federal Congress and not on states, communities, schools, or individuals i.e., “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”. However, under the Court’s new

First Amendment: “Congress” now means a “student” or a citizen, teacher, soldier, school, community, etc., “make no law” means “cannot express one’s faith in a public arena”, “establish” religion means “allow” religion; and “an establishment of religion” now means “to express one’s formerly constitutionally protected ‘free exercise of religion’ in an official public forum or arena” It is more than a bizarre rendering when “Congress” an elected body of the federal legislature can mean a single individual, and “making a law” the action of the federal legislature can mean expressing one’s personal faith in public.

The Everson decision, however, was revolutionary not only for its introduction of the modern “separation” doctrine but also for dramatically expanding the role of the federal judiciary. How was this accomplished? By coupling the Fourteenth Amendment’s racial civil rights guarantee with the First Amendment’s prohibition against the congressional establishment of a national religion. The consequence of merging these two dissimilar Amendments was twofold.

First, the Court reversed the bedrock constitutional standard that the First Amendment limited only the federal but not State or local governments. Second, because the new reading of the First Amendment empowered the Court to restrict states, communities, and individuals, the federal judiciary therefore assigned itself the role as sole arbiter of all religious controversies, even to what an individual citizen may or may not do. Yet, the massive expansion of the Court’s federal jurisdiction was achieved only by directly disregarding the specific purposes for which both the First and the Fourteenth Amendments were enacted – a fact clearly demonstrated by a brief review of each of those Amendments.

In city seals with numerous symbols representing diverse aspects of a community (e.g., its industry, commerce, history, flora, schools, etc.), it is unconstitutional for any of those symbols to depict a religious element even if religion was a primary historic influence in the city’s founding. FRIEDMAN v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 1985; HARRIS v. CITY OF ZION, 1991; KUHN v. CITY OF ROLLING MEADOWS, 1991; ROBINSON v. CITY OF EDMOND, 1995; ACLU OF OHIO v. CITY OF STOW, 1998; WEBB v. CITY OF REPUBLIC, 1999

It is unconstitutional for a nativity scene to be displayed on public property unless surrounded by sufficient secular displays to prevent it from appearing religious. ACLU v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 1986; COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY v. ACLU, 1989; AMANCIO v. TOWN OF SOMERSET, 1998; ACLU OF NEW JERSEY v. SCHUNDLER, 1997, 1999; ACLU v. CITY OF FLORISSANT, 1999 It is unconstitutional for Christians to pray public prayers that reflect their own personal faith and beliefs. DOE v. SANTA FE I.S.D., 1995; FURLEY v. ALEDO I.S.D., 1999; BACUS v. PALO VERDE U.S.D., 2002; RUBIN v. CITY OF BURBANK, 2002; WYNNE v. TOWN OF GREAT FALLS, 2004;  HINRICHS v. BOSMA, 2005; DOE v. TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCH. BD., 2006; TURNER v. CITY COUNCIL, 2006.

Even though the actual wording of a bill may be constitutional, the bill becomes unconstitutional if the legislator who introduced it had a religious activity in his mind. WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 1985 These decisions are representative of the current hostility toward traditional religious expressions; and the hostility has spread well beyond the courts, now permeating the official public square. For example: In Minnesota, a state employee was barred from parking his car in the state parking lot because he had religious stickers on his bumper.

A military honor guardsman who was part of a special unit that conducted military funeral solemnities for fallen warriors was removed from his position for saying “God bless you and this family, and God bless the United States of America” while presenting a military family a folded flag in honor of a deceased family member even though he had been asked by the family to include that blessing in the flag presentation to them. In DeFuniak Springs, Florida, a judge ordered that a copy of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse be covered during a murder trial, fearing that if jurors saw the command “Do not kill,” they would be prejudiced against the defendant.

At about the same time that the Rev. Garnet preached his sermon, another first in black history occurred. Republican Senator Charles Sumner nominated black attorney John Rock as the first black American to become a member of the U. S. Supreme Court bar; John Rock was then introduced before the U. S. House of Representatives, becoming the first African American attorney to be introduced in Congress. 123 over recent years, democrats have largely voted against protecting traditional religious and moral expressions, such as displays of the Ten Commandments attorney john rock Because of the 13th Amendment and the end of slavery, black Americans particularly in the South could now enjoy their first real taste of civil rights their first genuine opportunity for political participation. Within a year, blacks were registering to vote and were forming political parties across the South.

For example, at a rally in Houston, Texas, on July 4th, 1867, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the Republican Party of Texas; and black Americans also started other southern Republican parties as well. In the years immediately following the Civil War, the former Rebels were not allowed to vote in their

States until they took an oath of loyalty. In that oath, they swore first, an oath of allegiance to the United States, and second, an oath in 1865, john rock became the first African American to become a member of the supreme court bar across the south, blacks registered to vote and formed political parties to respect the civil rights of black Americans. 128 If a Rebel did not swear this oath, he could not vote and many Democrats could not vote because they refused to take the oath, or because they could not pass other federal requirements. 129 Therefore, for a few years Republicans became the political majority in most of the southern States. Those Republican legislatures moved quickly to protect voting rights for African Americans, prohibit segregation, and establish public education, and to open public transportation, State police, schools, and other institutions to black Americans.

Not only were the southern legislatures at that time Republican but nearly every southern legislature included many black legislators. In fact, the first 42 blacks elected to the State legislature in Texas were all Republicans. And in Louisiana, the first 95 black representatives and the first 32 black senators were Republicans. Similarly, in Alabama, the first 103 blacks elected to the State legislature were Republicans; 133 in Mississippi, the first 112; 134 in South Carolina, the first 190; 135 in southern pro slavery democrats were required to sign this oath before they could vote  and in Georgia, State legislature – all as Republicans. Virginia, the first 46; 136 in Florida, the first 30, 137 and the same in North Carolina; 13841 blacks were elected to the of course, Democrats were not pleased with this progress and therefore took decisive action. For example, in Georgia, where the State legislature was still in the hands of Democrats, they ruled republican civil rights laws opened new opportunities to black Americans some of the black republican members of the Louisiana legislature that while blacks might have the right to be elected, they did not have the right to serve in office; Democrats therefore expelled 31 elected blacks from the Georgia legislature, thus keeping the majority in the hands of Democrats.