We live in a republic thus highly favored of heaven, and under a social compact from which so many benefits result: and whilst these considerations should animate us with exalted sentiments of patriotism  they ought above all to inspire us with becoming gratitude to the great ruler of nations, on whose favor all our happiness depends. George Clinton, Revolutionary General; Governor of New

And I do hereby call upon the people to offer to our Almighty and all-gracious God, through our Great Mediator, our sincere and solemn prayers for his Divine assistance and the influences of His Holy Spirit. Jonathan Trumbull, Governor of Connecticut

We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning at o’clock sic during the sessions in order to open the meeting with prayer. Elias Boudinot, President of Congress

Let us therefore implore Him to continue his benedictions upon our beloved country, and to grant us unanimity, patriotism, and wisdom, to pursue, at this important session, the most essential interest of this State and of the union. Daniel Tompkins, Governor of New York; Vice President of the U.S.

Numerous similar calls for public prayer were regularly issued by our Founding Fathers and by the Congress. This fact was so clear that it evidently caused the Court to refrain from even raising the issue of historical precedent. As the dissent noted, the Court’s decision was “conspicuously bereft of any reference to history.”

This statement, however, was not completely accurate. Justice Souter, in his concurring opinion, had acknowledged that the Founders allowed, encouraged, and participated in such prayers; but he then accused the Founders of not understanding the meaning of the Constitution they themselves had authored. Souter complained:

Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned. Let us earnestly call and beseech him for Christ’s sake to preside in our councils. Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress

The ethics, doctrines, and examples furnished by Christianity exhibit the best models for the laws. Dewit Clinton, Introduced the Twelfth Amendment; Governor of New York; U.S. Senator

An early House Judiciary Committee affirmed the Founders’ lack of pluralistic intent when it declared:

Christianity was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. The Founders did respect other religions; however, they neither promoted pluralism nor intended that the First Amendment do so. Although the Court’s decision in this case was favorable in the sense that tax exemptions for churches were preserved, the ruling demonstrated a major inconsistency by the Court: it upheld tax exemptions because of their historical precedent. As the Court explained:

In resolving such questions of interpretation “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.”  The more long-standing and widely accepted a practice, the greater its impact upon constitutional interpretation.

However, Justice William Douglas, who had voted to remove tax exemptions from churches, pointed out in his dissent that the Court’s reliance on history and precedent to arrive at its conclusion in this case was the very practice it had avoided in previous First Amendment cases. He noted, for example, that although school prayer had been as equally a long-standing historical tradition as tax exemptions, this had not prevented it from being declared unconstitutional. The Walz case, despite its favorable ruling, had introduced yet another new and different purpose to the First Amendment by claiming its intent was to promote pluralism. Stone v. Graham, 1980

Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God. Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution

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. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind. Benjamin Rush Signer of the Declaration In my view, the Christian religion is the more important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. Noah Webster

The attainment of knowledge does not comprise all which is contained in the larger term of education. A profound religious feeling is to be instilled and pure morality inculcated under all circumstances. All this is comprised in education. Daniel Webster

Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as Divine revelation in the college school its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated?  Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly asfrom the New Testament? Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court, Father of American Jurisprudence

I cannot omit this occasion of inviting your attention to the means of instruction for the rising generation. To enable them to perceive and duly to estimate their rights; to inculcate correct principles and habits of morality and religion, and thus to render them useful citizens, a competent provision for their education is all essential. Daniel Tompkins, Governor of New York; Vice President of the U.S.

Bad examples to youth are rarer in America, which must be comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practised. Atheism is unknown there; infidelity a disbelief in the Scriptures and in Christianity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country, without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an atheist or an infidel. While there was some anti-organized-religion sentiment among the Founders e.g., Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, Charles Lee, Henry Dearborn, those with such views numbered very few among the total number o f Founding Fathers. In fact, even a cursory examination of the Founders’ own declarations in their last wills and testaments provides convincing evidence of the strong religious beliefs evident among so many of them. Observe:

Principally and first of all, I recommend my soul to that Almighty Being who gave it and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins. Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration

Firstly I commit my Soul into the hands of God, its great and benevolent author. Josiah Barlett, Signer of the Declaration

First and principally, I commit my Soul unto Almighty God. David Brearley, Signer of the Constitution

Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity. John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution

I resign my soul into the hands of the Almighty who gave it in humble hopes of his mercy through our Savior Jesus Christ. Gabriel Duvall, Selected as Delegate to Constitutional Convention; U. S. Supreme Court

Religious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. Weekly church services were held in the U. S. Capitol continually from 1795 until well after the Civil War, and were regularly attended by U. S. Presidents, Senators, and Representatives. The practices of the original Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches all repudiate today’s doctrine of “separation of church and state” which purports that our Founding Fathers disapproved of religious activities in official public settings.

America’s rapid rise as a successful nation was a wonder to many foreigners; how could a group of farmers and merchants have defeated what was arguably the world’s greatest military power? Furthermore, how had America established a government which so quickly became envied across the world? To answer questions such as these, many foreign writers traveled to America first to investigate and then to report their findings to their own countrymen. Consequently, their observations on America and American life are perhaps some of the more objective and informative.

One such visitor was Edward Kendall. He traversed America in 1807 and 1808 and then returned to Great Britain where in 1809 he published his three-volume work, Travels in America. Notice his description of election day in America from his visit to Connecticut in 1807:

At about eleven o’clock, his Excellency Governor Jonathan Trumbull entered the statehouse and shortly after took his place at the head of a procession which was made to a meetinghouse or church at something less that half a mile distance. The procession was on foot and was composed of the person of the governor, together with the lieutenant-governor, assistants, high-sheriffs, members of the lower house of assembly, and, unless with accidental exceptions, all the clergy of the State.

The pulpit or, as it is here called, the desk, was filled by three if not four clergymen; a number which, by its form and dimensions, it was able to accommodate. Of these, one opened the service with a prayer; another delivered a sermon; a third made a concluding prayer, and a fourth pronounced a benediction. Several hymns were sung; and, among others, an occasional one a special one for that occasion. The total number of singers was between forty and fifty. The sermon, as will be supposed, touched upon matters of government. When all was finished, the procession returned to the statehouse.

Late in his life, after requesting permission from President Washington, Duché returned to America where he spent his remaining years request was therefore referred to a committee of Daniel Roberdeau, John Adams, and Jonathan Smith 103 who examined the possibilities and then on September 11, reported to Congress: That the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great your Committee recommend that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the States of the Union.

Congress agreed and ordered the Bibles imported. On October 31, in consequence of several unexpected American victories Bennington, Stillwater, Saratoga, and others, Congress appointed Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee, and Daniel Roberdeau to draft a proclamation for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving.

On November 1, 1777, Congress approved that proclamation, which declared: Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received and to implore such farther blessings as they stand in need of to offer humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot our sins out of remembrance and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth “in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

On December 15, 1777, John Adams reported to Abigail that the direct, open, and frequent intervention of God was evident to most Americans: I have had many opportunities in the course of this journey to observe how deeply rooted our righteous cause is in the minds of the people. One evening as I sat in one room, I overheard a company of the common sort of people in another room conversing upon serious subjects. At length I heard these words: “It appears to me the eternal Son of God is operating powerfully against the British nation for their treating lightly serious things.” That spiritual tone extended far beyond the passing conversation of just the “common sort of people”; it was also evident among the people’s leaders.

It’s president immediately preceding the Revolution was the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, later a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a venerated leader among the patriots. Notice some of Princeton’s requirements while John Witherspoon was president: Every student shall attend worship in the college hall morning and evening at the hours appointed and shall behave with gravity and reverence during the whole service. Every student shall attend public worship on the Sabbath.

Besides the public exercises of religious worship on the Sabbath, there shall be assigned to each class certain exercises for their religious instruction suited to the age and standing of the pupils and no student belonging to any class shall neglect them. Signers James Madison, Richard Stockton, Benjamin Rush, Gunning Bedford, Jonathan Dayton, and numerous other prominent Founders, graduated from Princeton a seminary for the training of ministers.

In 1754, Dartmouth College of New Hampshire made especially famous by alumnus Daniel Webster’s defense of its charter before the U. S. Supreme Court in 1819 39 was founded by the Rev. Eleazar Wheelock. Its charter was very succinct as to its purpose: Where as the Reverend Eleazar Wheelock educated a number of the children of the Indian natives with a view to their carrying the Gospel in their own language and spreading the knowledge of the great Redeemer among their savage tribes. And the design became reputable among the Indians insomuch that a larger number desired the education of their children in said school.

Therefore Dartmouth-College is established for the education and instruction of youth sin reading, writing and all parts of learning which shall appear necessary and expedient for civilizing and Christianizing the children. That same year 1754, King’s College was founded in New York. Following the American Revolution, its name was changed to Columbia College; and in 1787, Constitution signer William Samuel Johnson was appointed its first president. Columbia’s admission requirements were straightforward: No candidate shall be admitted into the College unless he shall be able to rend into English the Gospels from the Greek.

Under federal statutes, Samuel Davis had been convicted, fined, and sentenced to jail for bigamy and polygamy. He appealed, and before the Supreme Court his attorneys argued that laws against bigamy and polygamy: 1 were a violation of the First Amendment because they interfered with Davis and other Mormon’s free exercise of religion; and 2 the Idaho law under which he was convicted was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibited the States from making laws that interfered with the rights of their citizens.

The Court rejected those arguments; its response was very straightforward and succinct: Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman and to debase man. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community.

To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. There have been sects who denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes as prompted by the passions of its members. Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines and no heed would be given to the pretence that their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the Constitution of the United States? Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts recognized by the general consent of the Christian world must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect may be carried out without hindrance.

The constitutions of several States, in providing for religious freedom, have declared expressly that such freedom shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness looseness and immorality. The constitution of New York of 1777 provided as follows: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever thereafter be allowed within this State to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience hereby granted shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness.”

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” Very simply, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, it was understood that he was affirming to them his belief that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God given right.

They were therefore assured that the issue of religious expressions was above federal jurisdiction. So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge? He queried: And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?

That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Court only once prior to the 1947 Everson case the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878, unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight word separation phrase, that Court published a lengthy section from Jefferson’s letter, and then concluded: Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it Jefferson’s letter may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured.

Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere religious opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”: The rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In this is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

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.