Taking God out of the Education System 2018-02-02T10:39:35+00:00

Taking God out of the Education System


Think back. If you attended public school in the last few decades, you probably remember being taught that America was founded by a lively assortment of slaveholding Christians, deists and free-thinkers who insisted on instituting a “constitutional separation of church and state.” Thomas Jefferson, you were reminded, had famously affirmed this “wall of separation” in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists.

You could be forgiven for inferring from all this “education” that, back in the good old days at least, government scrupulously kept religion at arms length. But that would be a truly deluded secularist fantasy. In reality, throughout the late 1700s – the era of the Revolutionary War and the subsequent adoption of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment – Christianity permeated America from top to bottom.   Read More...

  • In 1777, with the Revolutionary War threatening the flow of Bibles from England, Congress approved the purchase of 20,000 Bibles from Holland to give to the states.
  • No fewer than six of the 13 original states had official, state-supported churches – “establishments of religion”! I’ll bet you didn’t know that. In fact, these states – Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and South Carolina – refused to ratify the new national Constitution unless it included a prohibition of federal meddling with their existing state “establishments of religion.”
  • Still other states required those seeking elected office to be Christians.
  • The Continental Congress routinely designated days of “fasting and prayer” and other religious observances, appointed government-funded chaplains, and appropriated money to pay for Christian missionaries to convert the Indians.In other words, the original American government under the Constitution would have driven the American Civil Liberties Union stark, raving mad.
    What a difference 200 years can make. Today, for every big case that makes the evening news – like the banishment of the 10 Commandments from the Alabama courthouse, or the judicial ban on the “Under God” phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance – there are countless other smaller cases, every bit as mind-boggling:

    • A federal court ruled that a schoolteacher couldn’t be seen in school with his own personal Bible, and later ruled that a classroom library containing 237 books must remove from the library the two titles dealing with Christianity.The Continental Congress routinely designated days of “fasting and prayer” and other religious observances, appointed government-funded chaplains, and appropriated money to pay for Christian missionaries to convert the Indians.In other words, the original American government under the Constitution would have driven the American Civil Liberties Union stark, raving mad.
  • A criminal, convicted and sentenced by a jury for brutally clubbing to death a 71-year-old woman with an axe handle so he could steal her Social Security check, got his sentence overturned. Why? The prosecuting attorney, in a statement lasting less than five seconds, mentioned a Bible verse in the courtroom.
  • A public cemetery, ruled a federal court, couldn’t have a planter in the shape of a cross, since, as the court explained, the mere sight of it could cause “emotional distress” to a passerby and thus constitute “injury-in-fact.””Injury-in-fact”? From looking at a planter?

Isn’t it about time we face the painful truth – that we Americans have had our Constitution, and therefore the very reins of power, stolen from us while we were busy going to work, raising our kids, paying the bills and watching “Jeopardy”?

Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, “Separation of Church and State”. Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: “separation”, “church”, and “state” do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to a church (the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut). The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson’s letter from which the phrase “separation of church and state” was written to affirm first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)

The reason Jefferson choose the expression “separation of church and state” was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist’s own prominent preachers. Williams had said:

When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world…(2)

The “wall” was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

I know all about the separation of church and state.

For seven years one of my relatives, Rev. John Greenwood, the half brother of my great (x13) grandfather, was confined in prison and finally on the sixth of April, 1593, was taken from jail in England and hanged for his belief and teaching of – the separation of church and state.

That little band of Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth, Mass., in 1620, were his followers — they had worshipped at the church he founded — that band of Puritans that landed in America and founded Boston were believers in the doctrine that John Greenwood was the first to publish and teach – the separation of church and state.

The Pilgrims at Plymouth brought to America the teachings of John Greenwood — including the separation of church and state — and if America owes its greatness, its progress, and its achievements to one principle in government more than another it is that in America every American can kneel at the altar of his own faith, and worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. The state in America is separated from the church. American government tolerates no single form of religious worship but shelters and protects alike all. John Greenwood taught that there could be but one head of the church and that head was not a King or Queen but Jesus Christ, and that there could be no law for the government of the church other than what the Scriptures contained.

Both the phrase and concept of the separation of chuch and state used by Thomas Jefferson and Roger Williams came directly from the teachings of Rev. John Greenwood.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture.

The people did not want freedom FROM religion, but freedom OF religion.

The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God’s ways were much higher than Man’s ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960’s. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble — the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country’s.

Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man’s heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that’s why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government.

If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king…” The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state?

People have read too much into the phrase “separation of church and state”, which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said…

“God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.”(4)

In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited.

For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn’t want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, “In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time… the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law.”(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, “…there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality.” This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”

What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God’s protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990’s — even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.

The below video is from 2008. The stats quoted by David Barton are even worse now!

Since 1963 following the removal of the Bible and prayer from schools, William Jeynes, a professor at California State College in Long Beach, said there have been five negative developments in the nation’s public schools:

  • Academic achievement has plummeted, including SAT scores.
  • Increased rate of out-of-wedlock births
  • Increase in illegal drug use
  • Increase in juvenile crime
  • Deterioration of school behavior

“So we need to realize that these actions do have consequences,” said Jeynes, professor at California State College in Long Beach and senior fellow at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J., “When we remove that moral fiber — that moral emphasis – this is what can result.”

Top 5 complaints of Teachers from 1940-62 before Bible & prayer were removed:

  1. talking
  2. chewing gum
  3. making noise
  4. running in the halls, and
  5. getting out of turn in line

And from 1963 to present.

  1. rape
  2. robbery
  3. assault
  4. burglary, and
  5. arson

Satan is not a creator. He cannot create anything. All he can do is take that which God has created and ‘twist’ it upside-down and call it something else. God created good – Satan twisted it into evil. God created love – Satan twisted it into hate. God created faith – Satan twisted it into fear. Do you see how he works?

Satan also twists the good things that man has created as well. To the point – our founding fathers, many of which were ministers, created the constitution and it’s amendments including the First Amendment which provides for legal protection of the Church from the State (i.e. government) – Satan has now twisted that in the minds of the people to “protect” the State and all governmental entities, property, programs, etc… from the Church – banning the very freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees!  The IRS has already go so far as to tell Pastors what they can and cannot preach and teach in their own churches – threatening to revoke their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status! Now. even though, President Trump, in support of religion freedoms, ordered all federal agencies to cease this and other similar practices, a future President could, just as easily, turn this on it’s head again.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone’s morality is going to be taught — but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man’s ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history.

In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity.

This my friends is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

Today in the United States, 90% of the population believes in God!  80% of those believe in the Judeo-Christian Ethic (i.e. believe in Jesus).  But Hollywood and the media has convinced most Christians that they are – the vast minority!  When in fact Christians are the “Silent Majority!”  Alolph Hitler once said that if a well crafted lie is told often enough and long enough it will become as good as the the truth!  For example, “the Religious Right” is a totally fictitious entity.  There SHOULD be one, but there is no such thing!  Christians just haven’t seemed to be able get together long enough to realize the strength they would have if they united politically.  Now the “Religious Right” is just a straw-man to hide a REAL and very active movement – “the Atheist Left!”

“Separation of Church and State,” as touted by the left, is just a myth.  But it’s a myth that if allowed to continue will continue to daily chip away our religious freedoms.  We just cannot keep quiet about it any longer.  Christians must be taught on this subject now – before it becomes illegal to do even that!  All evil needs to flourish is for good men – to do (and say) nothing!

What ‘wall of separation’?

First a quick civics lesson. The section of the Constitution that deals with religion is Amendment I of the Bill of Rights – the first 16 words of it, anyway.

There’s the “Establishment Clause” (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) and the “Free Exercise Clause” (“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”).

The “Establishment Clause” – that’s the one today’s courts almost always focus on – simply prohibits the federal government from “establishing” a national church, or from interfering with the established churches in the states! (Remember, several states already had state-supported “establishments of religion.”)

Possibly you wonder whether the issue is really this cut-and-dried. After all, for the last half-century, judicial activists on the Supreme Court and lower courts, ACLU lawyers, the press and the secular culture in general have embraced “the constitutional separation of church and state” as though it actually existed somewhere in the Constitution. Of course, none of these words – “separation,” “church” or “state” – are in the First Amendment.

Let’s go back in time and witness the conversation among those who debated and approved the wording of the Bill of Rights, and find out what they really meant.

The date is June 8, 1789. James Madison – key architect of the Constitution and a leading member of the First Congress – is proposing the following wording for what ultimately will become the religion clauses of the First Amendment:

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

The representatives debate this for a bit, and then turn it over to a committee consisting of Madison and 10 other House members, which comes up with a new version:

“No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.”

More debate. Madison explains that “he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”

Rep. Benjamin Huntington complains the proposed wording might “be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion.” So Madison suggests inserting the word “national” before the word “religion,” to assuage the fears of those concerned over the establishment of a national religion – and of being compelled to conform to it. (After all, wasn’t that precisely the reason their forefathers the Puritans had come to America in the first place – to escape the tyranny of England’s compulsory state religion?)

But Rep. Gerry balks at the word “national,” because, he argues, the Constitution created a federal government, not a national one. So Madison withdraws his latest proposal, but assures Congress his reference to a “national religion” had to do with a national religious establishment, not a national government.

A week later, the House again alters the wording this way:

“Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.”

Meanwhile, the Senate debates other versions of the same amendment and on Sept. 3, 1789, comes up with this wording:

“Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

The House doesn’t like the Senate’s changes and calls for a conference, from which emerges – finally – the wording ultimately included in the Bill of Rights:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

OK, now that we’ve “witnessed” the debate over the First Amendment, do you really think the Founding Fathers wanted to make kids into criminals for saying “Merry Christmas” at school? Did they intend for the Supreme Court to outlaw prayer in the nation’s learning institutions, when all of their own congressional sessions to this very day open with a prayer?

Of course not. In fact, Joseph Story, appointed by President James Madison to the Supreme Court in 1811, where he served for the next 33 years until his death, explained exactly how the high court regarded the First Amendment in his celebrated “Commentary on the Constitution of the United States”:

    Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

The real object of the [First Amendment] was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism [Islam], or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.

Even today, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in reviewing the same 1789 First Amendment deliberations you just “witnessed” comes to the same conclusion as Story:

    On the basis of the record of these proceedings in the House of Representatives, James Madison was undoubtedly the most important architect among the Members of the House of the Amendments which became the Bill of Rights … His original language, “nor shall any national religion be established,” obviously does not conform to the “wall of separation” between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language – “that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law” is of the same ilk. …

It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison’s thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion. …

Rehnquist adds tellingly that “None of the other Members of Congress who spoke during the August 15th debate expressed the slightest indication that they thought the language before them … would require that the Government be absolutely neutral as between religion and irreligion. The evil to be aimed at, so far as those who spoke were concerned, appears to have been the establishment of a national church, and perhaps the preference of one religious sect over another; but it was definitely not concerned about whether the Government might aid all religions evenhandedly. …”

Oh, by the way, as if to thumb its nose through time at the ACLU two centuries later, the very day after the House of Representatives adopted the First Amendment’s religion clauses, Rep. Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking the president, George Washington, to issue a national Thanksgiving Day Proclamation.

Boudinot said he “could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them.”

On Sept. 25, 1789, Boudinot’s resolution was passed, and within two weeks Washington responded with the following Presidential Proclamation. Read it carefully:

    Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

These inspiring words from the father of our country would no doubt have inspired a lawsuit threat from the ACLU had the group been around then.

What happened to God?

For the next 150 years or so, America’s judiciary interpreted the First Amendment in accord with what you have just read – as prohibiting the establishment of a single national denomination. Court rulings and public policies reflected that common understanding.

But then, halfway through the last century, something happened which changed all that.

This “something” first showed its face in 1947, in the landmark Supreme Court case Everson v. Board of Education. Speaking for the majority, and without citing previous case law to support the court’s decision, Justice Hugo Black announced a new and previously unknown legal principle: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

Ever since then, the high court’s rulings have progressively and relentlessly aimed at removing every vestige of Christian words, imagery or symbolism from public property.

From the decisions during the 1960s outlawing school prayer and religious instruction in the nation’s schools to today’s surreal court battles over whether it’s OK for school kids to pledge allegiance “Under God,” today’s judiciary interprets the First Amendment in a radically different way than did their predecessors during America’s first one-and-a-half centuries.

Time to ask some disturbing questions.

First, about these judges. When they create legislation through judicial fiat that no legislature in the nation could, or would, dare enact – as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did in November 2003 when it mandated same-sex marriage in that state – do these judges realize what they’re doing? Do they understand that they’re flouting the U.S. and state constitutions, violating their oaths of office daily, betraying the trust of current and future generations of Americans, and usurping power that’s not legally theirs?

You might think: How could they not know? After all, these judges are virtually all lawyers and supposedly constitutional scholars. They’ve sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. Before rendering a decision they presumably have conducted a thorough investigation into what the Constitution says – and means – about the matter at hand.

Keep in mind that, despite what you may have been led to believe, it’s a simple task to ascertain the original meaning of any part of the Constitution or its amendments. We’ve more or less demonstrated that in these pages by briefly examining the debate over the First Amendment’s religion clauses. The Constitution is not long, mystical and transcendent like the Bible, open to all sorts of conflicting interpretations. Rather, it is a short, clear, relatively recent, English-language contract that was written for the average person. Its original intent is an open book and therefore beyond reasonable dispute.

How about some more specific questions:

  • How can Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, proclaim that she and her fellow justices are now looking to international law to guide their decisions, as she did in a 2003 speech to the American Constitution Society? “Our island or lone-ranger mentality is beginning to change,” she proclaimed, adding that justices “are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives.”
  • Similarly, how could Justice Stephen Breyer, on ABC News’ “This Week,” question whether the Constitution will be sufficient to governing America in the future? Breyer said to host George Stephanopoulos: “We see all the time, Justice O’Connor and I, and the others, how the world really – it’s trite but it’s true – is growing together. Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it’s becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they’re going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations.”
  • Say what? “… whether our Constitution”? “… how it fits”? What happened to the Constitution being the “supreme law of the land”?
  • How does the Supreme Court justify mountains of federal gun control laws when justices know very well the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee to the individual an unfettered (“shall not be infringed”) right to use firearms to defend himself and his family – whether from criminals, or, as was the Founders’ greater concern, from tyrannical government?
  • How did Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in the most controversial Supreme Court decision in history, Roe v. Wade, divine the right to abortion from the 14th Amendment’s supposed “right to privacy,” when there simply is no right to privacy in the 14th Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution?Let’s pause for a moment on Roe v. Wade – a decision that opened the door to over 40 million abortions. If we’re exploring how and why judges feel perfectly justified in ignoring the Constitution’s original intent, let’s consider one illuminating little story involving Blackmun, the hero of Roe v. Wade, and his pregnant daughter.In March 2004, when Blackmun’s private papers were finally released to the public decades after the momentous 1973 Roe decision, his daughter, Sally Blackmun, revealed something remarkable.

Talking to Womens Enews, Sally Blackmun disclosed for the first time that her father consulted with members of his family after being assigned responsibility for writing the majority opinion on Roe v. Wade.

“Roe was a case that Dad struggled with,” Blackmun told the feminist news service. “It was a case that he asked his daughters’ and wife’s opinion about.”

Most pertinent among those opinions would have been Sally’s. Seven years before Roe v. Wade, while she was a 19-year-old sophomore at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., Sally Blackmun discovered she was pregnant.

“It was one of those things I was not at all proud of, that I was not at all pleased with myself about. It was a big disappointment to my parents,” she told Womens Enews. “I did what so many young women of my era did. I quit college and married my 20-year-old college boyfriend. It was a decision that I might have made differently had Roe v. Wade been around.”

Shortly after the wedding, Sally Blackmun lost her child to a miscarriage. Although it took six years to complete her graduation requirements, she questions whether she would have graduated at all had her child been born. Getting pregnant had caused a major dent in the life she had planned. In those same six years, her hastily formed marriage collapsed. By then it was 1972 – the same year her father sought her input on Roe.

At the time of the Roe decision, Sally Blackmun lived and worked in Washington, D.C. Although Supreme Court decisions are generally made without advance announcement, Justice Blackmun notified his daughter so she could be present in court when the decision was read.

“I remember that it was very tense in the courtroom, very crowded. The decorum is such that people aren’t yelling and screaming and carrying on. We didn’t know how he was going to come down on it. And I was very pleased with the decision and the fact that it gave women that right of choice,” Blackmun told Womens Enews. “Dad always felt that it was the right thing to do and the necessary thing to do toward the full emancipation of women in this country. So we certainly were in favor of what he did.”

The obvious question: Did U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun’s passion for championing abortion rights have anything at all to do with his own daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy experience and the pain, embarrassment and trauma it caused the Blackmun family? Do we need to guess what sort of advice Sally – who later became an attorney and chairwoman of Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando – might have given her father? And is this how a Supreme Court decision, especially one responsible for over a million abortions ever year for three decades, is supposed to be made?

Is this what we’ve come to? Judges just make rulings based on their personal whims, emotions and family traumas, oblivious to the fact that they’re changing the course of history in profound and destructive ways?

How did we get from having justices like Joseph Story, who reverenced the Constitution and honored the intent and wisdom of the founders, to today’s justices? While a minority of modern judges are principled, many are simply unfettered by the Constitution.

Do you really want to know what happened in the mid-20th century that caused the Supreme Court to lose its prior allegiance to higher principles? The answer to this question is as obvious as it is unsettling: America as a whole was drifting away from its prior allegiance to higher principles.

Want to know how the Supreme Court could crank out its revolutionary 1962 ruling that outlawed school prayer and its 1963 decision banning Bible reading, religious classes and religious instruction in the nation’s schools? Just look at what was going on in Middle America at the same time.

‘Is God Dead?’

The cover of the April 8, 1966, issue of Time magazine – perhaps its most controversial edition ever – said it all. On a black background, giant red letters trumpeted the scandalous question: “Is God Dead?”

“There is an acute feeling that the churches on Sunday are preaching the existence of a God who is nowhere visible in their daily lives,” wrote Time reporter John T. Elson, surveying the religious malaise and uncertainty of mainstream Christianity during the 1960s. Leader after religious leader expressed doubt and confusion about the faith of their fathers. Even Francis B. Sayre, then Episcopal dean of Washington’s famed National Cathedral, admitted, “I’m confused as to what God is – but so is the rest of America.”

In light of the nation’s identity crisis during the 1960s, is it so shocking that the Supreme Court would lose its moorings and drift into uncharted legal waters?

Read a little more of what Time had to say:

    Lutheran Church Historian Martin Marty argues that all too many pews are filled on Sunday with practical atheists – disguised nonbelievers who behave during the rest of the week as if God did not exist. …

“I love God,” cries one anguished teen-ager, “but I hate the church.” Theologian Langdon Gilkey says that “belief is the area in the modern Protestant church where one finds blankness, silence, people not knowing what to say or merely repeating what their preachers say.”

Says Marty’s colleague at the Chicago Divinity School, the Rev. Nathan Scott, who is also rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Hyde Park: “I look out at the faces of my people and I’m not sure what meaning these words, gestures and rituals have for them.”

In search of meaning, some believers have desperately turned to psychiatry, Zen or drugs. Thousands of others have quietly abandoned all but token allegiance to the churches, surrendering themselves to a life of “anonymous Christianity” dedicated to civil rights or the Peace Corps. Speaking for a generation of young Roman Catholics for whom the dogmas of the church have lost much of their power, philosopher Michael Novak of Stanford writes: “I do not understand God, nor the way in which he works. If, occasionally, I raise my heart in prayer, it is to no God I can see, or hear, or feel. It is to a God in as cold and obscure a polar night as any non-believer has known.”

Whoa, talk about a fiery faith! With shepherds like this, no wonder the 1960s flock was scattered and befuddled. No wonder Eastern and cultic religious movements, from Transcendental Meditation to Hare Krishna, flourished and proliferated. And no wonder government, especially the judiciary, became intoxicated with the idea that it could create a more perfect world by enlarging its scope and power.

There was a spiritual vacuum in America – and government, as it usually does, came whooshing in to fill it.

Time’s analysis went on to explain that, in America, faith was being replaced by a new source of wisdom and truth – namely, science. “The rebellion against this God of faith is best summed up by the word secularization,” wrote Elson, who noted that the prestige of science had become so great that it had come to dominate other areas of life.

    In effect, knowledge has become that which can be known by scientific study – and what cannot be known that way somehow seems uninteresting, unreal. In previous ages, the man of ideas, the priest or the philosopher was regarded as the font of wisdom. Now, says [Anglican theologian David] Jenkins, the sage is more likely to be an authority “trained in scientific methods of observing phenomena, who bases what he says on a corpus of knowledge built up by observation and experiment and constantly verified by further processes of practice and observation.”

In other words, faith was out as a basis for governing our lives or country. In light of this zeitgeist among America’s elite – and believe me, Supreme Court justices live among the elite – is it any wonder that genuine respect for a Constitution and Bill of Rights that were largely the result of a Christian worldview would drastically diminish?

Wouldn’t this seismic shift in worldviews, with its worship of scientific progress and dismissive attitude toward traditional faith, fit perfectly with the notion at the heart of all judicial activism that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” – and therefore changing – document?

What’s wrong with living and breathing?

Times do change. The world has been radically transformed by technology. We don’t keep slaves any more. So what’s wrong with regarding the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document as, indeed, a great many people do today?

Of course, the Constitution can be changed through the amendment process – as it has 17 times since the adoption of the first 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights. But the idea of a “living” Constitution is very different; it means the contract between America and her government is to be “interpreted” anew by each generation.

Here’s the problem: Though our technology, knowledge base and culture have all changed dramatically over the centuries, human nature and human character weaknesses haven’t changed a bit. Objective reality – “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” as the Declaration of Independence puts it – hasn’t changed. The Bible and the 10 Commandments haven’t changed. The universal appeals to man’s pride – ambition, greed, lust, envy, power – haven’t changed. Specifically, the tendency for too much power to corrupt those entrusted with it has most definitely not changed.

Thus the need for strictly constitutional government with clearly defined and limited powers is still necessary, because, despite our advances, absolute power still corrupts absolutely.

Unfortunately, in today’s America, the judiciary has assumed something approaching absolute power.

Without question, there are some fine judges in America today, including several on the Supreme Court. But far too many see themselves, not as humble servants and guardians of a sacred, 200-plus-year-old contract between Americans and the government they created, but rather as high priests of a new order, chosen to chart the path of civilization in the new, globalist, more enlightened world.

It’s their job – their destiny, or so they think – to help us lesser folk make the transition from the old days of wooden ships, muskets and Indians to today’s world of microchips, speed-of-light communications and the long march of man.

Of course, the illogic in all this is that if the Constitution – meant to be the standard by which we measure all other laws, rulings and so on – can be changed on the whim of the current court, then we really have no Constitution.

How a slogan can change the world

Now we understand who sold us big, secular government, and why they did it. But how did they pull it off? Through what slight-of-hand did the Establishment Clause – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” – become transformed into a total ban on religious expression in the public square? It’s a fascinating bit of linguistic legerdemain.

First, to better convey the technique, let’s recall the Stephen Stills mega-hit song,

“Love the One You’re With Remember that one?

A whole chorus of soulful singers, against a lively, up-tempo disco accompaniment, urged millions of lonesome souls, “If you can’t be with the one you love, honey, love the one you’re with. Love the one you’re with. Love the one you’re with.”

How many adulterous affairs and spontaneous teen “hook-ups” resulted from this devious message encouraging sexual anarchy, no one will ever know. But notice how the seduction worked:

The way the first phrase (“If you can’t be with the one you love”) is mirrored in the second phrase (“love the one you’re with”) by using the same words, the whole equation sounds almost logical in a hypnotic sort of way – which is to say, if you don’t think about it. After all, love is good, right? So if you can’t love one person, then love someone else!

“One” in the first phrase refers to your sweetheart, but in the second phrase the same word, “one,” means someone else. “Love” in the first phrase implies commitment and fidelity – key elements of real love. The same word, “love,” in the second phrase, implies an impulsive, self-indulgent, and very likely immoral and unfaithful act, and a betrayal of what love is all about.

This is verbal seduction.

Now look at the First Amendment:

“Congress …” – we know what that is.

“… shall make no law …” Well now, I’ll bet you thought you knew what that means. You thought it meant Congress shall make no law. But what you didn’t know was that in 1940, in the Supreme Court case of Cantwell v. Connecticut, the justices decided – citing a mysterious legal principle called “incorporation” – that the First Amendment applied not just to Congress, but to state governments too. So now the federal government could force the states to follow its dictates in regards to prohibiting the “establishment” or prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion. This is obviously something the original 13 states would have rejected outright, given that half of them had state “establishments” of religion.

“…respecting an establishment of religion …” For 150 years an “establishment of religion” in the context of the First Amendment meant that a national church, a particular denomination, wouldn’t be supported and imposed on the states by the federal government. But with the decline of Christianity in the U.S. and, indeed, increasing hostility toward it, the meaning of “establishment of religion” has been radically changed – just like the words in the Stephen Stills song. Today, “establishment of religion” means the mere public mention of God, Christ, the Bible, the Ten Commandments, prayer and so on. The “God Bless America” banner erected on a California public school to honor those killed in the 9-11 terror attacks was attacked by the ACLU as an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

But to make this seduction even more powerful, the First Amendment religion clauses have been morphed into the phrase, “a wall of separation between Church and State” – eight words taken out of context from an incidental letter of courtesy Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802.

You rarely hear the actual wording of the First Amendment anymore. But “separation of church and state” is one of those phrases that roll off the tongues of judges and journalists so easily and so often, most of us assume it’s in the Constitution.

In fact, one of the justices on the New York Supreme Court, back in a 1958 First Amendment case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, made this very point when he commented: “Much has been written in recent years concerning Thomas Jefferson’s reference in 1802 to ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’ … Jefferson’s figure of speech has received so much attention that one would almost think at times that it is to be found somewhere in our Constitution.”

But there’s a method to this constant repetition, as marketers well know: Say it enough times, and people come to believe it.

The celebrated 18th century American philosopher William James put it more pungently: “There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it.”

Indeed, there are very few phrases more familiar to Americans than “the separation of church and state.” Marketers pay millions to brand their product or make their political candidate a household name. But just as with commercial or political marketing, widespread familiarity with a slogan doesn’t necessarily mean the message is true.

If Jefferson’s “wall of separation” has come to mean that any reference to God must be eliminated from government, schools and anything the government funds, then what did the phrase originally mean, as Jefferson used it?

Ironically, Jefferson intended for his letter to the Danbury Baptists to reassure them that the new federal government would not endanger the free expression of their religion. This is widely known. But what is not well known is that Jefferson did not actually coin the phrase “separation of church and state.”

Rather, he borrowed the metaphor from the sermon, “The Garden and the Wilderness,” which was very familiar to Baptists of the time. As Jim Henderson, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice explains it:

    That sermon, rendered by Roger Williams (the founder of the Rhode Island Plantation colony) and a Baptist, depicted the church as a garden, the world as a wilderness, and the wall as a device of the Creator’s invention that protected the garden from being overrun by the wilderness. Williams explained that, from time to time, for the purpose of disciplining sin in the church, “it hath pleased” the Almighty to break down the wall.

Thomas Jefferson, ever the politician, knew when he communicated with the Baptists that “The Garden and The Wilderness” was well known and widely read nearly two generations later. He appealed to them in the terms of their own great man’s idiom.

There you have it. The “wall of separation” was meant to protect “the garden” of the church from being overrun by “the wilderness” of government. No wonder Chief Justice Rehnquist has said, “The metaphor of a ‘wall of separation’ is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

One other deceptive marketing device we should note is the aforementioned slogan that “the Constitution is a living document.” The opposite of a “living document” is a “dead document,” and who wants that? “Living” and “breathing” are positive-sounding attributes. But, if you told your spouse that your marriage contract is a “living” document and therefore you should be able to have intimate relationships with other “partners,” would your spouse approve?

After all, “if you can’t be with the one you love,” why not “love the one you’re with”?

Why not? Because it’s a lie. The “living” quality of any contract, including the Constitution, is its integrity – its unchanging nature. What kills a contract is when one or the other party attempts to change, twist or re-interpret it. So in reality, the secularist’s “living” Constitution is dead, while the document, interpreted according to its original intent, is full of life and wisdom.

A quiet American revolution

Common sense provides ample proof to a rational person that the First Amendment’s religion clauses couldn’t possibly mean what the ACLU and many of today’s judges say they mean, since there is simply no evidence of it in history. Think about it: It’s the first and most important right enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and yet there are no examples of this modern, radical, anti-Christian interpretation being applied during our nation’s first 150 years?

OK, we understand the problem. Now the question is, what do we do about it?

In America, unlike virtually all other countries, the power really does reside in the people. We have the legal means of making this the most enlightened nation in history, administered by a limited, constitutional government. After all, it’s regular people like you and me that elect the president, who in turn nominates judges for the Supreme Court and other federal courts. It’s we who elect the senators who confirm the president’s judicial nominees.

Moreover, we elect the congressmen who actually have the constitutional power to control the federal judiciary! As Texas congressman and Constitution champion Ron Paul has explained: “… Congress [can] exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states’ rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government.”

Constitutional amendments – like the Federal Marriage Amendment or the Human Life Amendment – can and would trump any errant Supreme Court decisions by becoming part of the Constitution. Supreme Court justices can also be impeached, just like presidents.

And did you know presidents aren’t compelled to obey unlawful Supreme Court decisions? Some presidents, including Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, have actually defied Supreme Court orders.

But, many would warn, a president defying the Supreme Court would lead to a “constitutional crisis.” Great, that’s probably just what America needs – a crisis that can be resolved only by reference back to the nation’s founding principles as established in the Constitution. What’s wrong with a president or Congress who has the courage to stand up to a runaway judiciary and say, “No, we’re not abiding by your unconstitutional ruling. What are you going to do about it?”

Whatever we attempt to do to rectify this terrible wrong, it has to start with brutal honesty – an unflinching realization of what we have allowed to transpire in our nation. Only by facing hard truths can we ever make any real progress.

So let me ask the question: In allowing the First Amendment to be changed from its original meaning to what it has become – namely, the prohibition of any acknowledgement of God or His laws of life inside the schools where most American children spend their youth – do you realize what we’re doing?

Similarly, in making any reference to God or biblical principles off-limits for those we’ve entrusted with running this nation’s government and charting its future course, do you realize what we’re doing?

We’re deluding ourselves into believing there is some neutral ground between good and evil, and that this is where the government is supposed to be. But such a “neutral ground,” if such can even be said to exist, is in itself evil. In fact, it’s only people who don’t truly believe in God that can even believe it’s possible to be neutral.

When we realize that the Creator has stationed us on this earth in a battleground between a good kingdom and an evil one, and that our real choice in life is between obedience to Divine law or disobedience, between honesty and dishonesty, nobility and shallowness, selflessness and selfishness, courage and cowardice, we see there is no neutral ground.

Thus, if government is not populated by godly, principled people, we are doomed to live as glorified serfs. Why? Because true religion and its fruits – love of truth and one another – constitute a powerful force working against the natural tendency of power to corrupt. To put it another way, without having a real relationship with the Living God, men automatically become their own miserable “gods.” That pathetic, false god in turn owes his allegiance to dark forces he doesn’t recognize or comprehend – and if he’s in a position of power, he is compelled to become a demagogue or a tyrant.

What we’re witnessing before our very eyes, in our own lifetime, is the official, ever-so-gradual “squeezing out” of everything that’s really precious to America.

It’s as though we’re throwing away something so precious that it goes almost beyond the ability of words to convey it. We’re taking the finest life has to offer, like the most precious memories of our children, of their birth, of their accomplishments; we’re taking the sacrifices of our soldiers, of our patriots, our nation’s martyrs – and we’re spitting on them.

Think of the Puritans who braved the two-month sea voyage to an unknown land, only to lose one-half of their number during the first, brutal winter. And the loyal patriot soldiers with Gen. George Washington at Valley Forge, shivering and miserable in the snow, many without shoes. Think of the death and suffering of the millions of young American boys lost and wounded in war during the last two centuries, as well as the tremendous sacrifices of their families.

Now think of the sustaining role God, faith, prayer and the Holy Bible had in the lives of all of these people.

If we really have been convinced that our Constitution – conceived, written, believed in, fought for and died for overwhelmingly by Christians and God-fearing people – requires that the Christian faith be taken out of government, then there’s really no hope for us as a nation.

But I don’t think we’ve all bought the Big Lie.

Yes, we have a lot of judges who offer pious lip-service to the Constitution, while really believing this 200-plus-year-old document drafted by a bunch of flawed slaveholders in a different era with different problems is in dire need of major updating by bright, gifted jurists such as themselves.

But then, there are those like Judge Roy Moore. Standing on the courthouse steps as his beloved Ten Commandments monument was being dragged away, he commented: “It is a sad day in our country when the moral foundation of our laws and the acknowledgment of God has to be hidden from public view to appease a federal judge.”

Focus on the Family’s James Dobson summed it all up. Decrying the judicial banishment of the Ten Commandments as part of a movement to remove every trace of “faith or reverence for God from the public square,” he warned, “We’re at a pivotal point in the history of this country.”

“Be a participant,” Dobson added. “Don’t sit on the sidelines while our basic freedoms are lost.”

Chronological History of How God was Taken Out of Schools


Lee v. Weisman: Supreme Court Ruled 5-4 that Prayers During School Graduation Violate the Establishment Clause

In the case of Lee vs. Weisman, The Supreme Court ruled that for an adult to mention the word God at a public graduation constituted both psychological and religious coercion against his students. Yet, consider the actions of William Samuel Johnson, a signer of the Constitution and one of America’s leading educators who served as the first president of Columbia College. At his graduation exercises William Samuel Johnson declared to the students, “You, this day, have received a public education. The purpose whereof had been to qualify you better to serve your Creator and your country. Your first great duties, ...
Read More

‘The Humanist’ Published an Essay by John Dunphy Entitled ‘A Religion for A New Age’ with the Public School Classroom as its Battlefield vs. “the Rotting Corpse of Christianity”

The Secular Humanist Bulletin has given writer John Dunphy another platform from which to present his views about how the humanists plan to use the public school classroom to proselytize for their ideology. The Humanist magazine published an essay by John Dunphy in its January/February 1983 issue entitled "A Religion for A New Age." This essay has been widely quoted ever since as evidence of the humanists' plan to impose their values on public school children. Now, the Secular Humanist Bulletin of Summer 1994 (described on its masthead as "The Associate Members' Newsletter of the Council for Democratic and ...
Read More

Chester Pierce Speech at the Assoc. for Childhood Education Int’l: “Every Child Entering School at the Age of Five is Insane Because He Comes to School with Certain Allegiances…”

April 1972 – In his keynote address to the Association for Childhood Education International, Chester M. Pierce, Professor of Education and Psychiatry in the Faculty of Medicine at Harvard University, proclaims: “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our founding fathers, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being. It's up to you, teachers, to make all of these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.” ...
Read More

Epperson v. Arkansas: The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled that a Law Prohibiting the Teaching of Evolution in Tax-Supported Schools is Unconstitutional

The evolution controversy did not come before the U.S. Supreme Court until Epperson v. Arkansas,[39] a 1968 challenge to the constitutionality of an Arkansas statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution.[40] By this time, the nonestablishment clause had been applied to the states, and in this case the Jeffersonian and Madisonian view of that clause carried the day. In other words, the challenge to the Arkansas law was successful because the case was seen as a dispute between religion and science. An amicus brief in Epperson demonstrated to the Court that science was in fact at stake by including a ...
Read More

Abington Township School District v. Schempp “Bible Reading in School” Ruled Unconstitutional by Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania school system complied with a state law requiring that ten verses of scripture be read every day. The readings were without interpretation, comment or questions asked, and any student could request to be excused. It was voluntary without coercion, and the Schempp girl never asked to be excused and even volunteered to read the Bible on occasions. (This point was not brought up when the case was before the Supreme Court.)  Yet the parents brought the case to court on grounds that it was coercion.   This case came to the Supreme Court at the same time as the ...
Read More

Congress Begins Reviewing a Document Entitled ‘Communist Goals for Taking Over America’

The House of Representative and later the Senate began reviewing a document entitled "Communist Goals for Taking Over America." It contained an agenda of 45 separate issues that, in hindsight was quite shocking back then and equally shocking today. Here, in part, are some key points listed in that document. 1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war. 2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. 3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the US would be a demonstration of moral strength. 4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless ...
Read More

Engel v. Vitale: Supreme Court Rules School Prayer Unconstitutional

The New York school system had adopted a prayer to be said before the start of each day's classes. This prayer was to help promote good moral character of the students, spiritual training and help combat juvenile delinquency. The regents wrote a prayer for the schools which had to be non-sectarian or denominational. It was so bland that it became known to some religious leaders as the "to whom it may concern prayer." Here is the Regents prayer. Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our ...
Read More

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on Communists: “They have infiltrated every conceivable sphere of activity: …T.V. and motion picture; church, …educational…; the press…”

FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, gave this testimony on 6 March 1961 before the House Committee on Appropriations regarding the communist conspiracy: “They have infiltrated every conceivable sphere of activity: youth groups; radio, T.V. and motion picture industries; church, school, educational and cultural groups; the press; nationality minority groups and civil and political units.”  ...
Read More

‘Education for Destruction’ is Published by Patriot Dr. Bessie Burchett, who Valiantly Fought the Communization of American Public Schools

"EDUCATION FOR DESTRUCTION" was written by DR. B.R. BURCHETT and PUBLISHED by her in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1941. She gives us a first hand look at her battle with the beginnings of collectivism, removing God from school, and other agendas carried out by infiltrators of our education system. The promotional flyer for Dr. Burchett’s book read as follows: Arresting... Disturbing... Exciting NOW for the First Time—the AMAZING STORY OF COMMUNISTS’ INIQUITOUS CORRUPTION OF AMERICA’S SCHOOL CHILDREN HOW does the small Sovieteer minority control loyal teachers in our schools and colleges? HOW are anti-American, anti-religious, anti-Christ textbooks forced upon teachers ...
Read More

Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes, or the SCOPES “MONKEY TRIAL,” Took Place in Dayton, Tennessee. Should the Theory of Evolution be Taught in Schools?

This trial was an important educational milestone regarding the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools. Scopes, who was conned into being the accused teacher (claims he never even taught the theory), pitted two famous barristers of the day—William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow—against each other. The basic argument of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the evolutionists’ was that evolutionary theory should not be censored from the public schools. The defense withdrew before the trial ended because they knew they were going to lose the trial, having just put the beloved Bryan on the stand ...
Read More

Walsh Committee Created: Findings Later Concluded that “Colleges had Surrendered their Religious Identifications… to Comply with Foundation Requirements to Receive Grants…”

The Walsh Committee was created to review industrial relations and scrutinize US labor laws. The commission studied work conditions throughout the industrial United States between 1913 and 1915. The final report of the Commission, published in eleven volumes in 1916, contain tens of thousands of pages of testimony from a wide range of witnesses, including scores of ordinary workers, and the titans of capitalism, including Daniel Guggenheim, George Walbridge Perkins, Sr. (of U.S. Steel), Henry Ford, and Andrew Carnegie. During the tenure of this committee, tax-exempt foundations were also examined. Partial findings were that, "the lives of millions of wage earners are subject to the ...
Read More

Dr. Benjamin Rush: “(Satan) never invented a more effectual means of extirpating Christianity… than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools.”

Dr. Benjamin Rush to Jeremy Belknap, July 13, 1789: “The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools.” Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote in “Essays, Literary, Moral, and Philosophical,” 1798: “I know there is an objection among many people to teaching children doctrines of any kind, because they are liable to be controverted. But let us not be wiser than our Maker. If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission ...
Read More