America is a Christian Nation
Then came the Liberals
By Dorothy Anne Seese
On words such as
these, this nation was founded:
"We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety
and Happiness..." Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence.
By a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Holy
Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892) declared in the Opinion
written for the Court by Mr. Justice Brewer, that "These and many
other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to
the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."
One of the clearer (and most amazing in light of today's court decisions) is
this statement from the pen of Mr.Justice Brewer in the Holy
"It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the
letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its
spirit nor within the intention of its makers."
Nowhere could this generation apply Mr. Justice Brewer's words
more frequently or forcefully than in recent state, federal and bureaucratic
decisions, edicts and opinions regarding the First Amendment's intent and
meaning when it states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Assailants who wish to destroy any and all exhibitions of the Christian
faith, or even the Ten Commandments that are as Jewish as they are Christian,
asserts their supposed "rights" to be offended at a Christian nation
or any public display of Christianity in flagrant violation of the latter part
of the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment.
They do so with the aid and consent of liberal judges and justices not by
reason of, but in defiance of, the religious establishment clause.
If by "Christian nation" one means a theocracy such as was the case
with ancient Israel until the time the people demanded a king (so they could be
like the pagan nations around them), then no, America never has been a Christian
theocracy. Not all of its founders were practicing Christians. A few
were deists, or reported to be deists. Yet the acceptance of the Bible as
the written word of God was nowhere publicly disputed but rather, is down to
this very day used for administering oaths of office.
At this point I seem to hear atheists and liberals wailing in the background and
from outside the garden walls, "But what about the separation of church and
state? We demand that this nation honor the provision of separation of
church and state!"
First of all, that language came from a private letter of Thomas Jefferson to
the elders of Danbury Baptist Association, who were most concerned that another
denomination might restrict their freedom of worship by enacting local or state
laws against their denomination. If any of you have been looking in our
founding documents, the charter of our land, or the amendments, you will not
find that language there. It is from a personal letter dealing with an
urgent concern for one denomination's religious freedom should another
denomination seek to infringe upon their liberties to worship as they please.
Thomas Jefferson addressed this issue in the context of the matter at
hand, stating in part:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or
his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only,
and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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.
This is the so-called "pronouncement" of separation of church and
state, and it refers to exactly the same topic of concern as did the Danbury
letter, which had absolutely nothing to do with displays of religious articles
or texts, but of the dominance of one denomination over another. "Separation
of church and state" as mentioned therein, and its famous "wall"
were intended to assure religious people that the state would not
interfere with the rights of a church or religious group (absent the
commission of a crime, such as human sacrifice or other felonious act in the
name of religion), or establish any preference for one group over another.
The "wall of separation" was to keep the government out of the
free exercise of religion, not to keep religion out of government!
This general mindset toward America's Christian heritage within a nation that
respected the religious rights of all, Christian and non-Christian, to worship
(or not worship) as they please, existed until a liberal Supreme Court, stuffed
with liberal justices from the days of the presidency of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, allowed the gavel to strike the cross in 1963!
Between the presidency of Thomas Jefferson and the 1963 Supreme Court decision
in Abington School Dist. v.
Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) which was decided in conjunction with Murray
v. Curlett (the infamous Madelyn Murray O'Hair case), the liberal
justices that had been appointed to the Supreme Court decided to violate the
common sense established in the 1892 case of Holy
Trinity Church v. U.S., supra.
In 1892, the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the misconstruction of the
intent or spirit of the law as well as the letter, was penned by Mr. Justice
Brewer as follows:
It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of
the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit nor
within the intention of its makers. This has been often asserted, and the
Reports are full of cases illustrating its application. This is not the
substitution of the will of the judge for that of the legislator; for
frequently words of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough
to include an act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole
legislation, or of the circumstances surrounding its enactment, or of the
absurd results which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes
it unreasonable to believe that the legislator intended to include the
It is perhaps safe to say that the nonsense espoused by the liberal agenda
against this nation's historic Christian faith, and the incidents of "being
offended" would not have elicited any sympathy from the Supreme Court
Justices on the bench in 1892, because they seem to have relied on that lost
entity, common sense, as well as on their expertise in matters of the law.
Further, the 1892 Supreme Court took into consideration that one could actually
follow the letter of the law (which is not the case in the various
"separation of church and state" arguments since 1963) and violate the
spirit of the law. The violation of the second clause of the
"establishment of religion" portion of the First Amendment -- not
prohibiting the free exercise of religion -- has made the first portion of it
absurd and far afield from the founders' intentions, and the whole of the First
Amendment a warped, twisted parody of our basic rights as a free people who must
respect the freedom of others in order to retain our own. Those who would
prohibit the free exercise of the Christian faith, or utter direct lies about
this nation's Christian heritage, may one day have to account for why neither
they nor their fellow countrymen have any freedom left!
In fact, Mr. Justice Brewer, in the 1892 opinion, went so far as to state:
[T]he court says: "All
laws should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so
limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an
absurd consequence...." (Emphasis added.)
What would he think of the decisions being rendered by today's courts? He
probably would ask what country this is, and whether it would perhaps be
possible for him to return to America? Sir, this is what has become of
This same Mr. Justice Brewer is the one who wrote for the Court, in the 1892 Holy
Trinity Church vs. U.S. case:
[T]he churches and church organizations which abound in every
city, town, and hamlet; the
multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian
auspices; the gigantic
missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish
Christian missions in
every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be
noticed, add a volume
of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that
this is a Christian nation. (Emphasis added.)
So stated the Supreme Court in 1892. Liberalism, Marxism, socialism, and
every other "ism" that is hostile to the Christian faith has, with the
support of liberal judges and justices, shattered the letter and spirit of the
law of the land as set forth in our founding documents, and has insulted the
grace of God by which this nation was established.
If anyone still doubts that America was a Christian nation, let them review the
charters of the original colonies, the charters of such states as Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania or New York.
It is still true that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Look at
what has happened in just the past fifty years. We are now a warrior
nation, a nation-building nation, an incipient empire.
We have become what we were founded in order to avoid.
Back to column