Op. Cit.
Christian to the CoreI am finally writing this letter in response to an article I saw in Liberty some years ago (actually, May/June 1996). I was a bit surprised when I read "Our Godless Constitution." As a teacher and historian I was alarmed at your article. Over the years I became fascinated with early Supreme Court rulings and quotes of the Founders.
Your article states that the Founders were uninterested in saving souls and wanted a secular government. As a historian, I offer the following quotes:
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one dissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity"-John Quincy Adams.
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or to often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ"-Patrick Henry.
"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people it is wholly inadequate for any other"-John Adams.
"It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible"-George Washington.
"The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty. A student's perusal of the sacred volume will make him a better citizen, a better father, a better husband"-Thomas Jefferson.
"Morality is the necessary spring of popular government. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without Christianity"-George Washington.
"True religion affords to government its surest support"-George Washington.
"Religion and virtue are the only foundations of republicanism and of all free governments"-John Adams.
"Government is a firm compact sanctified from violation by all the ties of personal honor, morality, and religion"-Fisher Ames, author of the First Amendment.
"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws"-Noah Webster, founder of American education.
"God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both"-John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence.
"I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as perfectly satisfied that the Union of the States in its form and adoption is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament"-Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence.
"The Christian religion, its general principles must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society"-Daniel Webster.
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits and humbly to implore His protection and favor"-George Washington.
WILLIAM EISENHART
Elkland, Pennsylvania
[This excerpt from a lengthy letter of rebuttal perhaps overreacts to the original article by Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, authors of the book The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness. Rather than defend all aspects of the authors' position it might be better to affirm the perception and foresight the Founders showed in framing the Constitution and establishing these United States. Yes, they were Christian, if not in every case conventional in their beliefs, then Christian in their general outlook and reflective of a nominal Christian culture.
What is so remarkable is that these men affirmed both the moral values of their faith and a calculated political structure which would be free of the coercive elements of state-promulgated religion. By this unique synthesis they create both a moral, "religious" state, and a truly secular freedom.-Ed.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty and Justice
Your article "Blank Check?" (January/February 1999) raises concerns about how a poorly designed school voucher program could inadvertently lead to intrusive government regulation of private schools. But the article misses the bigger picture.
In its 1925 decision, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court declared that "the child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." The Court was stating that parents, not the state, have the right to choose their children's education. In America today, high taxation prevents many parents from being able to exercise this right because it leaves them too little after-tax income to be able to consider nonpublic schools for their children. Wealthier parents can still exercise their natural and constitutional right to direct their children's education, but poorer parents cannot.
Justice demands that the natural rights of all citizens-the poor as well as the rich-be protected. To reestablish justice in our society, people of all income levels should have the same right to send their children to public, private, or parochial schools. But it is vital that a plan affording such education options not infringe upon religious liberty through the imposition of entangling regulations.
The best way to meet these two goals would be to give children who are not enrolled in the public school system an advance against future taxes. The government would write a check to a child's family, for use at the family's school of choice, as an advance against the child's future sales and income taxes. (Even children who grow up and go on welfare pay sales taxes.) This would expand the freedom of educational choice, give recipients a tax break, and allow for a true free exercise of religion, all without using government money.
BRET SCHUNDLER, Mayor
Jersey City, New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tolerance Not Approval
Is tolerance the gospel by which we live? Or is it truth? In a recent letter to the editor, "Tolerance Is the Key," the writer suggests that to teach a child that his other parent's religion is a sin is to deny freedom of religion to that parent.
The weaknesses of that idea are exposed if you take that to the logical extreme. Shall we be tolerant of Satanism, or white supremacy? Shall we be tolerant of religions that practice human sacrifice or the selling of girls into sexual slavery?
As Christians we are to respect people as made in the image of God. Within the family we teach our children respect for their other parent based on that fundamental truth and that we are told in the Bible to honor our parents. But that does not extend to the embracing of their religion any more than it extends to approving of immorality.
There is a higher law than either the popular law of tolerance or the law of this land. That law is God's law. When, as a Christian, I must choose between obeying the law of the land or the approval of another's religion or practice, I have no choice but to obey God. I have a responsibility under God to rear my children in my faith. I also have a responsibility to warn my children of the dangers of false and destructive religions.
If that is denying freedom of religion I will bow before the true and living God and not the god of tolerance.
DON R. CAMP
Cove, Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moved by "Blackbirds"
I am moved to write this letter after reading this article in your September/October 1999 issue. I have been greatly distressed at the one-sided approach that we in the West have taken toward this issue. I wish Mr. Clinton and our prime minister, Mr. Chretien, had had an opportunity to read your article before beginning the bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.
IAN R. LINTON, Q.C.
Tillsonburg, Ontario
Canada