By O. R. Adams Jr.

© O. R. Adams Jr., 2007


Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to. —Theodore Dalrymple, author of Our Culture, What's Left of It.

To our great detriment, this very thing is going on today in our schools, in the media, and even in many of our churches.

Theodore Dalrymple is the pen name of Anthony Daniels, a widely known and well-respected author who has written extensively on the failures of modern culture. His credentials and background make interesting reading: ;

There are a number of groups and their writers at work today trying to revise our history and our culture. This movement began its insidious work in earnest back in the 1960s. There were a number of elements involved, and in time different groups with different interests worked together to facilitate changes, generally. Some of the primary groups were feminists, homosexuals, civil rights leaders primarily interested in furthering the interests of blacks, and atheist groups. Except for certain black civil rights leaders, the writers appear to be anti-religious, and have no moral religious foundation to keep them on the path of truth and honesty in their writings and presentations. Truth to them is what they wish it to be. Such dishonesty and disregard for the truth is the essence of the "political correctness" which pervades the media and academia – the most potent allies of these liberal movements. The primary purpose is to shape our very thinking into the molds that they prescribe for us. True freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and even freedom to think is disappearing with the onslaught of these groups.

Many special interest groups, from blacks to the disabled, have worked to revise everything from our speech to our history, to reflect what they want it to be. They even want to revise our very thinking to comply with their wishes. Although, all have been very effective in their efforts, because of time and space, it is only feasible to cover a very few things in this paper.

It was not the work of government, and therefore not a constitutional violation, but a good recent example of political correctness today was Don Imus losing his radio programs, because of racial slurs he made about some black female basketball players. That was a double whammy against two specially protected classes. Blacks continually use such slurs against both blacks and whites, and women; but, today, it is the white man that must toe the line. I have never liked Don Imus, who I consider a liberal himself; and I did not like what he said. But he was not talking to a captive audience and had no undue influence or control over his listeners, but he lost his job because our politically correct media bow and kowtow to the liberal groups. On the other hand, college professors often say really hateful and harmful things about our country (which many of them hate), Christianity, and our service men and women, and the universities do not fire them, as they should. These are the ones that should be fired because they are speaking to students that are there because they need to get an education, the teachers have that influence and control over them, and they are espousing false and harmful dogma when there job is to teach true curriculum in the respective courses. But these haters of America and Christianity are afforded freedom of speech and "academic freedom," all of which is truly misused in these instances. But let them start making slurring remarks about women, homosexuals, or blacks, and see what happens.

Even many of our churches have given in to the liberal onslaught, and participated in these radical liberal movements. This has been done in everything from supporting communists and communist governments to accepting and promoting homosexual marriage.

These radical liberal groups have gained control of the Democrat Party, and work to bring about our defeat in the Iraq war. They know that this will further degrade America as a country, and as a world power.

The Feminist Movement

When you try to make men out of women and women out of men, all that results is the decay of society.

I am not going into the history of the feminist movement and such things as the Equal Rights Amendment, which they are again pushing now that their cohorts, the Democrats, are in control of Congress. This is easily found on the internet and other sources. I am more concerned with the harmful things they have accomplished, and the harm they have done to our country and our institutions.

They have been successful in destroying our military institutes for boys, by having them admit girls, and they have done similar harm to our military. They want us to blind ourselves to the true physical and mental differences between women and men. They even push for such things as dormitories and bathrooms for both male and female, together. The have no respect whatsoever for our traditional values of decency and good morals. Chivalry, to them, is insulting. They want us to live in a fantasy world where truth and reality mean nothing at all.

They want to rewrite our Bible, our dictionaries, and our textbooks to reflect their fantasies. They want gender references removed or changed to female gender. Sadly, their success has been amazing and very destructive to our culture. Moral sexuality has no place in their thinking. Sodomy and any other sexual deviancy and immorality is now to be considered acceptable and moral.

In my book in the Books section of this website, As We Sodomize America, I used considerable material from what I consider a great book on our culture, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, by Judge Robert Bork. Judge Bork considers modern feminism to be the most fanatical and destructive of the radical movements coming down to us from the Sixties. Perhaps this is so, particularly in light of its melding with the homosexual movement. Now they continually work together and are intertwined. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the successful indoctrination of the teachers' union, the National Education Association, with the activist homosexual views. Chapter 11, "The Politics of Sex," of Slouching Towards Gomorrah, describes the harm done to our culture, to our schools, and even to our military by radical feminism. Instead of using the military to defend our country, it is being used to reform our society. Contrary to the propaganda fed to the public, both our training and capability standards have been lowered to accommodate women and to give the false appearance that they are on a par with men in military combat roles. Instead of useful education, many schools are furnishing an indoctrination of false and radical ideologies. In addition to the "minority" studies that have been foisted upon the schools, there are now a large number of "Women's Studies," and such courses as "Gay and Lesbian Studies." There are more than six hundred undergraduate and several dozen graduate programs in Women's Studies alone in our colleges and universities. As a part of the radical feminist movement, lesbianism is not only an accepted lifestyle, but a promoted one. These are not courses of factual integrity, but of feminist propaganda, and "political correctness." Not only have such things done great harm to our culture, but they have also had their impact on falsifying history, as such propaganda always does.

The Homosexual Agenda

Since these things are fully covered in As We Sodomize America, and in other articles on this website, I am not going to spend a lot of time and space on it here. I would recommend that they be carefully reviewed. The Table of Contents of As We Sodomize America can be used to quickly find such information. One chapter is on The Homosexual Agenda, but there is additional information in other parts of the book.

The homosexual movement follows closely the feminist movement. In fact, the two work in concert on many things. The primary object is to teach that right is wrong and that wrong is right. They wish us to substitute their fictional views for truth and facts. They particularly want to eliminate the Christian foundation of this country, because that foundation is antithetical to the promotion of sodomy. They wish to infiltrate our churches, the military, and even the Boy Scouts, and bring the acceptance of sodomy into them. The want to even change our basic institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

They want to force our thinking to what they prescribe for us by such things as "hate crime" laws. They have also been successful in Canada and other countries in getting laws passed that do away with both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It is not safe there to even quote what the Bible says about homosexuality – particularly over the air. They have also been successful in this country in getting "hate crime" laws passed. The real purpose in all of these things is thought control. They not only want to destroy our freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but they really want to mold our very thoughts. They have had great success in this regard in our schools.

The Atheist Agenda

Like other liberal movements, even the atheists have an agenda, and have had for a long time. One of the most effective parts of their movement has been the bringing of lawsuits to remove aspects of religion from our schools and from our public squares and institutions. All of these liberal organizations that have been trying to tear down the worthwhile things in our country, and to turn it toward paganism, have had as their effective ally the organization with the misnomer, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Going back to the days of the infamous atheist, Madeline O'Hair, who, according to Wikipedia, was the founder of American Atheists. The movement has been so successful in its lawsuits, with the help of activist judges, that even their threat causes many schools and governmental agencies to cave in to their threats and demands.

Like the other liberal organizations, they also are active in trying to revise our history. I touched on this in the article, The Immoral Religions of Atheism and Evolution, and have substantial information on it in As We Sodomize America. I will comment on these things further under some of the headings below.

Revision of the Bible

Feminist Bible Revision. Our older and reliable versions of our Bible were interpreted from documents in the Greek and Hebrew languages – particularly Greek. All were reasonable interpretations of those actual texts.

The feminist movement has changed that. It has had sufficient influence to get well known publishers of Bibles, to publish "Bibles" that no longer make any attempt to actually use the texts of the true Bible documents. The parts that offend the feminists have been rewritten to reflect theirs views, with no thought whatsoever to their true integrity. One was New International Version Inclusive language edition [NIVI], and another is Today’s New International Version [TNIV]. "You will see, without question, a deliberate, intentional, and completely inaccurate, mistranslation of the God-inspired, Greek text."

The article referred to above also states:

Dr. Wayne Grudem, professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood ( correctly diagnoses the danger of the NIVI and other Bible versions:

". . .the generic use of "he-him-his" has consistently been changed to "we" or "you" or "they." The result is that whenever readers of this inclusive-language NIV read the words "we" and "you" and "they," they will never know whether what they are reading is what God originally caused his Word to say, or what the translators have decided his Word should say instead. In hundreds and probably thousands of places, readers will never know whether these are the words of God or the words of man.

Such revisions are not the words God originally caused to be written, and thus they are not the words of God. They are human words that men have substituted for the words of God, and they have no place in the Bible."
(Wayne Grudem, Comparing the two NIVs, World Magazine. Apr. 19, 1997).

It is not feasible to go into all of the false interpretations in these new "Bibles" set out in the article, but another example of one is:

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. [Luke 4:4, in Bible]

It’s interesting, the NIV, TNIV (and most new PER versions) leave out the "but by every word of God."

They may as well have left out the verse.

Today, there is nothing the left hates like Christians. What is a Christian? Very simply, a follower of Christ. Sixty-nine times the translators of the TNIV intentionally, mis-translate "christos" as "messiah".

The Preface to the TNIV states:

"While a basic core of the English language remains relatively stable, many diverse and complex cultural forces [as in the feminists ‘cultural force’?] continue to bring about the subtle [see Gen 3:1] shifts in the meanings and/or connotations of even old, well-established words and phrases. Among the more programmatic changes in the TNIV is the removal of nearly all vocative ‘O’’s and the elimination of most instances of the generic use of masculine nouns and pronouns."
(TNIV, Preface, p. vii, emphasis and bracketed comments added)

Here we see the bald admission of the changing of masculine pronouns to comply with the "feminist cultural force."

But wait, things can get worse. Jesus as the Son of God must be completely destroyed:

According to a press release from the Law and Business Institute (LBI), which is the publisher of the new "Bible," the Gospels are corrected to reflect Jesus as "Judith Christ of Nazareth" and includes: "The Parable of the Prodigal Daughter," and "The Lady's Prayer." Other well-known passages are revised to acknowledge, as LBI vice president Bill Shakespeare says, "the rise of women in society." [Emphasis added]

To further understand this radical movement to make false propaganda into history and scripture, consider the following:

To understand fully the implications of the women's spirituality movement, one only needs to read the pivotal literature on the subject. The editors of the book Radical Feminism state that, "political and other institutions such as religion, because they are based on philosophies of hierarchical orders and reinforce male oppression of females, must be destroyed."

For that reason radical feminists believe that the traditional church must be dismantled. Naomi Goldenberg, in her book Changing of the Gods, states that "the feminist movement in Western culture is engaged in the slow execution of Christ and Yahweh. . . . It is likely that as we watch Christ and Yahweh tumble to the ground, we will completely outgrow the need for an external God."(13) This is the language of war, in case you missed it.

More from the above reference:

Sodom and Babylon are the prototypes of this kind of societal revolution. Jungian psychotherapist John Weir Perry believes that "both current psychology and ancient history point to an emerging transformation in our sense of both society and self, a transformation that includes redefining the notion of what it means to be men and women." (21) The revival of the goddess promises to bring a blunting of distinction between male and female while affirming bisexuality, lesbianism, homosexuality, and androgyny.

Homosexual Revision of the Bible. In As We Sodomize America, Chapter 3, Why Sodomy is Wrong, contained Bible references on the deviancy of sodomy, and after a careful study of the matter, I concluded that, next to murder, sodomy was the most severely condemned sin in the Bible. So how do the homosexual activists handle this?

First, they take the same approach as atheists, and attack the validity of the Bible. They also say, for those who still believe in the Bible, that it should not be "read literally." However they are faced with passages condemning sodomy that are simple, clear, and direct; and this approach doesn't work very well.

The argument that the passages of the Bible directly, unequivocally, and emphatically condemning homosexuality should not be read literally is erroneous on its face. The intent of those particular passages are literal, and that is the only reasonable way that they can be read. These statements in question were not parables. There is nothing about them that is symbolic, figurative, metaphorical, or allegorical.

The Scripture may be accepted or rejected, but it remains forever as it is. And it is a meaningless farce to try to make it out the opposite of what it is.

They then take the same approach as the feminists – just rewrite the Bible so that it does not condemn sodomy. In fact, as you can see from some of the above, the feminist and homosexual revisions go hand in hand.

The following is from pp. 580-581, As We Sodomize America:

Homosexual Marriage: Scriptural Debate, Family Research Report, Family Research Institute, May-June, 1998, contains a four-page article relating to the move in progress to change the many passages of the Bible that constitute a general condemnation of homosexuality. The current idea is to change the meaning to, at most, only condemn "male prostitution, heterosexuals who engage in occasional homosexuality and sexual relations between men and boys." (However, I am sure that the homosexual activists will eventually even want those condemnations removed, and the Bible rewritten to praise all homosexuality—including sexual relations between men and boys—as the leaders of the activist movement now do.)

How is this to be accomplished? It is very simple. They just go back to the ancient Greek and Hebrew words, which few people are capable of understanding, and place the new and desired interpretation on them. For those that are more interested in an agenda than in truth and veracity, this is really no problem at all.

And who is one of the leaders of this movement toward change? Vancouver's Bishop Michael Ingram of Canada's Anglican Church. He is an advocate of "gay and lesbian Christians," and wants to "reverse [the ban of the church] on the ordination of practicing homosexuals and the blessing of same-sex marriages."

Including my computer Bibles, I have five versions and translations of the Holy Bible: King James Version, New King James Version, New International Version, American Standard Version, and American translation. There are no material differences in any of them regarding the many passages condemning homosexual acts.

Now we suddenly have "scholars" that tell us that all of these translations are wrong—that the work done over the centuries by all of the many unbiased scholars was in error—and that the homosexualists now have the right answer. Homosexualists never allow themselves to be burdened by facts—truth and facts are whatever conforms with their agenda. This "scholarly work" is in the exact same vein, with the same degree of veracity, as the false writings calling Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and many others, homosexuals. [These false and malicious claims will be taken up below, under Revision of History.]

To a knowledgably person, these things would be amusingly ludicrous. But the effects of them are indeed sobering—their success has been unbelievable. And Bishop Michael Ingham is now confident that the Anglican Church of Canada will soon be blessing same-sex marriages and ordaining practicing homosexuals as ministers. He sees no problem in rewriting the Bible, the basis of the Anglican religion, so that its teachings will conform to the wishes of the activist homosexuals.

Atheist Revision. Atheists do not believe in the Bible, and therefore do not have any big projects in this direction. They are primarily engaged in trying to destroy all Biblical teachings and traditions in our society. All of these groups simply want to destroy the Judeo-Christian values that were the backbone of this country for the first 150 years of its existence. They also present false American history and misinformation about our Founders.

Dictionary Revision

Feminist revision of diction and dictionaries. The reader should be sufficiently familiar with much of what is going on in this regard, and little time and space will be spent on it. We have lived with this "political correctness" for years. Examples: Chairman must be changed to chairperson. A waitress must be a server. We must have humankind and not mankind, and ad infinitum of this foolishness. These things have found their way into our dictionaries, and thus into our history.

How foolish can we get? See:

Feminist revision of language became important as an indication of political aware- ness and as part of the process of consciousness-raising. Changing the spelling of "woman" to "wom-y-n" and "history" to "h-e-rstory" illu'strated an urgent concern with community and cultural creation. A FeministDictionary, The Encyclopedia of Feminism and The Canadian Feminist Thesaurus/FPministe du Canada all reconfigure and subvert the traditional or conventional authority invested in language reference works. Not only do these works include words "created" by feminists and the women's movement, but they also include theories and historical concepts such as female sexual slavery. Their underlying framework questions the unilateral authority expressed in conventional reference works; the creators of the former works forgo endorsement of any single definition, offering instead options invested with the political consciousness of their social movement.

Homosexual Revision of the Dictionary. Of all places, Texas A&M University appears to have a project underway for a Diversity Dictionary. Without reading it, you will not believe what a project of brainwashing this is. Just go through and pick out words such as homophobia, gay, and homosexual. It is one more project to teach us that right is wrong and wrong is right. It also of course toes the feminist line, too. There is no better example of how the insanity of "political correctness" has gotten its hold on academia. See it at:

"Gay", "homophobia" and the words derived from it, are words made up by the "gay" movement for their propaganda purposes. "Gay" is for the purpose of making sodomy seem less depraved than it is. Homophobic, homophobia and such are to intimidate and deride those who think and say that sodomy is wrong. Let's look at Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language – Unabridged, 1966. Homophobia, and such derivatives, were not in there at all. As to the word Gay, the first definition was "joyous and lively; merry; happy; lighthearted." The last definition was "wanton; licentious; as, a gay dog." Not one definition meant homosexual, as it is used today. But the media, academia, and the gullible segment of our society dutifully parrot these words, now, just as was intended by the homosexual movement to further its propaganda and thought control. And they find their way into our dictionaries.

Atheists. I do not recall any significant move on foot by atheists to revise the dictionary. However, as crazy as things are getting today, if some student wants to research it, I am sure that something could be found.

Revision of History

Feminist Revision of History.

Journalist Loren Bliss states:

The domination of the public schools by feminists whose goal is the subversion of American liberty and the destruction of Western Civilization, the subsequent perversion of education into matrifascist indoctrination, and the resultant theft of American ideals from our children (for that is precisely what it is) is at the very heart of today’s controversies. For example, how can one support the liberation of Iraq when one has been taught that America is the great "white patriarchal oppressor"? Or worse, that we are fully equivalent to Nazi Germany in racist evil and imperialistic intent.

More from the above reference:

Thus 26 years later it is instructive to contemplate just how far the matrifascist brand of feminism has already thrust the United States in the direction of tyranny. It would take a volume the size of my Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary to document all of the erosions of American liberty that have been inflicted on us by matrifascism, whether directly (as in the ongoing onslaught against the Bill of Rights) or indirectly (as in public education that maliciously subverts American liberty by denouncing American principles as falsehoods and exalting, for instance, Islam as a true "religion of peace.")

These movements are of course not limited to America. Europe may be in even deeper. See the following for the source of some of these destructive radical ideas from the European Left:

Therefore we refer to the values and traditions of  the socialist, communist and labour movement, of feminism,  the feminist movement and gender equality, of the environmental  movement and sustainable development, of peace and international  solidarity, of human rights, humanism and antifascism,  of progressive and liberal thinking, both nationally  and internationally. We work together in the tradition of the struggles against capitalist exploitation, ecological  destruction, political oppression and criminal wars,  against fascism and dictatorship, in resistance to patriarchal  domination and discrimination against "others".

Volumes could be written on this one subject, but the above gives an indication of destruction to facts and history involved in these movements.

Homosexualists' Revision of History. I also covered this at some length in As We Sodomize America. Word searches in that book using history and the names of the Founders will disclose some of the material. The following are references to and excerpts of some of it, referenced with the page numbers to that book. They first, for many years, tried to convince us that based on past history ten-percent of the men were homosexual; when valid research shows that less than 2% are homosexual. (pp. 459-462)

They have falsely tried to convince about all of the great people in history were homosexual. A few examples: Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Eleanor Roosevelt, J. Edgar Hoover, Emily Dickinson. (pp. 445- 451) The extent of this tripe is hard to believe, unless you have read some details of it.

One of the most insidious of the attempted revision of history by the homosexualists is in connection with the Holocaust in Germany, during the Hitler regime. It is still going on today, and due to the gullible segment of the public, it has had great success. In the Albuquerque Journal, April 29, 2007, was an article on the "Holocaust and Intolerance Museum." I am sure the same thing would have been going on all over the country, as is the practice on these "pushes." It is purely misleading, and in many cases false, homosexualist propaganda. I covered this at some length in As We Sodomize America, and the material can easily be found by word searches.

In researching the material for As We Sodomize America, one of the most interesting things in history were the connections between the homosexuals and their groups in Germany, and the Nazi Party and Hitler. As I state in the book, my research convinced me that Hitler was a homosexual. I think that it was clear to any historian that he was some kind of a sexual pervert. Also, I think it is clear that he could never have taken over control of Germany without the help of his homosexual cohorts, and their organizations. Some of the material is covered in pages 136-148; but there is much more that can be found by word searches using Nazi and Hitler. Also, the Table of Citations and the Index, can be helpful in finding material. The most complete book I have found on this subject was The Pink Swastika, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. These authors were prompted to write the book, because of the movement going on to rewrite the history of the Holocaust to make it appear that homosexuals were persecuted in the same manner as Jews, and concealing the parts they played in the Hitler regime.

Another good article on this website is Dr. Judith Reismans's article, The Pink Swastika and Holocaust Revisionist History. Also, my article Modern Use of the Term, "latent Homosexuality" touches on some of this homosexual brainwashing and revision of history.

Atheists' Revision of History. No other groups have been as blatant in revising history into false fiction as the feminist and homosexual groups, but the atheists have certainly shown that they are bent in the same direction. I touched on this in the article, The Immoral Religions of Atheism and Evolution. People like Carl Sagan, whose writing was referred to in that article, are more sophisticated and less blatant in their approach.

I will comment on another example of the same kind of approach. Recently, an instructor and his students in a Midwest high school, who have been reading my articles, sent me an article by a Jim Walker,, and ask me to comment on it. The writing contained numerous statements about our country's history, and a number of its Founders, including George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. Many direct statements in the writing were false, and the rest were misleading. The sole purpose was to try to convince the readers that religion, and Christianity in particular, played little part in the founding of this country and its constitutional government. It denigrates our Christian heritage and the religion of the Founders. Like many such writings, where it cannot be disputed that an important Founder was religious, it tries to make "Deists" out of them. For example, it falsely states that George Washington was a Deist.

The following were some of my comments which I think are appropriate here. They are from two email letters, combined and redone to fit here. This may seem lengthy, but it barely touches the subject.

The first thing that young people should be warned about is choosing their sources of history. There is no better example of the errors that can be fallen into if careful choices are not made than what was sent by the student.

I at once saw that the writing was slanted toward denigrating our religious heritage in America, and gives an impression that is the opposite of the truth.

 I looked up the article, and found that it was written by a seemingly mysterious Jim Walker, with no information about his credentials or background. I believe that he is either an atheist or an agnostic, and I have found that such people seem incapable of fairly presenting a subject. 

I first did a search on the website and came up with:  "we are pleased that Jim Walker ( has taken up the challenge with his Point-of-View," which further leads to my assessment of him. I then did a Google search with: "jim walker" +"atheist". Scanning the results further convinced me of my assessment of the man.

Such sources are a poor way to learn about our history, and I sincerely hope that your students learn a lesson from this. There can be no better example of out of context references and quotes being used to give a completely false picture of our religious heritage.

For example, this statement from the article is completely false: "Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity." And the article is replete with such statements.

Our Bill of rights included what our Founders, including Thomas Jefferson, considered "God given" "inalienable rights." Many of our state and federal laws follow Bible teachings. Also, the Bible was a part of the received common law when this country was formed.

Let's look at a correct, but somewhat misleading quotation in Walker's paper:

They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point. -Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

I say it is somewhat misleading, because the purpose of the article is to convince the reader that religion played no important part in the forming of this country, which is false. See the following from pp. 422-423, As We Sodomize America (on American Traditions Magazine website):

RELIGIOUS GROUPS IN AMERICA, Great Issues in American Life, Conspectus, Vol. II, The Annals of America, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1968; pp. 418–419:

Religion has pervaded all aspects of American culture and largely determined its basic political, moral, and social views. It fostered and established the educational institutions out of which the later secular culture evolved. Its book – the Bible, especially the King James Version has had an enduring effect on the American mind, culture, and literature ... .

The central and pervasive role of religion in the three centuries of American history is not seriously disputed. Most observers have remarked on the strikingly greater religiousness exhibited by Americans in comparison with their European contemporaries in various eras. "There is no country in the world," Alexis de Tocqueville asserted in the 1830s, "where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America." Similarly, in 1855, the German–Swiss theologian Philip Schaff estimated that there were in America "more awakened souls, and more individual effort and self-sacrifice for religious purposes, proportionally, than in any other country in the world, Scotland alone perhaps excepted."

Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous 19th century French statesman, historian and social philosopher, also said:

Religion in America ... must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. (One Nation Under God, Christian Defense Fund, U.S. 1997)

In As We Sodomize America, in the above referred to part of the book and in other parts, the falsity of Walker's essay can easily be found. The book can be word searched with the names of our Founders, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc.

Also, I have the fine book, Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville, in my library; and have carefully read all of it. I recommend it to your students. It would confirm all that I have said about his writing, as stated above, and much more of the same. For example, he states on p. 287:

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegitate in the soul rather than to live.

 Why didn't Walker use the above quote in his essay? Do you call his presentation honest?  The book is full of such statements. I assure you that people like him do not just want separation of church and state -- they want to destroy all traditional semblances of religion from our life, and particularly our public life. And I assure you that a true reading of history will show that religion was much more in our public life then than it is today. At one time the Bible was the main school book.

Noah Webster lived from 1758 to 1853, and was highly respected as both a statesman and an educator. His name also became synonymous with "dictionary." Along with all of this, he also became an attorney. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973, Vol. 23, pp. 360-361) He was one of the great thinkers among the forefathers of this country. The following is a passage from Value of the Bible and Excellence of the Christian Religion, by Noah Webster, 1834. The subtitle is my own:

The Necessity of Morality in Government

When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty, and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. Intriguing men can never be safely trusted. (Bennett, William J., Our Sacred Honor, Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 1997, pp. 396-397)

Noah Webster also stated:

The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. (The Rebirth of America, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Editor, Arthur DeMoss Foundation, 1966, p. 33)

The following is from a subtitle, "Moral Education: Religion in the Public Schools", Chapter 21 – RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS IN AMERICA, Great Issues in American Life, Conspectus, Vol. II, The Annals of America, supra; pp. 376-379:

... Moral education, or the formation of character, or the instilling of good habits, has often been said to be a proper function and responsibility of American schools.

In the beginning it was taken for granted that making graduates virtuous as well as learned was the office of religion, and specifically of the Christian religion. In the seventeenth century, almost all teachers – at least in the better schools – were clergymen who conceived their main task to be the making of more clergymen, and even as late as 1850 the great majority of college presidents were men of the cloth. It is important to remember, and a little hard to do so in our secular times, how closely religion and education were related in early America.


Now let's look at two of the well known Founders mentioned by Walker, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

From my reading and research, of the men that I consider among our Forefathers, the two that were the least religious were Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, in that order.

Paine's Age of Reason, published in 1794 and 1796, gave him a reputation as an atheist, although "he made it clear that he believed in a Supreme Being and as a Deist opposed only organized religion." He returned to America from France at the invitation of Thomas Jefferson, but found that he was now held in disregard because of his anti-religious views, although he had made great contributions to the American Revolution. He had requested a burial in a Quaker cemetery, but this was refused because of his views on religion. He was buried on a farm in New York that was given to him by the state as a reward for his Revolutionary writings. "Derided by the public and abandoned by his friends, he died in 1809 in New York City, a drunk and a pauper." "Ten years later, William Cobbett, the political journalist, exhumed the bones and took them to England, where he hoped to give Paine a funeral worthy of his great contributions to humanity. But the plan misfired, and the bones were lost, never to be recovered." At Paine's death most U.S. newspapers reprinted the obituary notice from the New York Citizen, which read in part: "He had lived long, did some good and much harm."  ( website;

 Considering Thomas Paine's great contributions to the American Revolution, It is indeed a shame the way he died without the recognition and respect he deserved. But it shows the deep regard the people of America had for religion, and particularly the Christian Religion.

Although Thomas Jefferson's religious views were in the minority, he never lost the respect of his country. There were things about the Christian religion which he did not believe, for example the "miracles", but he did have great respect for the principles of Christianity. (Democracy, by Thomas Jefferson, edited by Saul K Padover, Ph.D., D. Appleton-Century Co., New York, 1939; republished Palladium Press, 2002, Chapter VI) In his first Inaugural Address, 1801, He disclosed his view of a life hereafter, which is a Christian view, stating, "Let us ... enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practised in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging an adoring an overruling Providence which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter ... ." (The Annals of America, supra, Vol.4, p. 143)

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? (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237)

Jefferson did not believe in the miracles or in the divinity of Jesus, as set forth in the New Testament. But he believed in God, the continual influence of God, intelligent design, and a life hereafter. He also had great respect for Jesus and his teachings.    

I am sure that the idea that saying a prayer, reading the Bible, or having a Christmas celebration or pageant in school, was unconstitutional would have been quite shocking to Thomas Jefferson. And it is certain that it would have been even more shocking to those who framed and adopted our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment. These ideas are merely the inventions of activist courts. Back in those days, to most of the people, religion was an important thing in the life of the community.

I am attaching the letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823, a little over three years before his death. (He and John Adams both died on July 4, 1826, just 50 years after they helped formed the Declaration of Independence. John Adams, was asked by the Founders to draft the Declaration, but he prevailed on Jefferson to take over the drafting.) It shows Jefferson's belief that God was the "Creator and benevolent governor of the world." His belief in the intelligent design of nature, and that:

We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in it's course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. [ Copy of letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823,]

The letter shows that he believes in a life hereafter, as does his statement of a "Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter."  (Democracy, Thomas Jefferson, selected and arranged by Saul K. Padover, Ph.D., 1939, p. 44) On page 187 of that book is Jefferson's statement: "I am a real Christian, that is to say a disciple of the Doctrines of Jesus ... ."

Although he did not make a show of it, George Washington was a true Christian. He was an Anglican. He often prayed, as privately as he could, when under arms during the Revolutionary War; and made it a rule to have religious services for the troops when possible. This is confirmed by my readings of the Annals of America, and many other authorities cited about him in my various writings;, and by the three books on him in my library: George Washington, by Woodrow Wilson, 1897; Washington and his Comrades in Arms, by George M. Wrong, 1921; and Maxims of Washington, collected and arranged by Frederick Schroeder, 2002.

Also, please consider the following:

The Court distorts existing precedent to conclude that the school district's student-message program is invalid on its face under the Establishment Clause. But even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the Court's opinion; it bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life. Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." Presidential Proclamation, 1 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, p. 64 (J. Richardson ed. 1897). (Chief Justice Rehnquist, Dissent, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000))

I consider George Washington the greatest leader ever produced by this country. Had it not been for him, and his perseverance to the point of downright stubbornness, we probably would not have had a country.

He led our forces in the Revolutionary War against great odds, shared the hardships with his troops, and was continually after Congress, and personally called on friends in France for help in supplying the troops and continuing the war. He always stood up for his troops, trying his best to get them adequate supplies and even badly needed clothing. Both as Commander of the Revolutionary Forces, and as President, he would accept no pay for his services. He kept a detailed account of his out of pocket expenses, and only accepted reimbursement for those expenses. And he did not have a lot of money during those times, although he held considerable land. He borrowed money to make the trip to Washington, after he was elected our first President.

Although he was a Virginian and a slave owner, he believed that it was a blemish on our country that should be ended; and in his will he not only made provision for freeing his slaves, but provided for those who needed it after they were freed.  

He was elected head of the convention that formed our Constitution, and although he did comparatively little of the talking, he held the members together, through the great respect they and all of the country had for him, through long and divisive discussions. This went on for several months, until our Constitution was finally hammered out.

After he was President, he fought Paine, Jefferson, and others, who wanted foreign intrigues with France, which Washington certainly did not. He recognized the bloody French Revolution for the calamity that it was. Jefferson finally recognized and admitted his errors in thinking in that regard, but Paine never did. While he was President, Washington held our country together in some very perilous times, as he did before he was president. He was a great Christian man, and never had a blemish of  moral character mar his life. All of this can be verified in the books previously cited, as well as in my various writings. Other good books that can be used for verification are: The Framing and fathers of the U.S. Constitution, Max Farrand, 1913; The Framing and Ratification of the Constitution. by Levy and Mahoney, 1987;  Fifty-Five Men, by Fred Rodell, 1936;  The Foundation of American Constitutionalism, by Andrew C. McLaughlin, 1932;  A Constitutional History of the United States, by Andrew C. McLaughlin, 1936, two volumes.

Also, Washington, strangely enough, was the most prolific writer of our Founders. My recollection is that his writings covered some 39 volumes.

 The following is more from As We Sodomize America:

George Washington, our first and perhaps our most revered president, wrote a prayer addressed to "O most glorious God, in Jesus Christ." He concluded with these words:

. . . Let me live according to those holy rules which Thou has this day prescribed in Thy holy word . . . Direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life. Bless, O Lord, all the people of this land." — 1752 (Burk, W. Herbert, Washington's Papers, [Norristown, Pa.: Published for the benefit of the Washington Memorial Chapel, 1907], pp. 87-95)

After George Washington decided not to run for a third term as president, he wrote a long farewell address, containing some important things that he wanted to say to the people of the country. This was so important to him that he sent a draft to Alexander Hamilton, asking him to rework it, which Hamilton did. Washington then reworked it again, and it was published as his farewell address in the American Daily Advertiser, Philadelphia, September 19, 1796. The following are some of the thoughts contained in it:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.

Let it be simply stated – Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? (The Annals of America, Vol. 3, p. 612, Encyclopaedia Britannia, Inc., 1968)

From my unpublished book, A Way To Save Our Constitution From Judges:

 David Barton, referred to previously in this chapter, filed an affidavit supporting the public display of the Ten Commandments in the Federal District Court in another Kentucky case in 2001. It is a very comprehensive affidavit on the effect of the Ten Commandments on our American history. His excellent qualifications as a historian are shown in the affidavit. This affidavit, citing extensive documentary support, can be found on the Internet – some of the versions with footnotes. The following are examples of history related in the affidavit.

12. The Ten Commandments are a smaller part of the larger body of divine law recognized and early incorporated into America's civil documents. For example, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut-established in 1638-39 as the first written constitution in America and considered as the direct predecessor of the U. S. Constitution - declared that the Governor and his council of six elected officials would "have power to administer justice according to the laws here established; and for want thereof according to the rule of the word of God." ***

14. The following year, 1639, the New Haven Colony adopted its "Fundamental Articles" for the governance of that Colony, and when the question was placed before the colonists:

Whether the Scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all dut[ies] which they are to perform to God and men as well in the government of families and commonwealths as in matters of the church, this was assented unto by all, no man dissenting as was expressed by holding up of hands. ***

Honor God's name.

26. Civil laws enacted to observe this commandment were divided into two categories: laws prohibiting blasphemy and laws prohibiting swearing and profanity. Noah Webster, an American legislator and judge, affirms that both of these categories of laws were derived from the third commandment of the Decalogue [Ten Commandments]:

When in obedience to the third commandment of the Decalogue you would avoid profane swearing, you are to remember that this alone is not a full compliance with the prohibition which [also] comprehends all irreverent words or actions and whatever tends to cast contempt on the Supreme Being or on His word and ordinances [i.e., blasphemy].***

30. For example, Commander-in-Chief George Washington issued numerous military orders during the American Revolution that first prohibited swearing and then ordered an attendance on Divine worship, thus relating the prohibition against profanity to a religious duty. Typical of these orders, on July 4, 1775, Washington declared:

The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance of those articles of war established for the government of the army which forbid profane cursing, swearing, and drunkenness; and in like manner requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on Divine Service to implore the blessings of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.

31. Washington began issuing such orders to his troops as early as 1756 during the French and Indian War, and continued the practice throughout the American Revolution, issuing similar orders in 1776, 1777, 1778, etc. ***

34. In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law:

The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.

The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:

Honor the Sabbath day.

37. The civil laws enacted to uphold this injunction are legion and are far too numerous for any exhaustive listing to be included in this brief affidavit. While a representative sampling will be presented below, there are three points that clearly establish the effect of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue on American law.

38. First is the inclusion in the U. S. Constitution of the recognition of the Sabbath in Art. I, Sec. 7, ¶ 2, stipulating that the President has 10 days to sign a law, "Sundays excepted." ***

43. In 1775, and throughout the American Revolution, Commander-in-Chief George Washington issued military orders directing that the Sabbath be observed. His order of May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge was typical:

The Commander in Chief directs that divine service be performed every Sunday at 11 o'clock in those brigades to which there are chaplains; those which have none to attend the places of worship nearest to them. It is expected that officers of all ranks will by their attendance set an example to their men. ***

46. In 1950, the Supreme Court of Mississippi had similarly declared:

The Sunday laws have a divine origin. Blackstone (Cooley's) Par. 42, page 36. After the six days of creation, the Creator Himself rested on the Seventh. Genesis, Chapter 2, verses 2 and 3. Thus, the Sabbath was instituted, as a day of rest. The original example was later confirmed as a commandment when the law was handed down from Mt. Sinai: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." ***

Honor your parents.

52. This fifth command begins the so-called second "tablet" of the Decalogue-the section addressing "civil" behavior that even critics acknowledge to be appropriate for public display. This portion of the Decalogue formed the basis of many of our current criminal laws and modern courts are not reticent to acknowledge and enforce these commandments. As the Supreme Court of Indiana declared in 1974:

Virtually all criminal laws are in one way or another the progeny of Judeo-Christian ethics. We have no intention to overrule the Ten Commandments.

53. Yet the mandates of the Decalogue currently embodied in our criminal laws are no less religiously-based than were the first four commandments. For example, a 1642 Connecticut law addressing the fifth commandment specifically cited both the Decalogue and additional Bible verses as the basis for its civil laws related to honoring parents:

If any child or children above sixteen years old, and of sufficient understanding shall curse or smite their normal father or mother, he or they shall be put to death; unless it can be sufficiently testified that the parents have been very unchristianly negligent in the education of such children, or so provoke them by extreme and cruel correction that they have been forced thereunto to preserve themselves from death [or] maiming. Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20, Ex. 20:15

This law also appears in other State codes as well.

54. Even three centuries after these early legal codes, this commandment was still influencing civil laws-as confirmed in 1934 by a Louisiana appeals court that cited the fifth commandment of the Decalogue as the basis of civil policy between parents and children:

" 'Honor thy father and thy mother,' is as much a command of the municipal law as it is a part of the Decalogue, regarded as holy by every Christian people. 'A child,' says the code, 'whatever be his age, owes honor and respect to his father and mother.' "

55. Other courts have made similar declarations, all confirming that the fifth commandment of the Decalogue was an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.

Do not murder.

56. The next several commands form much of the heart of our criminal laws, and, as noted by Noah Webster, one of the first founders to call for the Constitutional Convention, the divine law is the original source of several of those criminal laws: ***

59. Courts, too, have been very candid in tracing civil murder laws back to the Decalogue. For example, a 1932 Kentucky appeals court declared:

The rights of society as well as those of appellant are involved and are also to be protected, and to that end all forms of governments following the promulgation of Moses at Mt. Sinai has required of each and every one of its citizens that "Thou shalt not murder." ...

60. Even the "severest punishment for the crime" is traced back to divine laws. As first Chief Justice John Jay explained:

There were several divine, positive ordinances . . . of universal obligation, as . . . the particular punishment for murder. ***

Do not commit adultery.

62. Directly citing the Decalogue, a 1641 Massachusetts law declared:

If any person committeth adultery with a married or espoused wife, the adulterer and adulteresses shall surely be put to death. Ex. 20.14.

63. Other States had similar laws, such as Connecticut in 1642, Rhode Island in 1647, New Hampshire in 1680, Pennsylvania in 1705, etc. In fact, in 1787, nearly a century-and-a-half after the earliest colonial laws, Vermont enacted an adultery law, declaring that it was based on divine law: ***

Do not steal.

68. The laws regarding theft that indicate their reliance on divine law and the Decalogue are far too numerous even to begin listing. Perhaps the simplest summation is given by Chancellor James Kent, who is considered, along with Justice Joseph Story, as one of the two "Fathers of American Jurisprudence." In his classic 1826 Commentaries on American Law, Kent confirmed that the prohibitions against theft were found in divine law:

To overturn justice by plundering others tended to destroy civil society, to violate the law of nature, and the institutions of Heaven.

69. Subsequent to James Kent, numerous other legal sources have reaffirmed the divine origin of the prohibition against theft. For example, in 1951, the Louisiana Supreme Court acknowledged the Decalogue as the basis for the unchanging civil laws against theft:

In the Ten Commandments, the basic law of all Christian countries, is found the admonition "Thou shalt not steal."

70. In 1940, the Supreme Court of California had made a similar acknowledgment:

Defendant did not acknowledge the dominance of a fundamental precept of honesty and fair dealing enjoined by the Decalogue and supported by prevailing moral concepts. "Thou shalt not steal" applies with equal force and propriety to the industrialist of a complex civilization as to the simple herdsman of ancient Israel.

71. Significantly, other courts acknowledged the same, including the Utah Supreme Court, the Colorado Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court, the Missouri Supreme Court, etc.***

Do not perjure yourself.

75. A 1642 Connecticut law against perjury acknowledged its basis to be in divine law, declaring:

If any man rise up by false witness, wittingly and of purpose, to take away any man's life, he shall be put to death. Deut. 19:16, 18, 19.

76. Similar laws on perjury declaring their basis to be in divine law and the Decalogue may be found in Massachusetts in 1641, Rhode Island in 1647, New Hampshire in 1680, Connecticut in 1808, etc.

77. Courts were also open in acknowledging their indebtedness to the Decalogue for the civil perjury laws. For example, 1924, the Oregon Supreme Court declared:

No official is above the law. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is a command of the Decalogue, and that forbidden act is denounced by statute as a felony. ***

Do not covet. ***

81. John Adams, one of only two individuals who signed the Bill of Rights, also acknowledged the importance of this commandment, declaring:

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet" and "Thou shalt not steal" were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

82. Many courts have also acknowledged the importance of this provision of the Decalogue. For example, in 1895, the California Supreme Court cited this prohibition as the basis of civil laws against defamation. In 1904, the Court of Appeals in West Virginia cited it as the basis of laws preventing election fraud. In 1958, a Florida appeals court cited it as the basis of laws targeting white-collar crime. And in 1951, the Oregon Supreme Court cited this Decalogue prohibition as the basis of civil laws against modern forms of cattle rustling. There are numerous other examples that all affirm that the tenth commandment of the Decalogue did indeed form an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.


83. The Colonial, Revolutionary, and Federalist Era laws, as well as contemporary court decisions, provide two authoritative voices establishing that the Decalogue formed the historical basis for civil laws and jurisprudence in America. As a third authoritative voice, the Framers themselves endorsed those commandments, both specifically and generally.

84. In addition to the approbation already given throughout this affidavit by John Adams, John Jay, Noah Webster, et. al, there are many other specific declarations, including that of William Findley, a soldier in the Revolution and a U. S. Congressman, who declared:

[I]t pleased God to deliver on Mount Sinai a compendium of His holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, . . . is immutable and universally obligatory. . . . [and] was incorporated in the judicial law.

85. Additionally, John Quincy Adams, who bore arms during the Revolution, served under four Presidents and became a President, and who was nominated (but declined) a position on the U. S. Supreme Court under President Madison, similarly declared:

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. . . . Vain, indeed, would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for morality as this Decalogue lays down. ***

88. The Framers also used a third descriptive term synonymous with the Decalogue and the moral law: the natural law. As Chief Justice John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers, explained:

The moral, or natural law, was given by the sovereign of the universe to all mankind. ***

93. Justice Joseph Story, later appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison, similarly declared:

I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations. (emphasis added) ***

99. In 1950, the Florida Supreme Court similarly declared:

A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments, and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue . . .


100. Significantly, Americans seem to recognize the important contributions made to our society by the Decalogue. Consequently, there is a centuries old American propensity to honor both the Ten Commandments and Moses, the deliverer of the Decalogue.

101. For example, in 1776 immediately following America's separation from Great Britain, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were placed on a committee to design a seal for the new United States. Both of them separately proposed featuring Moses prominently in the symbol of the new nation. Franklin proposed "Moses lifting his wand and dividing the Red Sea" while Jefferson proposed "the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night."

102. A further indication of this American proclivity to honor Moses, the deliverer of the Ten Commandments, is seen in the U. S. Capitol. Adorning the top of the walls around the House Chamber ... symbolically overseeing the proceedings of the lawmakers. That relief is of Moses.

103. Not only Moses but also depictions of the Ten Commandments adorn several of the more important government buildings in the nation's capitol. For example, every visitor that enters the National Archives to view the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence (and other official documents of American government) must first pass by the Ten Commandments embedded in the entryway to the Archives. Additionally, in the U. S. Supreme Court are displayed two depictions of the Ten Commandments. One is on the entry into the Chamber, where, engraved on the lower half of the two large oak doors, are the Ten Commandments. The other display of the commandments is in the Chamber itself on a marble frieze carved above the Justices' heads. As Chief Justice Warren Burger noted in Lynch v. Donnelly:

The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent-not seasonal-symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments.

104. Other prominent buildings where large displays of the Ten Commandments may be viewed include the Texas State Capitol, the chambers of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and scores of other legislatures, courthouses, and public buildings across America. In fact, the Ten Commandments are more easily found in America's government buildings than in her religious buildings, thus demonstrating the understanding by generations of Americans from coast to coast that the Ten Commandments formed the basis of America's civil laws. [Complete Affidavit with footnotes:; without footnotes:]

 Barton covered all of the Ten Commandments, showing how each has affected our laws and how all have been honored in this country. They and all Christian tenets have played a vital part in the formation of this country and its laws. The information in the affidavit is also relevant to this whole chapter.

I also believe that the following statement of Walker is completely and deliberately false."

Today we have powerful Christian organizations who work to spread historical myths about early America and attempt to bring a Christian theocracy to the government.

I believe that I am familiar with the several powerful Christian organizations in this country, and get steady mail, email and updates from at least four of them. Not one advocates a Christian theocracy.

I would advise your students to be very careful about accepting such things as the writings of Jim Walker. I would also advise them that in my opinion, based on extensive study and reading, the most reliable books and writings on early American history are more than fifty years old, and written before our era of "political correctness" and attacks on Christianity and traditional American values set in. There are of course exceptions, but care should be given to sources chosen.

I think the same advice is good for any student of history. In this era of false revisions of history, I think that it is very important for all Americans to learn as much of our true American history as possible, so that we will not be mislead by the false propaganda that we are continually bombarded with.

Although the above may seem lengthy, as stated before, it doesn't start to tell the whole story of our religious heritage. I strongly urge anyone with a real interest in the subject to carefully read the following, which will further show the important part that the Christian religion played in the formation of this country and its institutions:

Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Library of Congress Exhibit,

House and Senate Chaplains – History, Congressional Research Service, from the U. S. Senate website,

Religion's Role in the Formation of the United States, from 1607-1850, University of Massachusetts website,



Certainly, the liberal revisionists have been effective in substituting there false propaganda for facts and for history, and have done considerable harm to our culture and to our American traditions. But they have not yet been able to destroy the King James Version and other older versions of our Bibles that contain the true word of God; and our history books that contain the true facts of history. As long as we have those, all who are sufficiently interested have ways to find the truth in all such matters. Although, admittedly, these liberal groups have certainly made it more difficult.