by David Barton
Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.43 JAMES WILSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
He who makes a people virtuous makes them invincible.44 Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy [depravity] and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time but beyond a certain pitch even the best constitution will be ineffectual…. What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not [would not hesitate] to call him an enemy to his country…. 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.45 JOHN WITHERSPOON, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION
The knowledge that the promotion of religion and morality was good public policy was a truth recognized not just by the Founders but even by early courts and Congresses. Notice:
Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness … it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.46 CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1778
Religion is of general and public concern and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people.47 RUNKEL v. WINEMILLER, 1799
The morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity…. [We are] people whose manners are refined and whose morals have been elevated and inspired with a more enlarged benevolence by means of the Christian religion.48 PEOPLE v. RUGGLES, 1811
No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged and is the religion of the country…. Christianity is part of the common law…. Its foundations are broad and strong and deep…. It is the purest system of morality … and only stable support of all human laws.49 UPDEGRAPH v. COMMONWEALTH, 1824
Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament … be read and taught as a Divine revelation in the [school]? … Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?50 VIDAL v. GIRARD’S EXECUTORS, 1844
Christianity has reference to the principles of right and wrong; … it is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed; it is their basis. Remove this and they would fall…. It [morality] has grown upon the basis of Christianity.51 CHARLESTON v. BENJAMIN, 1846
Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment – without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.52 HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 1854
[T]he happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality…. Religion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind.53 CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY v. U. S., 1892
Consequently, the twin foundations of religion and public morality were long protected and zealously guarded in public policy. For example:
[W]hatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government … because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order…. [O]ffenses against religion and morality … strike at the root of moral obligation and weaken the security of the social ties.54 PEOPLE v. RUGGLES, 1811
The destruction of morality renders the power of the government invalid.55 COMMONWEALTH v. SHARPLESS, 1815
[A] malicious intention … to vilify the Christian religion and the Scriptures…. would prove a nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the gallows and young women for the brothel…. Religion and morality … are the foundations of all governments. Without these restraints no free government could long exist.56 UPDEGRAPH v. COMMONWEALTH, 1824
What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There certainly is none other. Say that cannot be appealed to and … what would be good morals? The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of pagan immorality.57 CHARLESTON v. BENJAMIN, 1846
[Religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests…. In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions.58 HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 1854
The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and Divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.59 U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 1854
Our Founders – as well as subsequent courts and Congresses – believed intensely that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, produced the public morality without which civil government would not long survive. On this basis, they neither created nor tolerated acts diminishing Christianity’s effect; to have done so would have been to invite the demise of good government. No rational government would intentionally commit suicide by destroying its very foundation.
While the overall effects of religion on a society were well understood, there were also specific benefits of Christianity which were enumerated by the Founders. For example, Thomas Jefferson noted:
The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. [Jesus] pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man, erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.60
According to Jefferson, Christian principles, unlike those of other religions, went beyond merely addressing and attempting to regulate or restrain outward behavior. Consider murder as an example: civil law prohibits it; how can Christianity contribute anything more? Unlike civil statutes, Christianity addresses murder before it occurs – while it is still only a thought in the heart (see Matthew 5:22-28). Civil laws cannot address the heart, which is the actual seat of violence and of all crime. The true effectiveness of the teachings of Christianity were that, as Jefferson expressed it, they “purified the waters at the fountain head.”
John Quincy Adams, who served not only as a President but also as a U. S. Representative and Senator, similarly explained why this aid from Christianity was so necessary to civil government. He declared:
Human legislators can undertake only to prescribe the actions of men: they acknowledge their inability to govern and direct the sentiments of the heart; the very law styles it a rule of civil conduct, not of internal principles…. It is one of the greatest marks of Divine favor … that the Legislator gave them rules not only of action but for the government of the heart.61
To hate is not legally a crime, yet it often leads to a crime (assault, murder, slander, etc.). Similarly, to covet is not legally a crime; yet it too often leads to a crime (theft, burglary, embezzlement, etc.). Only religion effectively provides what John Quincy Adams termed “rules for the government of the heart” and thus prevents the crimes which originate internally.
This aspect of personal, internal self-government was long understood to be a direct societal benefit resulting from the widespread teachings of Christianity. As Zephaniah Swift explained:
Indeed moral virtue is substantially and essentially enforced by the precepts of Christianity and may be considered to be the basis of it. But in addition to moral principles, the Christian doctrines inculcate a purity of heart and holiness of life which constitutes its chief glory. When we contemplate it in this light, we have a most striking evidence of its superio
rity over all the systems of pagan philosophy which were promulgated by the wisest men of ancient times.62
Signer of the Constitution Abraham Baldwin echoed this truth:
When the minds of the people in general are viciously disposed and unprincipled and their conduct disorderly, a free government will be attended with greater confusions and evils more horrid than the wild, uncultivated state of nature. It can only be happy when the public principles and opinions are properly directed and their manners regulated. This is an influence beyond the reach of laws and punishments and can be claimed only by religion and education.63
John Witherspoon similarly explained:
[V]irtue and piety are inseparably connected; then to promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the substance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do.64
Disregarding these direct societal benefits which result from the promotion of religious principles, government utilizes extensive manpower and expends massive financial sums attempting to restrain behavior which is the external manifestation of internal chaos and disorder.
If human behavior is not controlled by the internal restraints provided through religion, then the only other means to restrain misbehavior is the threat of sheer force. As Founder James Otis queried:
When a man’s will and pleasure is his only rule and guide, what safety can there be either for him or against him but in the point of a sword?65
Perhaps Robert Winthrop (a speaker of the U. S. House and a contemporary of John Quincy Adams and Daniel Webster) best summarized this principle when he declared:
Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.66
Because of the civil benefits, it is little wonder that basic religious teachings on behavior and morality have been long promoted throughout society in general and were specifically inculcated through public education. As Daniel Webster noted:
We regard it [public instruction] as a wise and liberal system of police by which property, and life, and the peace of society are secured. We seek to prevent in some measure the extension of the penal code by inspiring a salutary and conservative principle of virtue and of knowledge in an early age…. [W]e seek … to turn the strong current of feeling and opinion, as well as the censures of the law and the denunciations of religion, against immorality and crime.67
In fact, so much were these religious teachings considered to be a fundamental part of a well-rounded education that the Founders feared what might transpire if education no longer included these teachings. As Benjamin Rush warned:
In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be Republicans and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible.68
Earlier generations understood that religion – which produced morality, internal restraints, and a basic knowledge of rights and wrongs – must be publicly encouraged and supported to ensure national longevity. In fact, history provides frequent proof of the national elevation of behavior resulting from the public promotion of religion and morality. It is only sensible, therefore, to insist on a continuation of this policy. As political philosopher Montaigne (1533-1592) observed:
Were I not to follow the straight road for its straightness, I should follow it for having found by experience that, in the end, it is commonly the happiest and most useful track.69
Experience proves that in a nation such as ours, the promotion and encouragement of religion and morality allows government to concentrate on its primary function: serving, rather than restraining.
~18~
Returning To Original Intent
Our Founders established this government with both a strong dependence upon religious principles and a clear limitation on federal powers. The crumbling of their ideals, and the current departure from what the Founders intended, did not occur overnight. Abrogating the separation of powers, destroying the cooperative relationship between church and state, usurping State powers, restricting public religious expressions – each has been a slow process spanning years. Likewise, the correction of these problems may not occur quickly or through any single act.
A major factor contributing to the gradual devolution of each of the above areas has been a lack of accurate, factual information. For example, had the public been aware of our founding documents and understood the philosophy behind them, the Court could never have achieved its supremacy of recent decades. Similarly, had Americans better known our history and the Founders’ abundant writings, we would never have accepted the assertion that our Founders were irreligious and disapproved of public religious expressions.
The solution for overcoming these travesties, therefore, depends on acquiring sound information. This process entails three steps: (1) identifying and eliminating wrong information; (2) obtaining correct information; (3) acting on the proper information. This book can satisfy only the first step and a part of the second (exposing wrong information and providing correct information); the remainder of the process (replacing the inaccuracy with truth and then acting on it) can be accomplished only by the reader.
Since proper knowledge is essential for the construction of sound public policy, this final chapter will suggest four standards against which proposed ideas or policies should be tested.
In evaluating a policy, a citizen should first ask, “What will be the result of this proposed policy in light of the principle of national accountability – or what the Founders called the principle of ‘rewards and punishments’?”
The application of this principle was so vital to the establishment of public policy that an acknowledgment of it frequently appeared in early documents. For example (emphasis added in each quote):
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked.” CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA1
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “You do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked.” CONSTITUTION OF VERMONT2
The qualifications of electors shall be that [he] … acknowledges the being of a God and believes in a future state of rewards and punishments. CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA3
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State. CONSTITUTION OF TENNESSEE4
By such pronouncements, a public official was acknowledging his understanding that his actions in office would have consequences with God. As Constitution signer Rufus King explained:
Our laws constantly refer to this revelation and by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were, and are, without the mighty influence of this principle.5
Speaking before the Connecticut legislature in 1803, Matthias Burnet described the consequences from ignoring the principle of Divine rewards and punishments:
[F]eeble … would be the best form of government, and ineffectual the most wise and salutary laws, … without a sense of religion and the terrors of the world to come…. In a word, banish a sense of religion and the terrors of the world to come from society and you dissolve the sacred obligation of conscience and leave every man to do that which is right in his own eyes.6
In the view of our Founders, understanding the inevitability of Divine consequences for political acts was vita
l to the preservation of sound government. In fact, according to John Adams, it was embracing this principle which distinguished a statesman (a leader who would not compromise principles) from a politician (a leader who would). Adams believed the main reason a statesman refused to compromise his principles was that he understood the principle of future rewards and punishments. Adams explained:
[S]uch compliances [compromises] … of my honor, my conscience, my friends, my country, my God, as the Scriptures inform us must be punished with nothing less than hell-fire, eternal torment; and this is so unequal a price to pay for the honors and emoluments [profits from government] … that I cannot prevail upon myself to think of it [compromise]. The duration of future punishment terrifies me. If I could but deceive myself so far as to think eternity a moment only, I could comply and be promoted.7
A leader’s understanding and acceptance of accountability to God for his political behavior helps restrain him from compromises of principle.
The Founders understood that the principle of Divine rewards and punishments applied not only to individual leaders but also to the nation and its policies. The primary difference was that rewards and punishments for nations occurred in this world rather than the next. As Samuel Adams explained:
[Divine] Revelation assures us that “Righteousness exalteth a nation” [PROVERBS 14:34]. Communities are dealt with in this world by the wise and just Ruler of the Universe. He rewards or punishes them according to their general character.8 (emphasis added)
