(continued)

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited; “…no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of … their religious profession and worship…”

Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights … appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions … And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”…

We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth… because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom be presented to the courts…

There is no dissonance in these declarations.  There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation.  These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people.

While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, it was decided that, Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law… not Christianity with an established church … but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.

And in The People v. Ruggles, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said:

“The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice…. We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those imposters.”

And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, this Court… observed: “It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law…”

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life as expressed by its lays, its business, its customs and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.  Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all wills, “in the name of God, amen”; the laws of respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe.

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation … we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.10

The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality.11

Religion, morality, and knowledge (are) necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind.11

A commentary on Church of the Holy Trinity v. US summarized:

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon the embody of the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind.  It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.12

United States Supreme Court 1948, in the case of McCollum v. Board of Education, 333, U.S. 203, Justice Felix Frankfurter rendered the court’s opinion:

Traditionally, organized education in the Western world was Church education.  It could hardly be otherwise when the education of children was primarily study of the Word and the ways of God.  Even in the Protestant countries, where there was a less close identification of Church and State, the basis of education was largely the Bible, and its chief purpose inculcation of piety…20

United States Supreme Court 1962, in the case of Engle v. Vitale; as quoted in Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 46 (1980) and Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212 (1963), stated:

The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion. 2

United States Supreme Court 1963, in the case of School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212, 225 (1963), pp.21, 71, records Associate Justice Tom Clark, writing the Court’s opinion:

It is true that religion has been closely identified with our history and government.  As we said in Engle v. Vitale, “The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion.”23

Secularism is unconstitutional...preferring those who do not believe over those who do believe…It is the duty of government to deter no-belief religions…Facilities of government cannot offend religious principles…24

(T)he State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who  believe in no religion over those who do believe.25

It might well be said that one’s education is to complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization.  It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities.  Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. 26

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.    –  Galations 6:7

Here’s one more interesting quote taken from Article 24 of the Constitution of the United Soviet Socialist Republic (1922-1991):

 “In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the State, and the school from the Church.”

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.– Joshua 24:15

The choice is yours…