Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?

By David Barton (slightly edited in length by Yours Truly)
Paragraphs enclosed by double parentheses were added by me.

Over the past several years, President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that America is not a Christian nation. He asserted that while a U. S. Senator, repeated it as a presidential candidate, and on a recent presidential trip to Turkey announced to the world that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” (He made that announcement in Turkey because he said it was “a location he said he chose to send a clear message.”) Then preceding a subsequent trip to Egypt, he declared that America was “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world” (even though the federal government’s own statistics show that less than one-percent of Americans are Muslims).

The President’s statements were publicized across the world but received little attention in the American media. Had they been carried here, the President might have been surprised to learn that nearly two-thirds of Americans currently consider America to be a Christian nation and therefore certainly might have taken exception with his remarks. But regardless of what today’s Americans might think, it is unquestionable that four previous centuries of American leaders would definitely take umbrage with the President’s statements.

Modern claims that America is not a Christian nation are rarely noticed or refuted today because of the nation’s widespread lack of knowledge about America’s history and foundation. To help provide the missing historical knowledge necessary to combat today’s post-modern revisionism, presented below will be some statements by previous presidents, legislatures, and courts (as well as by current national Jewish spokesmen) about America being a Christian nation. These declarations from all three branches of government are representative of scores of others and therefore comprise only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.”

Defining a Christian Nation

Contemporary post-modern critics (including President Obama) who assert that America is not a Christian nation always refrain from offering any definition of what the term “Christian nation” means. So what is an accurate definition of that term as demonstrated by the American experience?

Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:

[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.

So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.”

Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) similarly acknowledged:

In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion.

Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed:

[W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it.

Christianity is the religion that shaped America and made her what she is today. In fact, historically speaking, it can be irrefutably demonstrated that Biblical Christianity in America produced many of the cherished traditions still enjoyed today, including:

* A republican rather than a theocratic form of government;
* The institutional separation of church and state (as opposed to today’s enforced institutional secularization of church and state);
* Protection for religious toleration and the rights of conscience;
* A distinction between theology and behavior, thus allowing the incorporation into public policy of religious principles that promote good behavior but which do not enforce theological tenets (examples of this would include religious teachings such as the Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc., all of which promote positive civil behavior but do not impose ecclesiastical rites); and
* A free-market approach to religion, thus ensuring religious diversity.

((Interestingly enough, a recent study was performed to ascertain where the ideals and principles laid out in the Constitution had originated, and so a group of individuals decided to research the documents and letters of those who created the Constitution. 15,000 writings were amassed and out of these they discovered approximately 3,500 direct quotes. Approximately 34% of these quotes came from the Bible and the rest were divided among other sources with the second-most commonly used source ranking at only about 8%.))

Consequently, a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists.

American Presidents Affirm that America is a Christian Nation

With his recent statement, President Barack Obama is the first American president to deny that America is a Christian nation – a repudiation of what made America great and a refutation of the declarations of his presidential predecessors. Notice a few representative statements on this subject by some of the forty-three previous presidents:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity.--JOHN ADAMS

[T]he teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally….impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed.--TEDDY ROOSEVELT

America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.--WOODROW WILSON

American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago.--HERBERT HOOVER

This is a Christian Nation.--HARRY TRUMAN

Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny. --RICHARD NIXON

There are many additional examples, including even that of Thomas Jefferson.

Significantly, Jefferson was instrumental in establishing weekly Sunday worship services at the U. S. Capitol (a practice that continued through the 19th century) and was himself a regular and faithful attendant at those church services, not even allowing inclement weather to dissuade his weekly horseback travel to the Capitol church.

Even President Jefferson recognized and treated America as a Christian nation. Clearly, President Obama’s declaration is refuted both by history and by his own presidential predecessors.

((In order not to make this post more tedious than it already is, I will not include examples of the literally hundreds of similar cases at both federal and state levels affirming that America is indeed a Christian nation, but for more information visit the website: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909 ))

American Jewish Leaders Agree with History

Jewish leaders, although firmly committed to their own faith, understand that by defending Christianity they are defending what has provided them their own religious liberty in America. For example, Jeff Jacoby, a Jewish columnist at the Boston Globe explains:

This is a Christian country – it was founded by Christians and built on broad Christian principles. Threatening? Far from it. It is in precisely this Christian country that Jews have known the most peaceful, prosperous, and successful existence in their long history.

Aaron Zelman (a Jewish author and head of a civil rights organization) similarly declares:

[C]hristian America is the best home our people have found in 2,000 years. . . . [T]his remains the most tolerant, prosperous, and safest home we could be blessed with.

Dennis Prager, a Jewish national columnist and popular talkshow host, warns:

If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles (its Founders’ guiding text), we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America’s non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe.

Prager further explained:

I believe that it is good that America is a Christian nation. . . . I have had the privilege of speaking in nearly every Jewish community in America over the last 30 years, and I have frequently argued in favor of this view. Recently, I spoke to the Jewish community of a small North Carolina city. When some in the audience mentioned their fear of rising religiosity among Christians, I asked these audience-members if they loved living in their city. All of them said they did. Is it a coincidence, I then asked, that the city you so love (for its wonderful people, its safety for your children, its fine schools, and its values that enable you to raise your children with confidence) is a highly Christian city? Too many Americans do not appreciate the connection between American greatness and American Christianity.

Don Feder, a Jewish columnist and long time writer for the Boston Herald, similarly acknowledges:

Clearly this nation was established by Christians. . . . As a Jew, I’m entirely comfortable with the concept of the Christian America. The choice isn’t Christian America or nothing, but Christian America or a neo-pagan, hedonistic, rights-without-responsibilities, anti-family, culture-of-death America. As an American Jew. . . . [I] feel very much at home here.

In fact, Feder calls on Jews to defend the truth that America is a Christian Nation:

Jews – as Jews – must oppose revisionist efforts to deny our nation’s Christian heritage, must stand against the drive to decouple our laws from Judeo-Christian ethics, and must counter attacks on public expressions of the religion of most Americans – Christianity. Jews are safer in a Christian America than in a secular America.

Michael Medved, a Jewish national talkshow host and columnist, agrees that America is indeed a Christian nation:

The framers may not have mentioned Christianity in the Constitution but they clearly intended that charter of liberty to govern a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. Their noble and unprecedented experiment never involved a religion-free or faithless state but did indeed presuppose America’s unequivocal identity as a Christian nation.

Burt Prelutsky, a Jewish columnist for the Los Angeles Times (and a freelance writer for the New York Times, Washington Times, Sports Illustrated, and other national publications) and a patriotic Jewish American, gladly embraces America as a Christian nation and even resents the secularist post-modern attack on national Christian celebrations such as Christmas:

I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. . . .How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Turkey is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn’t mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country’s population is of one religion, and most Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a darn fool would deny the obvious. . . . This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many millions of Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. It should never be forgotten that, in the main, it was Christian soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany and who liberated the concentration camps. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends.

Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the Jewish Policy Center unequivocally declares

[I] understand that I live . . . in a Christian nation, albeit one where I can follow my faith as long as it doesn’t conflict with the nation’s principles. The same option is open to all Americans and will be available only as long as this nation’s Christian roots are acknowledged and honored.

In fact, with foreboding he warns:

Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the west is doomed. Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah, and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in. God help Jews if America ever becomes a post-Christian society! Just think of Europe!

President Obama’s declaration that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” is a repudiation of the declarations of the national leaders before him and is an unabashed attempt at historical revisionism. Of such efforts, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wisely observed, “no amount of repetition of historical errors . . . can make the errors true.”

Americans must now decide whether centuries of presidents, congresses, and courts are correct or whether President Obama is, but historical fact does not change merely because the President declares it.

The best antidote to the type of revisionism embodied by President Obama’s statement is for citizens (1) to know the truth of America’s history and (2) share that truth with others.

9/12 Tea Party Rally in WA, D.C.

The 9/12 Tea Party rally in Washington D.C. drew a crowd of concerned Americans that surpassed in numbers any free market, limited government gathering of individuals in history. The reason for gathering was to protest against the direction that President Obama is taking the United States, especially his proposed, government-controlled health care plan.

I attended the rally with six of my college pals and arrived in downtown around 11:30 AM. It is difficult to speculate an estimate for exactly how many people attended the rally, because there was a constant stream of people walking down Pennsylvania Avenue who were both leaving and coming. Perhaps the aerial photo attached will give an idea of the crowd size if you double the number of people visible in order to account for the people in the section from the Capitol steps out to the Washington Monument as well as those who had already left and those who were yet to arrive. We showed up about two and a half hours after the march towards the Capitol began, and left at 2:30 PM, about a half hour before the rally ended.

I found it entertaining that the Liberal media kept probing those they were interviewing about whether or not the crowd was behaving in a peaceful or rowdy manner. They kept stressing the number of "riot police" on sight as well. I guess we disappointed their expectations as to our behavior, because it was a very peaceful, friendly, and self-contained crowd and the police I encountered actually seemed to be enjoying themselves and were discreetly agreeing with the sentiments of those present. Despite the justified sentiments of frustration and anger at the current administration's socialist, big government, agenda with its anti-morals and anti-family leanings and the already prolific, tyrant-appeasing, no-backbone, foreign policies, there was also a spirit of optimism and excitement to be exercising the right of free speech along with hundreds of thousands of other patriotic, like-minded Americans during these crucial and alarming days in our country.

Socialism Exposed

"The American people will not knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." --Norman Thomas

Norman Thomas was the socialist candidate for president during FDR's term; one could assume that he dropped out of the race because it became apparent that FDR would do a thorough job on his own of incorporating socialism into our government. JK I'm sure Norman would have liked to have a go at it as well.

This is an excellent video of an interview with acclaimed economist Thomas Sowell. It delves into what is currently happening to our economic system in America and the dangers that lie therein.

Socialism for the Rich, by Thomas Sowell, also does an excellent job of breaking down the faulty logic that leftists use when tacking a benevolent sounding title onto their dangerous ideologies.

This is the definition of socialism according to the dictionary:

so⋅cial⋅ism  
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

In a perfect world, where every individual was perfectly unselfish, socialism might have a chance at success. However, we all know that such a utopian society does not, and will never exist. In the name of benevolance and fairness, individuals and groups of people in government will manipulate and abuse the power that a socialist system gives them and waste exorbitant ammounts of money on accomplishing their own political agendas, and not only that, but the lazy and incompetant individuals in society will abuse the system. In the end the rich will be poorer, the middle class will be poor, and the poor will be destitute. History has proved this over and over again.

This is also a good illustration of what happens when the pleasant sounding logic of socialism is allowed to play out:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

I believe that we should use history as a tool in order to study socialist ideologies, its creators, and the consequences of building a society around such a system. Once we have come to a conclusion about its benefit or lack thereof to society, we need to call it what it is, a failed and dangerous system, so that future generations do not make the same mistakes.

Socialism is slowly making its way into America's society and government, and the deterioration of countries where that ideology has already been integrated is very apparent. Take Canada's health care for example; there are countless stories and examples of the incredibly inefficient and wasteful and self-destructive situations that Socialism has created in Canada and other socialist countries around the world.

In an article titled, "Canadian Health Care is Free and First Class if you Can Wait," by Beth Duff-Brown, she says:

"Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament.

'It's like somebody's telling you that you can buy this car, and you've paid for the car, but you can't have it right now,' said Jane Pelton. Rather than leave daughter Emily in pain and a knee brace, the Ottawa family opted to pay $3,300 for arthroscopic surgery at a private clinic in Vancouver, with no help from the government.

'Every day we're paying for health care, yet when we go to access it, it's just not there,' said Pelton."

It is such a sad state of affairs in our society when things as simple as history or current events, which should be such obvious tools to use, are completely ignored. Yet, I suppose that in a society where revisionist history is one the latest, most hip fads, and the most dangerous and harmful ideologies are allowed to parade around freely behind the shield of tolerance and diversity, it should not surprise us that the opposite of the truth is often taught in our schools and universities.

Down with the Islamic Regime in Iran

I attended a Freedom for Iran rally in downtown Portland earlier this week and was very disappointed with the nature of it. Previous rallies I have attended have been organized and attended by members of the community who desire to see the Islamic regime in Iran removed. However, if you read the exchange between myself and an Iranian gentleman who also attends these rallies, you will see that this last one was quite different.


His message:
"I've heard that a couple of organizers used physical force to move M--- from one location to another, just because M--- wished to exercise her freedom of speech and chant anti regime slogans. If this is true, the organizers are hypocritically claiming to be defending the rights of Iranians in Iran while suppressing the same here in Portland. I believe the Political Green organizers are high-jacking the movement in Iran by suppressing any kind of anti regime slogans outside Iran."

My reply:
"I agree completely with you! I was not physically present when they put their hands on M---'s shoulders and told her to shut her mouth and pushed her back, but she told me what happened and she is a very honest woman and certainly would not fabricate such an incident. I was there, however, when a German girl, who knew NOTHING about Iran or the situation there, became very vocally angry with M--- and kept forcing M--- and I to back up by aggressively pushing her body towards/against us. Another man mockingly told M--- that she had a big mouth.

I was so frustrated with the fact that the people (none or very few of which were Iranian) who were allowed to come and speak from the podium knew very little about the situation in Iran, and some of them didn't even how to pronounce Iran! They kept calling it I-ran. They were merely up there to get their own political agendas across, which in many cases happened to be anti-America, anti-Jewish, and anti-regime change. They spoke about how enraged they were with America's involvement in Iraq; they spoke as though they thought that Iraq and Iran were the same country and good buddies. I wonder if they even know about the Iraq/Iran war and that Persians and Iran are VERY different from their neighboring Arab countries.

They had speakers from the Arab and Palestinian coalitions of this and that, who really weren't talking about much that was relative to the subject we were protesting at all! We were there to protest the brutal treatment that the people of Iran have endured at the hands of their Islamic government which is dominated by a cruel and ruthless dictatorship. The entire regime must go, otherwise little has been accomplished. Mousavi, after all, is one of the few candidates that Supreme leader Khameini allowed to run for the presidency. None of the leaders under that regime are going to bring true change to Iran, regardless of whatever promises of slight reforms they may give.

The attempts made by the organizers of the rally to remove the visibility of any pre-regime flags from the premises of the rallies, and their aggressive and suppressive behavior towards those who want the entire regime gone is unacceptable and, like you said, hypocritical. Also, the lack of knowledge demonstrated by the speakers they allowed to come and speak was deplorable and disrespectful to any freedom loving Iranian or American."

Is Ignorance Really Bliss?

Why is it that my generation consumes so much media, but has such a minimal grasp on what is going on in the world?

Why is it that missing the latest "Desperate Housewives" show is worthy of cardiac arrest, but when I ask people if they have been following the situation in Iran 90% give me a perplexed look and shake their heads.

I wish that the youth in my country could temporarily be transplanted to a country where they have no freedom, where they are told what they can or can't do, wear, or say and where nearly everyone, or at least someone close to them, has suffered unjustly at the hands of government officials. Perhaps then the blinders would be removed and the mall, movies, Frapaccinos and he said/she said gossip would no longer seem like such life and death issues after they had been presented, first hand, with real, life-threatening situations.

My peers have so much potential for good, so much access to educational opportunities and books and so many opportunities to make a difference; so many liberties and opportunities are available to us, and yet we don't appreciate or take advantage of them. Is it because we have never had to fight for our liberty that we take it for granted? Or are we just so uneducated that we have no knowledge of history and no comprehension of the dear price with which freedom is purchased and no understanding of how swiftly and slyly it can be stolen from us and how painful are the consequences of such ignorance and laziness.

I wish that for 10 weeks the youth in America could transplant to Iran and gain an appreciation for what we have here and come back ready to fight to protect it and to fight for the freedom of others.

Maybe part of the problem is that the troubling scenes we view on our TV screens seem so numerous and overwhelming and our estimation and knowledge of what we can do to help is so meager, that it is just easier to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear and continue on in our blissful little worlds.

But is ignorance really bliss? At what cost do we maintain an attitude of lethargic apathy? I think the words of Randy Stonehill from his song, "Who Will Save the Children," are fitting:

"As we observe them through our T.V. screens,
They seem so distant and unreal,
But they bleed like we bleed
And they feel what we feel...

Now we decide that nothing can change,
And throw up our hands in numb despair,
But we lose a piece of our souls,
By teaching ourselves just how not to care."

I do not mean to sound harsh or patronizing; I am lecturing myself with this post. I think that oftentimes people WANT to help, but they just don't understand the issues or how they can become involved. The purpose of this blog is to spread the word about issues that demand our attention and opportunities in which we can become involved and make a difference.