The left asserts that the framers intended a ”separation of church and state” meaning that the government should never allow any religious event to take place in any public domain. They claim that any such event would be endorsement of religion which is prohibited by the Constitution.

Let’s check it out. Here’s what the framers intended according to the evidence:

They believed Christianity ought to be encouraged but not any particular denomination.They believed that religion should never be forced on citizens. Nevertheless, they believed that an adherence to Judeo-Christian principles was absolutely necessary to the ordering of a just society. Separation of Church and State meant that the government must never encroach on the domain of the Church by establishing or favoring any one sect of Christianity over others. But it was presumed that all rely on “Divine Providence” publicly, as well as privately. There was no distinction.


The phrase, “Separation of Church and State” is nowhere to be found in any of our founding documents. It originated in an obscure personal letter President Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association assuring them that the federal government would not establish a national religion.


The First Amendment to the Constitution states:

“Congress shall makes no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” What does that mean?


Fortunately for us, this question was addressed almost 150 years ago (a time much closer to the thoughts and sentiments of the founders.) In 1854 a committee of Congress studied the question concerning exactly what constitutes the “establishment of religion.” (Is it praying at a high school football game over the public address system? Is it displaying the Ten Commandments in the school hallway? Is it erecting a crèche in a public square?Here was their conclusion:


“What is the establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers must observe, it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites…Had the people, during the Revolution had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and the amendments the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged; not any one sect (denomination). (Italics mine.)

In more recent times, in 1952, Justice William O Douglas wrote the opinion of the court in a case: Zorach vs, Clawson, in which he states:
*”We are a religious people, and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

So it’s clear. They intended for Christianity to be a vital part of all our institutions, but refused to allow the government to have authority over the church in any area. The “Wall of Separation” was intended to protect religious people from the government, not the other way around. Listen to what a few more founders said:

George Washington, The Father of our country:

*[i]“It is impossible to govern without God and the Bible”

*”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…”

Just a few others:

*”Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governing of any other.” –John Adams

*“The highest glory of the Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government and the principles of Christianity.”-John Quincy Adams.


Patrick Henry, well known for his statement, "Give me liberty or give me death," made the following statement: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

We are a Christian nation in the sense that most Americans identify as Christians, and an even greater number identify with the Judeo-Christian tradition. The fact that there is no state Church does not mean we are a secular nation. The fact is most of our citizens are Christians, and our form of government is based on a Judeo-Christian worldview. For example, revenge is not excused because our tradition says vengeance belongs to God, etc.

The Founders never intended to set up a “religious society” but rather establish a society that would find its anchor in the teachings of the Old and New Testaments.

We can go on and on with evidences of all kinds, e.g., Congress ordering Bibles during the war for soldiers, George Washington’s orders to attend Sabbath services, Ben Franklin’s call to a three day fasting and prayer period when they were deadlocked at the Constitutional Convention, and on and on, and on. There is a preponderance of evidence to conclude that the founders fully expected we would always rely heavily on the Judeo-Christian worldview for an orderly society.

Only someone who purposely refuses to see truth would say God has no place in our public institutions.

Yes, there is to be a separation of church and state, but it is to protect the Church from the state, and this is where there is presently a gross violation. The state and the Church are to be equal confederates in providing balance. Neither should have authority over the other, but they should act as a counterbalance for each other.

This article is intended to counter the outright lies of organizations such as Americans for Separation of Church and State and The American Civil Liberties Union. These two organizations are at the vanguard of a move to remove every vestige of our Judeo-Christian heritage from the minds of Americans in order to advance their agenda, which places man in the place of God. This religion is termed “Secular Humanism.”

A study of their material indicates they approach this subject as a liberal theologian approaches his: Assert your desired conclusion first, then find evidence –at least one piece, somewhere, somehow, anywhere, anyhow, to “prove” your point. Using this method almost anything can be “proved.”You can always find some kind of evidence, somewhere, that can at least be twisted into seeming to prove any given assertion. For example, if I want to prove that a good Christian should be willing to hang himself for Christ, I can pick one verse of the Bible that says, “Judas hung himself.” Then another verse that says, “Go and do likewise.” From those two verses I can string together the idea that you should go hang yourself if you wish to follow Christ. “Ridiculous!” you say. Well that’s exactly how these organizations build their argument. They purposely discount volumes of evidence that contradict their desired assertions, while using any bit of information, and twisting it however they must, to prove their point.

I have tried to keep my commentary to a minimum letting the original documents speak for themselves. This is something the left cannot do, because they know that without choosing the evidence and twisting it to meet their desires they have no case. I believe truth is on our side and I present this to you in the hope, and confidence that you will agree, as I believe any prudent, reasonable man would.