Misrepresented American History

A good example of how American history is, I believe, being misrepresented to the American Public may be found in an article by Kenneth C. Davis on CNN. Mr. Davis joins those commentators, and, I suspect, public school textbook authors, who work hard to promote the idea that the United States is not and never was a Christian nation.

If the United States is not now a Christian nation, it certainly was when founded. In support of that conclusion, I will direct you to no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 et. seq. (1892), "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody 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." (emphasis added) The Court also noted that, "[w]hile because of a general recognition of this truth that question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph vs. the Commonwealth, it was decided that, Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law...." Please note that the common law is that body of law which consists of the decisions of the Courts.

Mr. Davis gives three examples which ostensibly prove his point. First, a letter from President Washington. Well, what about the 1790 letter of Washington? It is important to avoid grafting 2011 meanings onto 1790 words. No doubt President Washington believed in tolerance; he would have abhorred the idea of the censorship of free speech that is styled "hate speech." As for liberty of conscience, he no doubt firmly held that no one could be forced to accept any religion. In the same vein, he would never have accepted or even entertained the idea that those ostensibly "offended" by the prevailing religious beliefs could go to Court to have those beliefs excluded from the public arena. Washington's first official act was to call for a day of prayer, "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplication to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe....", while his farewell speech pointed out that, "[o]f all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labour to subvert these great pillars of human happiness...."

Then, of course, there is the liberal staple, the January, 1802, letter of Mr. Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, which Mr. Davis suggests, "adds" the concept of separation of church and state. Unfortunately for Mr. Davis' case, he correctly quotes the letter. The letter is not a legal document, nor does it in any way suggest that the state is protected from the church. On the contrary, the letter is addressed to the church, and highlights the fact that the language of the First Amendment protects the church from the state, and not vice versa. It was only by a tortured construction of the letter that a later U.S. Supreme Court was able to infer that the letter proved an intent to protect the state from the church, especially since other documents from the period fly in the face of that claim as attested by earlier Supreme Court decisions.

This leaves only the powerful and overriding language of Article 11 of the well-known 1797 Treaty of Tripoli to expose the secular roots of the United States. This Treaty was made with Muslims who had been committing acts of piracy against ships of the United States. Muslim nations operating under Shari'a Law hardly identify with the concept of church and state as separate entities, so it is entirely conceivable that the qualification that the government was not founded on Christianity was included as little more than clarification of the existence of separate entities. After all, while much is made of the fact that John Adams signed the document, President John Adams also said, "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature." Hardly a resounding repudiation of America's Christian roots. Likewise, it is also possible that the functionary that included the language simply did so for political accomodation with the Muslims.

So far, a reasonable and factual examination of the roots of America shows pretty clearly that the "Sunday School" version is the accurate version, as opposed to the story of history invented by those with an agenda. The agenda version of history seems to be just about as accurate as Mr. Gore's "inconvenient truths." However, the agenda version is what your children are probably being taught in school.

One final word from the United States Supreme Court, again from the Holy Trinity decision. The Court, after noting specific examples out of the thousands of pages examined by the Court, went on to say, "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic (official) utterances that this is a Christian nation...." If you have been taught otherwise, you have been the victim of misrepresented American history. In other words, you have been lied to.