Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives




Congressional Issues 2012
Why Leaders Should be Christians

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Americans have lost touch with the ideals of America's Founding Fathers. The Founders of this nation intended to establish Christianity. In order to make sure that the Civil Government would foster Christianity and not atheism, it was prohibited for any but Christians to hold political office. (If you want to create a Christian society, such a requirement only makes sense.) This did not officially change until 1961.

Like virtually all the state constitutions, the Delaware constitution of 1776 established a Christian State by requiring:

Art. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust . . . shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I ________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, Blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scripture of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."[1]

In other words, only Christians could hold any public office under the Delaware constitution. Oaths of office in that day required one to affirm - either explicitly or implicitly - that he was "under God." This was the case in all of the states, in varying degrees of doctrinal specificity.[2] It was done because the Bible was understood to require it. Legislators used to insert Biblical references in the margins of the statute books to prove the validity of their laws.[3] In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court announced with pride that the purpose of the Founders of this land was "the establishment of the Christian religion,"[4] and this ideal was universally held. The men who signed the Constitution lived in this "Christian consensus."[5] They understood the Biblical requirements, and they acted in terms of them.

I too want to publicly acknowledge those requirements.

George Washington, "the Father of his country," made this proclamation:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . . .

This is a duty all politicians must observe. A person who says "I can't acknowledge God," should not hold public office. This would be contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

Who Should You Vote For?

Before we can cast our vote for a candidate, does the Bible require that the candidate be a member of a particular political party, or does the Bible require that the candidate be a faithful believer?

I believe the Bible sets forth two general criteria for office-holders. First, he must be a Christian. Second, he must be able to take a Biblical oath of office. An atheist could not take the oath of office because they cannot take an oath of any kind. An "oath" is a promise made to and in the presence of God.

If the Bible says that all politicians must be Christians, then it logically follows that Christians can only vote for candidates who are Christian. In either case, the Bible ought to change the way Christians do politics. Here's what the Bible says (in a minute we'll look at what the Founding Fathers said):

Exodus 18:21 Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

Deuteronomy 1:15 So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and knowledgeable men, and made them heads over you, leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties, leaders of tens, and officers for your tribes.

Deuteronomy 16:18-20 You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. {19} You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. {20} You shall follow what is altogether just, that you may live and inherit the land which the LORD your God is giving you.

2 Samuel 23:1-3 He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of an overseer, he desires a good work. {2} An overseer then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; {3} not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; {4} one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence {5} (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); {6} not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. {7} Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5-9 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you; {6} if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. {7} For an overseer must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, {8} but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, {9} holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

Seldom in the recent past have Christians had the opportunity to vote for such men (or even such women!).

But do these verses have anything to do with who we vote for in the United States of America? The Founding Fathers understood these requirements to have abiding validity in our day. These Bible verses should change the way we vote.

Rolling Stone is a very left-leaning magazine, whose opinions can often be safely ignored. The facts revealed in a recent article, "The Harder They Fall." however, cannot be ignored:

      . . . acting leader Roy Blunt had attempted to slip tobacco-friendly language into a Homeland Security authorization bill while having an extramarital affair with a Phillip Morris lobbyist. . . .
      The Missouri congressman three years ago ditched his wife for a Phillip Morris lobbyist named Abigail Perlman, whom he subsequently married; it's been a profitable marriage, as Phillip Morris (now called Altria) has donated more than $270,000 to committees tied to Blunt. Meanwhile, Blunt's son Andrew is also an Altria lobbyist, and Blunt's other son, Matt, is governor of his home state -- elected, conveniently, with the help of funds from Altria.
      Blunt's hands are also wet with the blood of the Abramoff scandal; as party whip he co-signed (with DeLay) letters on behalf of a Louisiana Indian tribe represented by Abramoff. Meanwhile, Abramoff is one of the first names on the list of 2004 individual donors to Blunt's PAC, the sickeningly named Rely on Your Beliefs fund.  

Too many Christians today place their allegiance in the Republican Party rather than Biblical Principles.

Too many Americans today have bought into the myth of "the separation of church and state," and the myth that the Constitution requires government to be secular.

Roy Blunt is not on trial in this campaign; America is.

Delivering an "Election Day Sermon" before the Massachusetts Legislature in 1791, Chandler Robbins declared,

How constantly do we find it inculcated in the sacred writings, that rulers be "just men -- fearers of God -- haters of covetousness." That they "shake their hands from holding bribes," because a gift blindeth the eyes of the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous."[6]

Political bribery and corruption is one of the biggest issues in politics today, even if it's not one of the most talked about.

From the Portsmouth, New Hampshire newspaper, May 24, 1800 [7]:

On Monday last the Circuit Court of the United States was opened in this town. The Hon Judge [Supreme Court Justice] Paterson presided. After the Jury were impaneled, the Judge delivered a most elegant and appropriate charge . . . . Religion and morality were pleasingly inculcated and enforced as being necessary to good government, good order, and good laws, for "when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice" [Proverbs 29:2] . . .
After the charge was delivered, the Rev. Mr. [Timothy] Alden addressed the Throne of Grace in an excellent, well-adapted prayer.

The New York Times would undoubtedly not find this news "fit to print." Supreme Court Justices are not as likely to be quoting Scripture, either. And too many Americans will vote for the politician that promises them the most goodies.

Public schools taught what Noah Webster wrote in his textbooks:

When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. [8]

And in another text,

In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look to his character. . . . It is alleged by men of loose principles or defective views of the subject that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the Scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men "who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness" [Exodus 18:21] . . . [I]t is to the neglect of this rule of conduct in our citizens that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, peculations [white-collar larceny] and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country; which disgrace a republican government.[9]

Sam Adams would be appalled at those in our day who say a leader's "private life" should play no part in our evaluation of him as a political leader:

He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard of his country. [P]rivate and public vices are in reality . . . connected. . . . Nothing is more essential . . . than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the [private] characters of public men.[10]

Gouverneur Morris signed the Constitution believing that

There must be religion. When that ligament is torn, society is disjointed and its members perish. The nation is exposed to foreign violence and domestic convulsion. Vicious rulers, chosen by vicious people, turn back the current of corruption to its source. Placed in a situation where they can exercise authority for their own emolument, they betray their trust. They take bribes. They sell statutes and decrees. They sell honor and office. They sell their conscience. They sell their country. . . . But the most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every state that rejects the precepts of religion. [11]

John Witherspoon signed a Declaration of Independence from Britain, not from God:

Those, therefore, who pay no regard to religion and sobriety in the persons whom they send to the legislature of any State are guilty of the greatest absurdity and will soon pay dear for their folly.[12]

But not just the voters. Innocent victims may suffer abuse from those we send to Washington. Assuming Monica Lewinsky was a person of good morals, did Christians do her a favor by putting Bill Clinton in the Oval Office? How will hundreds of millions of people experience the consequences of Clinton's sell-out to the Chinese government for contributions to the Democratic Party?

John Jay was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, and was appointed first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by President Washington. He accurately summed up the meaning of God's commandments:

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." [13]

James Madison, declared in 1785:

"Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe. . . ."[14]

If the Bible says that all politicians must be Christians, then it logically follows that Christians can only vote for candidates who are Christian (or they would be saying "NO" to God's requirements). Chief Justice Jay's suggestion is so politically incorrect that even most Christians don't agree with it. I have heard respected Christians -- following Martin Luther -- say they would rather vote for a "politically competent" unbeliever than a "politically incompetent" Christian. This is idolatrous nonsense. No matter what kind of Constitutions and laws we have, secular men will secularize them. This should be the most obvious lesson of American history. We often hear it said that ours is a "government of laws, not of men." This is a fallacy. Bad men corrupt good laws. Good men will rule well in the absence of good laws. A man of integrity, virtue, and the Character of Christ with little political experience is to be preferred over a "seasoned politician" who is a Secular Humanist. The Bible says this; the Founding Fathers said this; Secular Humanists in Washington and the media disagree. Guess what . . . ?
We must ignore what the secularists say.

A Sacred Act of Worship

The Puritans sought to pattern civil law after Biblical Law. Therefore, for the Puritans, all oaths were "test oaths." These oaths were the foundation of Christian Government.

The Bible says that only men of the Faith can take any oath genuinely. Only a believer can raise his right hand toward heaven, place his left hand on a Bible, and make a promise, "So help me, God." A true oath is one that is made in the Presence and in the Name of God. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) says that swearing an oath is an act "of religious worship"[1] and "the Name of God only is that by which men ought to swear."[2]

This is why atheists were never allowed to testify in court: oaths were sacred, witnessing to the authority of God. How could an atheist take an oath? For an atheist, every man is his own god. Secular Humanism says "Man is the measure of all things." He never prays, "So help me, God." As a result, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story observed, "infidels and pagans were banished from the halls of justice as unworthy of credit."![3]

A. A. Hodge, a well-known expositor of the theology of the Reformation and Professor at Princeton, wrote in 1869 about the requirements of God's Law:

It is evident that none who believe in the true God can, consistently with their integrity, swear by a false god. And it is no less evident that it is dishonest for an atheist to go through the form of swearing at all; or for an infidel to swear with his hand upon the Christian Scriptures, thereby professing to invoke a God in whose existence he does not believe.[4]

The Founding Fathers took oaths this seriously; they would not permit an atheist to take one. Oaths were sacred, witnessing to the authority of God; how could an atheist take an oath?

John Locke believed in freedom for all Christian denominations. But Locke did not believe the civil magistrate should tolerate atheists. The constitution he drafted for Carolina did not allow atheists to hold office. And in his Essay on Toleration (1685), he specifically exempted the atheist from the civil protection of toleration:

Lastly, those are not all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of toleration.[5]

The French journalist Alexis de Tocqueville came to America and published his observations in the famous book Democracy in America. He observed the following during his travels through the states:

While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all the confidence of the court in what he was about to say. The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23d, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms:

The court of common pleas of Chester county (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no cause in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.[6]

The Constitution did not require God to be stripped from the law. Atheism has been imposed on the legal system by Secular Humanists. One such Humanist, in an article which advocates one last purging of religion from the law, has noted some of the restrictions on atheists which existed long after the Constitution was ratified.[7]

Oaths to God to assume public office and in judicial proceedings were inherited from England . . . . Anyone who wanted to assume public office in England or to testify in a court proceeding was required to do so in the presence of Almighty God, according to the teachings of the Holy Evangelists, and to kiss the Bible.[156] According to one English scholar, the purpose of the oath was to provide the "highest possible security which men in general can give for the truth of their statements."[157]

Although the oath of office specified in the Constitution does not include a reference to God,[158] Presidents have appealed to the deity in their oaths since the inauguration of George Washington.[159] When President Washington completed his constitutional oath of office, his hand placed on a Masonic Bible, he added, spontaneously, "I swear, so help me God" and then kissed the Bible.[160] It is most likely that Washington borrowed this practice from the English coronation ceremony, where the new King would kneel at the altar, place his hands on the Bible, swear the oath, and then kiss the Bible.[161] Every President in modern times has sworn his oath "so help me God."[162] President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore followed this tradition when they were sworn into office on January 20, 1993.[163]

Similarly, under English common law, no one but a believer in God and in a future state of rewards and punishments could serve on a jury or testify as a witness. The oath was taken on a Christian Bible, in effect disqualifying non-Christians.[164] The English courtroom was quite explicit as to the consequences of perjury while under oath:

I charge thee, therefore, as thou will answer it to the Great God, the judge of all the earth, that thou do not dare to waver one tittle from the truth, upon any account or pretense whatsoever; . . . for that God of Heaven may justly strike thee into eternal flames and make thee drop into the bottomless lake of fire and brimstone, if thou offer to deviate the least from the truth and nothing but the truth.[165]

This is the courtroom atmosphere America inherited.[166] Consequently, in certain places in early America the privilege of serving as a witness or on a jury was expressly restricted to Christians.[167] It is, therefore, not surprising that the South Carolina Supreme Court is reported to have noted in 1848 that

"[i]n the courts over which we preside, we daily acknowledge Christianity as the most solemn part of our administration. A Christian witness, having no religious scruples against placing his hand upon the Book, is sworn upon the holy Evangelists -- the books of the New Testament, which testify of our Savior's birth, life, death and resurrection; this is so common a matter that it is little thought of as an evidence of the part which Christianity has in the common law."[168]

In 1828, the Connecticut Supreme Court "ruled that disbelievers in accountability to God or in an afterlife were not competent witnesses."[169] Indeed, as late as 1939, five states and the District of Columbia excluded the testimony of those professing a disbelief in God, and, in a dozen or so additional states, the testimony of nonbelievers was subject to attack on the ground that one's credibility was impaired by irreligion or a lack of belief in a deity.[170] Oaths on the Bible are still standard fare in American courtrooms today; witnesses, grand jurors, prospective petit jurors, and interpreters are all asked to swear to tell the truth, "so help me God."[171]

What the Founding Fathers believed about "infidels."

"Offenses Against God and Religion," William Blackstone (1765). Showing the common understanding that the integrity of the judicial system depends upon the participants' belief in God.

What Would John Jay Say Today?


1. The Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. xxii.i., cf. The Larger Catechism, Q. 108.  [Back to text]

2. Ibid., ch. xxii.ii; cf. Larger Catechism Q. 108. (one of "the duties required in the second commandment," citing "Deut. vi. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name." (Emphasis in Catechism)).  [Back to text]

3. in William W. Story, ed., Life and Letters of Joseph Story (Boston: Little & Brown, 1851) vol. II, pp. 8-9. Cited in David Barton, Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders, 1996) p. 38. "Credit," means here "trust" (from the Latin, credo," I believe").  [Return to text]

4. A.A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith, 287 (1869 [1978]). Hodge was a professor at Princeton, 1877-86.  [Back to text]

5.John Locke, Treatise of Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, Chas. Sherman ed., (NY: Appleton-Century, 1937) pp. 212-13.  [Back to text]

6. A. de Tocqueville, 1 The Republic of the United States of America and Its Political Institutions, Reviewed and Examined, 12 (H. Reeves, trans., 1851). Cited in D. Barton, Myth of Separation, p. 81-82.  [Back to text]

7. Steven B. Epstein, "Rethinking the Constitutionality of Ceremonial Deism," 96 Columbia Law Review 2083, 2110-12 (1996).  [Back to text]

Prof. Epstein's Notes

156. See [Anson Phelps] Stokes & [Leo] Pfeffer, [Church and State in the United States (1964)] at 489.  [Back to text]

157. Richard Whitcombe, An Enquiry into Some of the Rules of Evidence Relating to the Incompetency of Witnesses 38-39 (1824)  [Back to text]

158. See U.S. Const. art. II, 1, cl. 8 (presidential oath); U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 3 (federal officers). These provisions do, however, require Presidents to "swear (or affirm)" the specified oath and state that officers "shall be bound by oath or affirmation," the former in each instance implying appeal to the divinity. Id.; U.S. Const. art II, 1, cl. 8.  [Back to text]

159. Carl H. Esbeck, A Restatement of the Supreme Court's Law of Religious Freedom: Coherence, Conflict, or Chaos?, 70 Notre Dame L. Rev. 581, 604 n.83 (1995) (noting the practice of taking the Presidential oath of office with the added "so help me God" was started by George Washington).  [Back to text]

160. [Martin Jay] Medhurst, ["God Bless the President": The Rhetoric of Inaugural Prayer (1980) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University) (on file with the Pennsylvania State University Library).] at 62.  [Back to text]

161. See id.  [Back to text]

162. See 83 Cong. Rec. 316 (1937); 87 Cong. Rec. 189 (1941); 91 Cong. Rec. 364 (1945); 95 Cong. Rec. 477 (1949); 99 Cong. Rec. 451 (1953); 103 Cong. Rec. 805 (1957); 107 Cong. Rec. 1012 (1961); 111 Cong. Rec. 985 (1965); 115 Cong. Rec. 1290 (1969); 119 Cong. Rec. 1659 (1973); 123 Cong. Rec. 1862 (1977); 127 Cong. Rec. 541 (1981); 131 Cong. Rec. 631 (1985); 135 Cong. Rec. S68 (daily ed. Jan 20, 1989); 139 Cong. Rec. S56 (daily ed. Jan 20, 1993).  [Back to text]

163. See 139 Cong. Rec. S55-56 (daily ed. Jan 20, 1993) (chronicling President Clinton and Vice President Gore swearing their oaths).  [Back to text]

164. See Stokes & Pfeffer, supra note [156] at 489.  [Back to text]

165. Lady Lisle's Trial, 11 How. St. Tr. 298, 325 (1685), quoted in 6 John H. Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law 1816, at 383 (James J. Chadbourne ed., 1976).  [Back to text]

166. Indeed, President Washington emphasized the religious nature of the oath in his farewell address: "Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?" Note, A Reconsideration of the Sworn Testimony Requirement: Securing Truth in the Twentieth Century, 75 Mich. L. Rev. 1681, 1686 n.23 (1977) (citing V. Paltsits, Washington's Farewell Address 151 (1935)). An early American court description of the purpose of the oath follows:

The purpose of the oath is not to call the attention of God to the witness, but the attention of the witness to god; not to call upon Him to punish the false-swearer, but on the witness to remember that He will assuredly do so. By thus laying hold of the conscience of the witness, and appealing to his sense of accountability, the law best insures the utterance of truth.

Clinton v. State, 33 Ohio St. 27, 33 (1877).  [Back to text]

167. See Stokes & Pfeffer, supra note [156], at 489.  [Back to text]

168. [Morton] Borden, [Jews, Turks, and Infidels (1984)], at 114; see also O'Reilly v. People, 86 N.Y. 154, 157-58 (1881):

Some form of an oath has always been required, . . . and the sanctions of religion add their solemn and binding force to the act . . . . While these sanctions have grown elastic, and gradually accommodated themselves to differences of creed, and varieties of beliefs, . . . yet through all changes and under all forms the religious element has not been utterly destroyed.

(citation omitted) (emphasis added).  [Back to text]

169. Stokes & Pfeffer, supra note [156], at 489.  [Back to text]

170. See id. at 490. It is interesting to note that in 1901, the United States Supreme Court upheld a federal statute requiring that the testimony of Chinese witnesses, in some cases, be corroborated by white men due to "'loose notions entertained by [Chinese] witnesses of the obligation of an oath.'" Li Sing v. United States, 180 U.S. 486, 494 (1901) (quoting Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 598 (1889)) (citation omitted).  [Back to text]

171. See Federal Judicial Center, Forms of Oaths for Use in the United States District Courts 2 (1976); United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina forms (on file with the Columbia Law Review) [hereinafter E.D.N.C. Oaths]. The religious purpose of the oath is still manifest. See Society of Separationists v. Herman, 939 F.2d. 1207, 1221 (5th Cir. 1991) (Garwood, J,. dissenting) (asserting that the Constitution recognizes an oath, unlike an affirmation, to be a religious test); Lackey v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 559 P.2d. 1192, 1193 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976) ("An oath is an appeal by a person to God, to witness the truth of what he declares."); 6 Wigmore, supra note 165, 1816, at 382 (recognizing that the purpose of the oath is to remind a witness "strongly of the divine punishment somewhere in store for false swearing").  [Back to text]

Is it a SIN to Vote for Roy Blunt?
Questions Christians Should Ask Before They Vote


1. Delaware Constitution, Art. 22 (adopted Sept. 20, 1776), 1 Del. Code Ann. 117 (Michie, 1975). Commended by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rector, etc., of Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 at 469-70, 12 S.Ct. 511 at 516 (1892). The Constitutions of All the States According to the Latest Amendments, Lexington: Thomas T. Skillman, 1817, p. 181, cited in D. Barton, The Myth of Separation, 23 (6th ed., 1992).  [Back to text]

2. Some states required membership in a specific denomination; others just required a belief in Protestantism or Christianity in general.  [Back to text]

3. For an example, see John Cotton, "An Abstract of the Laws of New England, as they are Now Established, Printed in London in 1641," Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society (1798); reprint of 1835 in 2 The Journal of Christian Reconstruction 117 (No. 2; Winter, 1975-76, "Symposium on Biblical Law").  [Back to text]

4. Rector, etc., of Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 at 466, 12 S.Ct. 511 at 514, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892).  [Back to text]

5. F. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture 110 (1976).  [Back to text]

6. Chandler Robbins, A Sermon Preached Before His Excellency John Hancock, Esq and the Honourable the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, May 25, 1791, Being the Day of General Election (Boston: Thomas Adams, 1791), p. 18.  [Return to text]

7. United States Oracle, see also The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, Maeva Marcus, ed., (NY: Columbia Univ. Press, 1988) vol. III, p. 436. For a discussion of the Founding Fathers' views on the "private lives" of candidates, see David Barton, Original Intent, (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders, 1996) pp. 330ff.  [Return to text]

8. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832) p.6.  [Return to text]

9. Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His Education (New Haven, S. Converse, 1823) pp. 18-19, Letter 1.  [Return to text]

10. Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., (NY: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1907), vol III, pp. 236-37, to James Warren on Nov. 4, 1775.  [Return to text]

11. Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1821 (NY: E. Bliss and E. White, 1821) pp. 32,34, from "An Inaugural Discourse Delivered Before the New York Historical Society by the Honorable Gouverneur Morris, (President,) 4th September, 1816."  [Return to text]

12. Witherspoon, Works, Edinburgh, J. Ogle, 1815, IV:266-67, from "A Sermon Delivered at a Public Thanksgiving after Peace."  [Return to text]

13. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., New York: Burt Franklin, 1970, 4:393 [to John Murray, Jr., October 12, 1816].  [Return to Top]  [Return to text]

14. The Papers of James Madison, Robert Rutland, ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973, Vol. 8, pp. 299, 304, June 20, 1785; cited in Barton, p. 120.  [Back to text]

next: Campaign Finance, Corruption and the Oath of Office