Q: What does the word religion mean?

A: Definitions below.

1. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary says: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (personal or institutional which can include or not include a supernatural concept).

2. Religion is a matter of opinion. The First Amendment's religion clauses include protection of personal belief and restrict ("no law") the power of government respecting personal opinion--in contrast to action. In America, opinion (religious or political) is not to be established by law--religion is not to be established by law.

3. Religion is whatever it is in life for which a person really lives, and all that he or she does in regard to that for which he or she really lives is worship.

4. Religion is whatever the Supreme Court for the United States of America says it is.

5. America's real religion is democracy (its foremost export to the rest of the world)--"the social and political expression of the religious principle that all men are brothers and mankind a family" (A. Powell Davies).

6. James Madison's definitions of an "establishment" of religion include: the use of tax money for support of teachers of the Christian religion, the donation of a piece of federal land to a Baptist Church, congressional chaplains (read Madison's essays "Memorial and Remonstrance" and "Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments"--printed in the book America's Real Religion --and the essays "Madison's Veto Messages," "Ecclesiastical Encroachments," and "Establishments of Religion" printed on this web site).

Q: It is our understanding that the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment's two religion clauses means "a single official denomination." What primary source documents do you use to assert that it means "religion"? Rod and Mark

A: In the essay "Religion Clauses 101," I demonstrated that the two religion clauses are grammatically linked--that neither the specific wording nor the grammatical structure (English 101) of the religion clauses supports two meanings. It is dishonest to assert that the establishment clause means one thing and the free exercise clause means another. The free exercise clause is not independent in terms of meaning--the word thereof grammatically links the free exercise clause back to the establishment clause. The meaning of the word thereof must be understood in terms of whatever is meant in the establishment clause. Both clauses refer to "religion"--Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of RELIGION or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (of it).

1. Contemporaries:

There are no two more contemporary, distinguished, or authoritative historians in terms of understanding the religion clauses than James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Madison was a cochairman of the conference committee which in September 1789 drafted the religion clauses and Jefferson became Secretary of State in February 1790. The First Amendment was ratified by the states in December 1791.

2. Primary source documents:

(1). In 1785 Madison wrote the "Remonstrance" wherein he protested the "legal establishment of Christianity," the legal establishment of "religion," and the authority of the Virginia legislature to make a law providing tax money for teachers of the Christian religion--which he referred to as a "proposed establishment." In 1811 President Madison vetoed two bills (neither of which had anything to do with "a single official denomination") as violating the "establishment" clause.

(2). In 1786 the Virginia legislature adopted Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom which originated with Jefferson and which rejected the idea of establishing "religion" by law--not just the Episcopalians, not just Christianity, but "religion." Neither the word church nor the word Christianity is used even one time in the Virginia Statute (or the Constitution). In an 1808 letter to Samuel Miller, Jefferson defined the religion clauses: "no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion."

(3). In 1789 Congress rejected wording which would have placed the word national before "religion." On June 8, 1789, the proposed House version read: "nor shall any national religion be established." A House committee of ten, which included Madison, was selected to review the proposal--it deleted the word national. On August 15 (Annals of Congress, I:757-759) the committee's proposal was presented: "no religion shall be established by law." Then the House, sitting as a Committee of the Whole, changed the wording: "Congress shall make no laws touching religion." On August 20 the House changed the wording again: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion." On September 3 the Senate took up consideration of the House proposal and in one day rejected three motions for rewording: Congress shall make no law "establishing one religious sect," "establishing any religious sect," and "establishing any particular denomination" (Journal of the First Session of the Senate of the United States, p.70). The Senate then accepted the House version: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion." On September 9 the Senate changed its mind and adopted the following: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship" (SJ, p. 77). A joint Senate-House conference committee (Madison was cochairman) agreed to a final wording which was approved by the House on September 24 and Senate on September 25: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

In other words, Rod and Mark, your assertion that the historical record of the development of the establishment clause provides evidence which proves that the clause means "a single official denominaton" is based on fiction, not fact. Madison and Jefferson are right. Your sources, like political scientist Robert Cord and high school math teacher David Barton, are wrong. Proposals for the establishment clause to refer simply to a "national" religion or to some version of "a single official denomination" were specifically rejected by the majority in the First Congress. It is the broad meaning of the word religion which is used in the establishment clause and which dictates the meaning of the word thereof in the free exercise clause. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion means: of "religion." Madison's "Remonstrance" and Jefferson's "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" are printed in the book America's Real Religion.

RELIGION AND AMERICAN LAW

Q: If one man's religion is another man's foolishness, what is it then that is allowed the "free exercise thereof"?

A: Religion, in terms of opinion, is completely free; but, actions (or exercises) are free only within the limits of the civil and criminal laws of the land, regardless of religious opinion. Religion, however you choose to define it, is not above the law. Behold the lack of conflict or confusion in the brilliance of the wording of the First Amendment's religion clauses, as finally drafted by the 1789 Joint Senate-House Conference Committee, approved by the majority in the First Congress, and ratified by the states. America was not founded on so-called "Judeo-Christian" or any other principles of religion; it was founded upon the principle of law as proclaimed in the Constitution for the United States of America which is the supreme law of the land and which declares that in America there is to be "no religious test" (Art. 6, Sec. 3).

REAL RELIGION IS NOT

Real religion is not something eaten or worn, advertised around a neck or on a head, seen on a sign or pinned on clothing, hung on a wall or placed on a desk, done on a certain day or at a certain time of year, displayed on a street corner or at a flagpole, demonstrated by posture or mouthed by repetition, rung with a bell or illuminated by a light, painted in a picture or carved in stone, read from a book or observed in the stars, ceremonialized or paraded, necessary to a geographical location or dependent upon someone else.

Has the above thought ever been better said? Sure, for example, Matthew 5:16, 7:12; Mark 12:27-34; and, First Corinthians 13.

In America, everyone has a right to believe and hope for whatever, but no one has a right to impose, through government institutions or activities, any religious belief or religious exercise--upon their friend, their neighbor, their employee, or their employer. Religious belief is not something which can be established by law or required for anyone. Religious belief must be voluntary and its exercise must be free. Religious belief is a matter of opinion, and its exercise is a matter for individuals, families, churches, and church organizations; it is not the business of government authority, one way or the other. The Constitution makes a distinction in regard to religion; it gives freedom to believe and to the exercise of religion within the limits of law, not to anarchy. There is something about a wall, about a fence, about separation, about freedom from religion established by government.

Has the above thought ever been better said? Sure, for example: “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much, soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can . . . force a citizen to . . . support any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?” (James Madison, Papers of James Madison, 8:300, “Memorial and Remonstrance,” 1785); “make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” (James Madison, First Amendment, 1789); and, “strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history” (James Madison, “Detached Memoranda,” undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555).

PRAYER AROUND THE FLAG POLE

Q: "Your article on prayer around the pole is one of the most wrongfully written articles I have ever read. It would be nice if you could do some research before you write these articles. The majority of Christians that pray around the flag pole at their public school do not do it in order to receive media attention or to prove a point. The majority of the people do pray in public because people see them and then ask them what they are doing. That gives us the opportunities as Christians to tell them our beliefs. Next time, maybe you should write a fact based story. God Bless, Adam."

A: Adam, as you state, "the majority of the people do pray in public because people see them." One of the mental pictures which came to mind after I received your response is that of Muslims prostrated in prayer. How impressed would you be, for example, if Muslims did so on public school property five times daily--would you be going over to ask them about their faith?

Sorry, Adam, I just do not agree with the method you defend. Unless your God is hearing or sight impaired, silent and secret prayers should be just as effective. Undoubtedly, Jesus was quite concerned about religious showboating; that is the essence of Matthew 6:5-6. Rather, let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works (Matthew 5:16)--your influence will be greater as a Christian or a Muslim.

Q: What books do you use and recommend for beginners or scholars?

A: In regard to the issue of religion and government.

1. The Establishment Clause, 1994, second edition, revised, The University of North Carolina Press, by the distinguished constitutional historian Leonard W. Levy: "The thesis of this book is that nonpreferentialists [including former Secretary of Education William Bennett] are wrong about the framers' intentions" (p. xvii).

2. Church, State, and Freedom, 1967 (revised edition), Beacon Press, by the distinguished constitutional attorney Leo Pfeffer. This is the Bible of separationists--the classic work in the field.

3. Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, Harper and Row, 1987, by Edwin S. Gaustad, Professor of History, University of California, Riverside. You will learn from and enjoy this book.

4. Toward Benevolent Neutrality: Church, State and the Supreme Court, 1992, Baylor University Press, by Robert T. Miller and Ronald B. Flowers. This is the reference I use for gaining an understanding of Supreme Court decisions.

5. America's Real Religion, 1994 (revised edition), America's Real Religion Publishing, by Gene Garman. In no way am I comparing myself in a class with the above scholars; this book merely supplements the above with some interesting additional information (as stated on the index page of this web site) not found in the above references.

B. In regard to general history related to the forefathers and Founders.

1. The Writings and Papers of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. These are the scholarly works (found at college and major libraries) of historians who provide the primary sources for the facts, not the fictions, of history. If you want to quote, for example, one of the above men, cite from these publications--not from a book written, for instance, by some preacher or a former high school math and science teacher.

2. The Founding Fathers. This is a wonderful series of books published in the 1970's by Newsweek Books, New York. Each book is "a biography in his own words" and they are based on the Writings and Papers of the men mentioned immediately above.

3. Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787, 1986 (paperback edition), by Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier, and published by Ballantine Books, New York. This is my favorite book for reading about the Convention which drafted THE founding document for the United States of America.

Q: Are there contemporary historians who report the facts you present in your book America's Real Religion regarding the religious views of George Washington?

A: This is a particularly relevant question because of the attention given, by some insufficiently read Americans, to the twentieth century history revisionists I list in my "History Revisionists" essay. I love to read biographies of America's presidents. In my opinion the best current writer is Willard Sterne Randall. Randall first caught my attention in his wonderful 1993 Thomas Jefferson: A Life. Randall has read the letters of George Washington. Allow me to share brief comments from his 1997 George Washington: A Life:

He [George Washington] was not a deeply religious man. Once he left his . . . mother's household he may never have taken Anglican communion again, yet he went to church frequently and gave heavily to the Pohick Anglican Church near Mount Vernon, which he had helped to build. . . . He had accepted election as a vestryman [a common practice among Virginia's wealthy class, including the Washington family] at Pohick Church in 1765, which meant he became a guardian of the parish's poorhouse and any luckless indigents in Fairfax County. When he was reelected to the House of Burgesses time after time, it is hard to untangle whether it was because of all his benefactions [public charity], or because he spent more on the victory celebration than he earned as a burgess. But he believed in a public image and he spent openhandedly to maintain his [especially in a state which in 1765 still had a state church, p. 256].

Eventually he [George Washington] became the highest ranking Mason in the United States. . . . He began in his letters to use the word God very seldom, substituting Masonic formulae: the Almighty, the Ruler of the Universe, Providence, the Supreme Being. He used these forms not only in private correspondence but, as commander in chief during the Revolution, in his General Orders [p. 67].

Unfortunately, Randall apparently never consulted the two authorities, as cited in America's Real Religion, which prove without doubt that President Washington refused to take communion in the Episcopal churches he attended in Philadelphia. Nevertheless, Randall's above mentioned books have my recommendation as good reading biographies.

Finally, in regard to the political significance of being a vestryman in colonial Virginia, in the book American Revolution in the Making: Political Practices in Washington's Virginia, Professor Charles S. Sydnor writes: "The gentry of the county, operating through the county court, the vestry , and the militia, managed the business of the county" (p. 85, The Free Press paperback edition of 1965). "Throughout the colony a large share of the justices and higher political officers were vestrymen. Bishop William Meade affirmed . . . there were not three members of the Virginia Convention of May, 1776, who were not vestrymen of the Established Church. The disestablishment of the church in 1785 diminished the power of one institution, the vestry " (p. 84).

Q.: What is your opinion of David Barton's book The Myth of Separation?

A.: The real myth is that Mr. Barton is an historian.

1. It is highly dishonest for any writer on this subject to distort Thomas Jefferson's deliberate definition (1802) of the religion clauses as "building a wall of separation between Church & State"; to omit James Madison's statements about (1811) "the essential distinction between civil and religious functions," (1819) "the total separation of the Church from the State," and (before 1833) "the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States"; and to skip Alexis de Tocqueville's assertion (1835) that in America "all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state."

2. The Constitution says what it means and means what it says: "no religious test," and "no law respecting an establishment of religion"; those statements are clearly in harmony with Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville, and "separation"--but not with Mr. Barton.

B. For accurate documentation, order the book (free of charge) from America's Real Religion, P.O.Box 1482, Pittsburg, KS 66762.

Q: Who are the Founding Fathers?

A: Accurately defined, the Founding Fathers (capital Fs) of the United States of America are the 55 representatives from the independent, but confederated, states who were actually at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. They were the persons responsible for specifically creating the Constitution for the United States of America--the founding document.

If you refer to significant leaders of the specific American colonial movement toward independence--like signers of the Declaration of Independence who were not at the 1787 Convention and did not participate in the drafting of the Constitution, you could use founding fathers (small fs) in terms of that particular movement; such as, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry--leaders in the struggle for independence, but not founders of the government of the United States of America or framers of its one and only founding document. The Founding Fathers are the 55 men who heard and debated the issues, drafted the sentences, or voted for adoption of the Constitution. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines Founding Father as follows: "A member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787."

Q: When did the words "In God We Trust" first appear on American money?

A: During the Civil War. In 1864 Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase put the words on some bronze two-cent pieces. In 1866 the words appeared on all American coins, but disappeared from some coins between 1883 and 1938. The choice for using the words was the responsibility of the Secretary of the Treasury. The so-called motto had no other official standing.

In 1956 Congress passed legislation, signed without comment by President Eisenhower, which required the motto on all American currency, both metal and paper. It was not the Founding Fathers of 1787 who demanded the words "In God We Trust" on American money; it was the politicians of 1956. (See Barzun, Jacques, The Modern Researcher, 4th ed., 1985, pp. 127-128.)