Kenneth C Davis another History Revisionist

My wife ran across an article that appeared on the Des Moines Register website. It was called “Historian: Why U.S. is not a Christian nation” by Kenneth C Davis.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110715/OPINION01/107150352/1001/NEWS/?odyssey=nav|head

The author “cherry picks” a few historical references—mostly related to Thomas Jefferson—and his letter to the Danbury Baptist association to try to prove the “wall of separation between church and state” is the original intent of the Founders. It is his contention that the belief that America was founded as a “Christian nation” was an invention of the 20th century.

The Constitution and the views of these founding fathers trump all arguments about references to God in presidential speeches (permitted under the First Amendment), on money (not introduced until the Civil War), the Pledge of Allegiance (“under God” added in 1954) and in the national motto “In God We Trust” (adopted by law in 1956).

And those contentious monuments to the Ten Commandments found around the country and occasionally challenged in court? Many of them were installed as a publicity stunt for Cecile B. DeMille’s 1956 Hollywood spectacle, “The Ten Commandments.” http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110715/OPINION01/107150352/1001/NEWS/?odyssey=nav|head

This is dishonest history disguised as scholarship. Please note that he does not quote anything prior to 1954 that references God to try to prove his argument. Were he an honest historian, Davis would give the reason that God was added to the Pledge and our Motto was a reaction to the rise of the Soviet Union and their official doctrine of a secular, atheistic empire. No one that knows history would use these things as the only proof that America was founded as a Christian Nation. This is a simple misdirection on his part.

His claim about the Ten Commandments is even more bogus. The Bible including the Ten Commandments has been the core of school curriculum in the West since the Reformation. The Bible and Shakespeare were the primary books that Abraham Lincoln used to educate himself. Only since the rise of Darwin, Marx and other secularists has this changed.

As Paul Harvey used to say, “And now the rest of the story.”

The Washington Monument

When the monument was under construction in 1854, the Washington National Monument Society ran out of money and the project ground to a halt. Twenty-five years later, the U.S. Government took over and completed the upper two-thirds of the structure by 1884 using marble from a different quarry. http://www.nps.gov/wamo/faqs.htm

On the 140-foot landing of the monument, a memorial stone is inscribed with a prayer from the city of Baltimore. It reads “May Heaven to this union continue its beneficence; may brotherly affection with union be perpetual; may the free constitution which is the work of our ancestors be sacredly maintained and its administration be stamped with wisdom and with virtue.”

On the 260-foot landing of the Washington Monument memorial stones quote Proverbs 10:7, Proverb 22:6, and Luke 17:6. These stones were presented by Sunday school children from New York and Philadelphia…

The cornerstone for the monument was laid on July 4, 1848, within the cornerstone rests the Holy Bible, presented by the Bible Society. The monument was opened to the public on October 9, 1888. In total, there are 36,491 stones. Inserted into the interior walls of the monument are 188 carved stones presented by individuals, societies, cities, states, and nations of the world. http://www.just4kidsmagazine.com/beacon4god/lausdeo.html

 

Few people know that engraved on the metal cap to the monument, towering 555 feet above the ground are the words, “Praise be to God.” In addition, several tribute blocks line the staircase, and they are inscribed with Bible verses: “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for such is the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:16),” “Search the Scriptures (John 5:39; Acts 17:11),” and “Holiness unto the Lord (Exodus 28:36); 39:30; Zechariah 14:20).” http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080607153549AAOCTIc

In addition, the following Scriptures appear on the Washington Monument. Below I quote the King James because this is likely the version that was used.

The memory of the just is blessed: but the name of the wicked shall rot.  Proverb 10:7

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverb 22:6

And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamore tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you. Luke 17:6

Other taxpayer funded monuments include references to God and the Bible.

Further east, along the Mall’s north side, stands the National Archives.  No building in Washington, save perhaps the Library of Congress, is more emblematic of this nation’s desire to preserve its history as the key to a secure future. Carved in stone adjacent to the entrance of the Archives are the words “What is past is prologue,” appropriately introducing the original parchment of the United States Constitution inside. Inlaid at the Archives’ entrance is a bronze medallion of the Ten Commandments, surrounded by four winged figures representing Legislation, Justice, History, and War and Defense, a testament to the Archives’ architects’ bold witness to the centrality of biblical truth to the American experience.

Still further east, the level expanse of the Mall gives way to the gentle rise of Jenkins’ Hill, known by its more political name, Capitol Hill. Below the west front of the Capitol, where our presidents take their inaugural oaths, lay gardens planted with the offerings of people and organizations from around the world. One such planting is a group of five crabapple trees, donated by the people of Iowa in memory of the five Sullivan brothers, sons of the Hawkeye State, who served and died together aboard the U.S.S. Juneau in World War II. This living monument, eloquent beyond words, reminds Americans of the “costly sacrifice” so many families have laid, in Lincoln’s words, “on the altar of freedom.”

The U.S. Capitol also bears public witness to the legacy of biblically inspired faith that Americans have passed on from generation to generation. New England statesman and orator Daniel Webster was voted by the United States Senate in the 1980s as one of the five greatest senators ever to serve in that chamber. In 1851, when the new House and Senate wings of the Capitol were begun, Webster gave a speech that was deposited in the cornerstone. Its final words are these:

If, therefore, it shall hereafter be the will of God that this structure should fall from the base, that its foundations be upturned, and this deposit brought to the eyes of men, be it then known, that on this day the Union of the United States of America stands firm, that their constitution still exists unimpaired, and with all of its original usefulness and glory, growing every day stronger and stronger in the affection of the great body of the American people, and attracting more and more the admiration of the world. And all here assembled, whether belonging to public life or to private life, with hearts devotedly thankful to Almighty God for the preservation of the liberty and happiness of the country, unite in sincere and fervent prayers that this deposit, and the walls and arches, the domes and towers, the columns and the entablatures, now to be erected over it, may endure forever. http://www.religiousliberty.com/article-washington-dc-monuments.htm

Lincoln Memorial Commissioned 1910 Dedicated 1922

National Archives opened in 1935

US Capitol Building was built in 1793 and continued to grow periodically.

The whole Washington Mall was purposely designed as a crucifix. Google “Laus Deo” and see http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/monument.asp for more information.

You may ask what about the contemporaries of Thomas Jefferson. Davis don’t go into that issue on purpose and neither did he explain what a test oath is or how it related to Article VI of the US Constitution. Why because it proves the falsehood of his claims.

Most states had a state sponsored church at the time that the US Constitution was ratified. http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69 No States saw a conflict between having a State sponsored church and the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment only restricts the national government from establishing one Church for all of the United States. We often forget that the States created the national government and not the other way around. Many States did sponsor churches of one denomination or another.

The last part of Article VI of the US Constitution reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

What is a test oath? It is an oath of adherence to certain beliefs in God and was often required in States as a condition of holding public office. It is consistent with the First Amendment that no national church be established. This keeps America from being just like England where the monarch was both head of state and head of the church.

In the Middle Ages, kings, princes, and feudal lords demanded oaths of loyalty from their vassals. Not just to the prince, but to his religion as well. After the Reformation, if a prince became a Lutheran, everyone in his realm became a Lutheran. By law. Anyone accepting a political office or public trust took an oath of loyalty to the prince and to the Catholic (or Lutheran, or whatever) faith.

In America, many of the colonies limited political offices to members of the Church of England, or other denominations. After the Revolution against Britain, very few people wanted their tax dollars to pay the salaries of the clergy for the Church of England (no surprise). But which denomination would be supported by taxes and oaths? The colonists decided to eliminate taxes and oaths which favored any particular denomination. Before the Constitution was written, every state had eliminated the requirement that public office holders be members of a particular denomination. The Revolution (not the First Amendment) effectively marked the end of test oaths and “established churches.”

But every state still required that politicians believe in God. Atheists could not take an oath of any kind. An oath was a declaration of belief in God. That’s what an oath is: The oath taker declares that he believes in God and that he is fully aware that God will judge him if what he says is false or if what he promises is not fulfilled.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, these two points were universally understood:

• An oath could be taken only by someone who believed in God.
• An oath of office could be taken by anyone who believed in God, regardless of denominational affiliation. In short, no other “religious test” would be required.

Both before and after the Constitution was ratified, the states required candidates to be Biblically qualified to take the oath of office. They were not required to affirm their membership in a particular denomination, but they were required to swear that they were Christians. If you were not a Christian, you could not hold office. http://vftonline.org/TestOath/WhatIs.htm

If memory serves correctly, Georgia was the last state to drop the requirement that a person had to believe in God in order to testify in a court of law. This was in the 1980’s. It makes sense; if you don’t believe that God will punish you for bearing false witness (violating one of the Ten Commandments) for lying on the witness stand then what compels you to tell the truth?

This is just a brief survey of the material that proves that the author, Kenneth C Davis is a liar. Properly understood, Jefferson’s wall only protects the Church from the State. http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html The Founders never envisioned that the State should be free from the influence of Christianity. Quite the opposite, our Founders assume that a Christian people are necessary for freedom and liberty. Davis isn’t interested in religious liberty; he is really advocating freedom from religion not of religion. Davis dare not cite the Mayflower Compact or other documents that came from the colonial period because none support his claim.

Jefferson’s letter to the Newbury Baptists was just an obscure document until the Supreme Court elevated it as the basis of a decision issued in 1947. So why is Davis so upset that “under God” was added to the Pledge just seven short years after has precious “wall of separation” was created by the Supreme Court? Jefferson’s wall doesn’t even mean what the Court said it did in 1947. It was just a tool to get them the outcome that they wanted; a “fig leaf” to give them political cover for their decision. It’s no different than the current Court quoting European law as precedent when no such case can be cited within our own court system. It is a device for the Court to legislate from the bench. Talk about violating original intent!

Reaction to SB 48: Tilting at Windmills

This week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the Mark Leno bill that mandated that all California public schools must integrate instruction of lesbian, gay and bi-sexual people into their curriculum from Kindergarten thru high school. That Brown signed yet another stupid social engineering bill from Leno is no surprise, I was disappointed by the predictable reactionary response from some on the Conservative side of the isle.

As usual, our guys are suffering a loss of big picture. They want to reverse SB 48—which I think is a good idea—but they have no interest in not only reversing SB 48 but protecting our children from similar legislation that has been passed as well as any more stupid ideas that might be forced upon us in the future.

Clearly the quickest route to challenge bad legislation is through the ballot initiative process. But what kind of initiative? Do we simply just reverse SB 48 knowing that they will tweak it slightly and pass it again or do we try to reform the system in a way that such legislation is meaningless? If they both cost the same to bring before voters then which is the wiser course of action? Which will have the best possibility of success?

Yesterday I received an email that advocated a simple reversal of SB 48. This was my response.

This is not a strategic way of dealing with this issue. It would be better to do a ballot initiative to put curriculum decisions into the hands of local school boards. If local schools could decide textbooks and standards and not have these decisions forced upon them by legislators and the State Dept of Education, you would allow more accountability for education and protect children from these stupid mandates from people like Mark Leno.

Fighting SB48 head-on is a losing proposition. First it will rally the gays, unions and the Democrat Party against you. Second, we don’t have the money to fight this battle. Third, when we lose, it will embolden the other side to take this nationwide. In the end we will be worse-off for fighting on their terms. You need to redefine this issue in a way that advances favorable reasons why local control is better than these stupid and irrelevant (and politically correct) social engineering mandates.

California schools are in the bottom of the nation in terms of education. Arguing against Mark Leno and mandates for social engineering should be argued on the basis that our children and the teachers don’t have time for this B.S. when the children can’t learn the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. Make SB48 irrelevant by placing curriculum control on a local level. This is both the Republican way and the way our Founders intended these decisions to be made.

Sincerely,

Then last night I saw this on the KOVR TV website.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/07/15/group-begins-pushing-back-against-gay-history-bill/

Group Begins Pushing Back Against Gay History Bill

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) – A family advocacy group is already challenging a new California law that adds lessons about gays to social studies classes.

Paulo Sibaja of the Sacramento-based Capitol Resource Institute said he started the process Friday for a statewide vote to overturn the bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown a day earlier.

Brown, a Democrat, signed SB 48, making California the first state in the nation to teach about gays and lesbians in a public school curriculum.

Advocates say the new law will teach students to be more accepting in light of the bullying that happens to gay students. It also ensures that students are taught about the contributions of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender in social studies.

Conservatives opposed the law, saying it would teach children to accept homosexuality.

Then this morning I was sent the following:

YOU CANNOT HIT A HOMERUN UNLESS YOU SWING THE BAT.
SURRENDER IS NOT THE AMERICAN WAY
THIS IS A 100% DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM AND PROMOTING A REPEAL WILL GALVANIZE THE PUBLIC TO WHAT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY BELIEVES, THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY.
WE WILL BE ABLE TO AFFILIATE WITH FAMILY VALUE ADVOCATES, INDEPENTANTS, AND THE UNEDUCATED VOTERS.  2012 IS THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE REPEAL BEING ON THE BALLOT BRINGING OUT THE FRIENDLY VOTERS.

The letter was sent all in capital letters which we all know is reserved for shouting. Will shouting at me do any good? Not likely.

Neither the author quoted above nor the Capitol Resource Institute has a proverbial “pot to piss in” so where do they think they will get the millions of dollars to qualify a ballot initiative or run the campaign necessary to win. To run a successful campaign they will need around 30 million dollars just to be credible. As they have defined it, this is such a narrow issue that they have no hope of winning.

Just look at the next election cycle. We have new legislative districts in all 50 states, Presidential primaries, congressional races, some important US Senate races and we are arguably in the midst of a depression (not a recession) and you want to wage this war against the gays, the unions and the Democrat Party. The public employee unions in California have over 250 million dollars to spend in the next election. Give these realities, where are you going to find the money from the private sector that you need to run a stop SB 48 campaign? What did you not understand about the stop AB 23 campaign? It was funded by businesses not a bunch of poor folks in churches and they lost badly. Why would the stop AB 48 campaign be any different?

Scripture and common sense both tell us not to start something that we cannot successfully complete. Instead of tilting at the SB 48 windmill why not do something that reforms the educational process and returns local control and accountability. If Leno’s stupid bill gets negated by the empowerment of local school districts then too bad.

I often say that we are playing checkers—usually badly—while the other side is playing chess. They are several moves ahead and we are marveling at what they are able to accomplish. Is it any wonder that we lose so badly? Not really! Strategic thinking in conservative political circles is a rare commodity.