1. Freedom of Speech From Behind The Pulpit Click anywhere to move to next slide By Katie Virginia Murray

2. Presented By Religious Freedom Coalition P.O. Box 77511 Washington, D.C. 20013 (202) 543-0300 www.rfcnet.org Copyright 2003-Religious Freedom Coalition

3. Pastors from behind their pulpits should have the right to advocate or oppose legislative issues or political candidates. Currently there is a lack of freedom of speech from the pulpit due to a law that is the cause of suppression of speech in the church. The original intent of the Founding Fathers, from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution and its First Amendment, has Christian overtones. Modern misinterpretation of the First Amendment leads to laws and court decisions that do not coincide with what America’s forefathers intended. Change needs to be made through church activism. Christian morality needs to be recognized, and a new law needs to be passed.

4. Today pastors do not have freedom of speech from behind the pulpit. The current law in the form of an IRS code is the cause of this lack of freedom. This law was inserted into the tax code by Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954. Until that time there were no restrictions on the church’s role in politics. Although it probably was not “intended to target houses of worship,”[1] the law was intended to restrict organizations that opposed Johnson’s reelection to the Senate. The reasons for this ban were never properly debated or voted on as a separate issue.[2][1][2] Lyndon Johnson

5. The code specifically says that, “Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes” is exempt as long as “…no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”[3] In other words, if a church attempts to influence legislation or makes any statements that can be considered promotion for a political campaign, it can then lose its tax exemption. If this happens, it must pay taxes on its income consisting of donations, and contributors are not allowed to count their contributions as tax deductions. Thus speech within the church has been suppressed.[3]

6. This current law even restricts the discussions on issues within the church. Congressman Walter Jones who represents North Carolina says that “[T]he churches in many places, in my opinion the priests, the rabbis and the clerics, have not had the freedom to speak about the moral and political issues of the day. And many times the moral issues become political issues, and the political issues moral issues, and we all know that.”[4] The problem is that moral issues cannot be discussed in a church if they are also political issues. For example, a pastor’s church can be penalized if he states his position on abortion during a campaign season.[5] Walter Jones says that churches are “so chilled [by this law] that they refuse to make important moral, ethical or scriptural statements that may touch on current political campaigns.”[6][4][5][6]

7. Many churches are intimidated out of what rights they do have by organizations who threaten to report their activities to the IRS. For example, a lawsuit was filed against the Catholic Church by representatives of pro-choice groups because of its advocacy against abortion.[7] Churches have the right to promote their position on abortion, but organizations use this law to intimidate them. This was not the only instance. In September of 2000, over 285,000 churches received letters from the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State warning them not to violate the IRS rules by distributing Christian Coalition voter guides.[8] Even if not directly threatened by these types of organizations, this fear exists. Reverend Ernest J. Ruede of St. Paul’s Catholic Church in New Bern, North Carolina could not let Jerry Schill, vice chairman of the local chapter of the Christian Coalition, place an ad in the church bulletin stating the positions of George W. Bush and Al Gore on abortion even though the ad endorsed neither man. Schill says that the Reverend “feared getting in trouble with the Internal Revenue Service.”[9][7][8][9]

8. The law tends to be enforced in a partisan matter. The Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, New York lost its tax-exempt status for running a single newspaper ad just four days before the Presidential election between Clinton and George H. Bush saying that Clinton’s support for government backed abortion and homosexual preferences was contradicting the Bible.[10] However, Democratic Presidential candidate Gore campaigned from the pulpits of inner-city churches, none of which lost their tax-exemption.[11] House Majority Whip Tom Delay from Texas commented, “I don’t know that [selective enforcement takes place] for a fact, but it certainly seems to be that way.”[12][10][11][12]

9. The government sometimes denies free speech to the church and other organizations. One organization that was punished was the Christian Coalition. The organization’s tax-exempt status was revoked by the IRS in 1990, because they distributed voters’ guides. According to the IRS, this was breaking the guidelines set for tax- exempt groups, yet recently the IRS admitted in federal court that the guides were not a violation. The amount refunded five years later by the IRS was small, only $169.26, but, it was "a huge victory for the Christian Coalition and a huge defeat and concession by the Internal Revenue Service,"[13] according to Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and the defendant lawyer for the Christian Coalition in court. Although the IRS lost in appeals, this case shows that not just churches but other Christian organizations as well are being punished for actions that may actually be permitted by the IRS code.[13]

10. The government is thus able to obtain influence over the church because the churches have to report all their activities to the IRS when filing taxes. The IRS than has to “approve” of a church’s activities. If not approved, than the church is punished. The Indianapolis Baptist Temple church building was seized in 2001 for not withholding a portion of every employee's paycheck for federal taxes. The church refused to withhold taxes from its employees’ checks, because it would be “acting as an agent for a secular government agency.”[14] This is despite the fact that IBT would refuse tax benefits available for being a religious organization and many of their employees paid full taxes that the IBT had not withheld.[15] The principle of the matter was not the fact that the money was not paid but that the church would not act as a tax collector for the government. This IRS code gives the government authority over the church that should not be permitted under the Constitution.[14][15]

11. The original intent of the Fore Fathers from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution and its First Amendment has Christian overtones. The government is originally based on Christian teaching. The Revolution was the birth of the United States. There were many pastors and godly men such as Samuel Davies and the Muhlenburg brothers that had important influences at that time. Samuel Davies, a Presbyterian preacher who helped lead the Great Awakening, helped get Virginians to defend their frontier during the British colonial period.[16][16] On January 21, 1776, Reverend John Peter Muhlenberg announced from behind his pulpit that it was a time for war. He then took off his clerical robes to reveal that he was dressed in full military uniform. He reminded his parishioners that they must protect their liberties and encouraged them to join him in a fight for independence. About 300 men from his congregation joined him and they formed the Eighth Virginia Regiment.[17][17] Reverend Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg was driven from his church by the British in 1777 and went on to be America’s first Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1778. His signature appears on the Bill of Rights.[18][18]

12. George Washington prayed with his troops for the protection of God. The men at Valley Forge had a long winter during which three thousand out of twelve thousand died due to sickness.[19] As a godly man, Washington would obviously turn to Him for protection of his troops. On May 1, 1777, he asked God to “Bless us with Thy wisdom in our counsels, success in battle, and let our victories be tempered with humanity.”[20] One can also see by his prayer that he meant for America to be a Godly nation as he said “...if it is Thy holy will that we shall obtain a place and name among the nations of the earth, grant that we may be enabled to show our gratitude for Thy goodness by our endeavors to fear and obey Thee.”[21] When fighting for the independence of America, Washington believed he was fighting for a nation that would “fear and obey” God.[19][20][21] Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary war and the first president of the United States

13. When the Second Virginia Convention was moved to St. John’s Church in Richmond from the House of Burgesses on March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry delivered his famous speech that ended with the words, “give me liberty or give me death.” This well-known speech mentioned God numerous times. Patrick Henry said that “we shall not fight alone. There is a just God…who will raise up friends to fight our battle for us.” [22] He believed that God was an important element in their fight for liberty and essential to their victory. He is also known for stating that, “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 very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”[23] He felt that the reason this country has so many religious freedoms is because it is based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Even if people of other religions are to be welcome, the country’s foundations were still to be based on Christianity.[22][23] His grandson, William Wirt Henry, said that his grandfather “Looked to the restraining and elevating principles of Christianity as the hope of his country’s institutions.”[24][24] Patrick Henry, a very important figure in American history, was the Commander-in-Chief of the Virginia militia, a member of the Continental Congress, a member of the House of Burgesses and governor of Virginia for five terms.

14. God had an important role in the Constitution as well. Benjamin Franklin believed it impossible to write a constitution without divine intervention. When the delegates reached an impasse in formulating the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin declared that divine help should be sought before each day’s assembly.[25] He said “that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”[26] He also said that “[W]ithout His concurring aid…we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages.”[27] Benjamin Franklin believed that the creation of this new government was completely in vain if it was not divinely influenced. He stated that without God’s influence, they would become a mere disgrace to future generations.[25][26][27]

15. George Washington mentioned the importance of religion as part of a democracy in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796. He said “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports…Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”[28][28]

16. On October 11, 1798, President John Adams told assembled military leaders, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[29] In other words, the Constitution is for a country based on the ethics of the Bible. When that is lost in the people, the Constitution is completely inadequate because right and wrong cannot be measured by humans. He also once wrote in his diary that if a nation had the Bible as their only law book it would be a “Eutopia [and a] Paradise.”[30] He states that his purpose in helping birth this country was to found it upon the gospel of Jesus Christ.[29][30] The second President of the United States, the first to live in the White House, a member of the Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence

17. The very intent of the First Amendment was to establish freedom of religion. This First Amendment’s true purpose was to protect the church from the government, because “The Founders wanted to guarantee freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”[31] They wanted to prevent another situation similar to that in England where the government ran the church. The First Amendment “was conceived primarily to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.”[32] It is often misinterpreted as the opposite of its purpose. As shown earlier, the Founding Fathers were deeply rooted in Christ, as were all their actions and decisions concerning the Constitution. So, why then, would they create an amendment to limit the things they valued the most? The Founding Fathers wanted to enable the church’s freedoms. They wanted to free the church from state supervision so that it had “a maximum freedom in the realization of its spiritual, moral, and educational tasks.”[33] The first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”[34] When one reads the amendment, its purpose is very direct and obvious. The authors’ intent was protection of religious freedom which the state could not limit. Is not a law that is punishing churches for “political” speech breaking the first amendment? Thomas Jefferson wrote, in the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty in 1786, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly that no man…shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or his opinion in matters of religion…”[35][31][32][33][34][35]

18. The Northwest Ordinance is proof that even after the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, religion’s importance still played a role in the laws they passed. This Ordinance, which set forth the requirements for statehood, was signed by President George Washington on August 7, 1789 and is considered one of the four foundational laws.[36] Article III says, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”[37] The men who passed the Ordinance into law, who also authored the Constitution, believed that “Religion, morality, and knowledge [should be taught in schools because they are] necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.”[38] Religion was considered to be just as important as knowledge and morality. It is essential to the well-being and growth of this country.[36][37][38]

19. Today, this intent is overlooked or misunderstood by federal courts. Many historical documents have been misinterpreted at the cost of religious freedoms. The First Amendment which was intended to favor Christian influence is now used by courts for the opposite purpose. The First Amendment is now used to restrict the rights of Christians. There are numerous examples. Due to cases such as Stein vs. Oshinsky in 1965, Collins v. Chandler Unified School District in 1981, and Bishop v. Aarnov in 1991, it is now illegal for teachers and students to have religious conversations that would previously have been unrestricted. Reed v. Van Hoven in 1965 declared that it is unconstitutional for a student to pray aloud over his lunch. Even a war memorial cannot be built in the shape of a cross due to Lowe v. City of Eugene.[39][39] Misinterpretations have reduced freedoms and caused restraints. The courts have put religious practice in a separate sphere where it is allowed to function but is punished if it does not remain there.[40][40]

20. This Amendment is also used to keep religion from influencing the government. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in Strength to Love that “the church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.”[41] Martin Luther King Jr. understood that the church had an undeniable influence on the state that is elemental. It is this influence that the state is trying to demolish so it can function without moral restraint. According to Stephan Carter, author of God’s Name in Vain, “The separation of church and state, in its contemporary rendition, represents little more than an effort to subdue the power of religion, to twist it to the ends preferred by the state.”[42] The government does not want Christianity to have influence but rather to stay inside the church on Sunday mornings.[41][42]

21. Further misinterpretations have led to unnecessary restrictions. The Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified to guarantee state citizenship to recently emancipated slaves, is now used to prohibit religious activities in public affairs of the state. The words of the Fourteenth Amendment can easily be misinterpreted if they are separated from their original purpose. This misinterpretation usually occurs when one takes the Fourteenth Amendment and couples it with the First. By doing so, the First Amendment is made applicable not only to the federal government, which is its original intention, but to the state governments. This new intent was created through decisions such as Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940, Murdock v. Pennsylvania in 1943, and Everson v. Board of Education in 1947.[43][43] Amendment XIV Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

22. Jefferson’s letter written to the Danbury Baptists concerning the First Amendment is used as law to keep church and state completely separated at the expense of the church. Many forget that Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists is in response to a letter they had sent to him. In their letter they congratulated his inauguration but also expressed concern about the First Amendment: “Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity…to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States…Our sentiment are uniformly on the side of religious liberty—that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals—that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But sir, our Constitution of government is not specific…therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights”[44] They feared that their religious rights were government – given and could easily be regulated rather than God-given or inalienable.[45][44][45]

23. Jefferson’s response was to reassure them that the First Amendment was only meant “to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”[46] By “natural rights” he refers to God-given rights. He is assuring them that their religious rights are not government-given but merely being restored by the government and that those rights would not be in opposition to social duties. When he mentions “building a wall of separation between Church and State,”[47] he is stating that the First Amendment’s intent is to keep the state out of churches’ affairs. Despite the fact that the phrase “separation of Church and State” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, it is today treated as law by many courts. A hundred and fifty years after Jefferson wrote his letter, modern courts turned that wall of separation into “an impregnable wall” in the Everson v. Board of Education case.[48][46][47][48] Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists

24. Misinterpretations have led to further changes, of which some are just absurd. One man with no legal standings sued to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Michael Newdow, an atheist, is seeking to have “under God” removed from the Pledge because he claimed it would offend his daughter, of whom he did not even have custody. In fact, the mother who has full custody is a Christian and says that neither she nor her daughter was offended by the words “under God.” She is against Newdow’s desire to have the pledge changed.[49] President Dwight David Eisenhower said that by adding "under God" to the pledge in 1954,only twelve years after it was established as the official pledge, they were “affirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future [and that it would] strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war."[50] “Under God” is part of the spiritual history of this country. Newdow is trying to eliminate the very thing that unites this country and constantly reminds the government that there is something greater than it. If this is removed, who has greater power than the government?[49][50]

25. People are demanding to change traditions of this country because of the Christian origin of those traditions. The challenge to the motto of the State of Ohio is an example. “With God, all things are possible,” was ruled as an establishment of religion because they are the words of Jesus discussing salvation. About a year later, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it did not violate the establishment clause because, according to Judge Nelson, "The Ohio motto legitimately serves a secular purpose in boosting morale, instilling confidence and optimism, and exhorting the listener or reader not to give up and to continue to strive."[51] The motto of Ohio was not establishing a religion and it is part of Ohio’s identity, but some want it removed purely because of its origins.[51]

26. Change needs to be made through church activism, recognition of Christian morality, and the passing of a new law. A change in direction is needed to return to the foundations on which this country is laid. Church activism is an important place to start. Church activism has played an important role in the development of this country and in many important issues. Just as many of the Founding Fathers were men of God, so were those who headed the abolition movement. One American editor, abolitionist, and clergyman who greatly influenced the country was Henry Ward Beecher.[52] He addressed many issues of his time, including slavery, from behind his pulpit.[52] Frederick Douglass, a former slave and abolitionist, led many to understand the wrongs of slavery. His words against slavery were more than personal belief but also guidance from God. In The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, he wrote, “Every tone [of the songs of slaves] was a testimony against slavery, and a prayer to God for deliverance from chains.”[53][53]

27. Theodore Parker, a graduate of Harvard and clergyman, was another abolitionist. For him, the freedom of America was directly related to its foundation on Christianity as he states in The American Idea, “A democracy-that is a government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people; of course, a government of the principles of eternal justice, the unchanging law of God; for shortness’ sake I will call it the idea of Freedom.”[54] If it were not for these men as well as others, would slavery have ended when it did? The abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement were largely inspired by religious communities and both changed America for the better.[55] Many of the mass protests during the Civil Rights movement were organized by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization of black churches and ministers headed by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.[56] These social movements “were both nurtured in churches, publicly justified in religious language, and unapologetically inspired by the Word of God.”[57][54][55][56][57]

28. There is a continuing need for church activism such as in the anti-abortion movement. There are many similarities between abortion and slavery. This can be seen by observing the similarities between Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1857, which said that slavery was legal because blacks were nonpersons owned by their masters, and Roe v. Wade in 1973, which stated that abortion is legal because unborn babies are nonpersons owned by their mothers. It was declared that abolitionists should not impose morality on the slave owner, and later on, it was decided that pro-life advocates should not impose morality on the mothers.[58] Churches and their leaders fought against slavery and later against segregation. Today, many church leaders want to stop the modern day slavery of abortion but cannot because the IRS code will not allow them “to influence legislation”[59][58][59]

29. Christian morality also plays an important role, because Christians view the economy and the government through their faith. This becomes evident in a study by Barna Research on a national representative sample of 1003 adults concerning abortion and homosexuality.[60] Only one percent of evangelicals said abortion should be legal in all situations as opposed to forty percent of atheists. Ninety four percent of evangelicals said that abortion should be illegal in all instances or in all but a few special circumstances. Only thirty percent of atheists share this belief.[60] Born again Christians are twice as likely as non- Christians to view homosexuality as an unacceptable lifestyle. Ninety percent of evangelicals and only one-third of atheists disapproved of clergy marrying gay couples. Obviously, people’s beliefs affect the views of society and the sides of issues they choose. Barna Research Group of Ventura, California www.barna.org

30. A person’s moral judgment and decisions concerning the society he or she lives in are based on the person’s religious convictions. According to an article in the National Review, many Baptists would compare separating religion from politics to separating morality from any other part of their lives.[61] Religion is important to many Christians when it is time to vote. A Barna survey completed by February 15, 2000 showed, “that born again voters are likely to represent close to 60 million votes in the general election. Of the 83 million born again adults, more than four out of five are registered - one of the largest proportions among all demographic segments in the nation.”[62] Obviously, voting is important to those in the Evangelical Churches. If their beliefs inspire them to vote, one can only assume that their beliefs also affect what they will vote for. Religion brings hope and meaning into people’s lives, so what kind of democratic government can ask them to leave that behind in order to be allowed into the world of politics?[63] People decide what is best for their society and government based on their beliefs. Therefore, it is only logical that those who represent those beliefs should be allowed to speak on political issues.[61][62][63]

31. A law giving pastors and churches the right to speak needs to be passed. Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) proposed a bill that would restore freedom of speech to pastors. The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act (HR-235) would strip the Internal Revenue Service of their authority to punish a church or temple for speaking out on issues that could be deemed political. Some see this as a danger because it would mix religion and government. In reality the bill would release religious organizations from the government’s grasp, because it will no longer be able to punish them for their opinions. This bill, if passed, gives pastors the chance to speak without worrying about the government punishing them. Marci Hamilton says that she supports this bill because it “does not give religion a special privilege to speak; rather, it restores religion's right to speak. And that should not be controversial at all - for the voices of religious entities are crucial to a free society.”[64] Organizations such as Americans United think that it is dangerous to mix religion and politics.[65] The truth is that religion has had a positive impact on politics and the government throughout America’s history.[64][65]

32. Pastors should have the right to promote legislation and endorse politics from behind the pulpit. The lack of freedom of speech from the pulpit is due to current law and is the cause of suppression of speech and government intervention in the church. The original intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the First Amendment has Christian overtones. Misinterpretation of the First Amendment leads to laws and court decisions that do not coincide with what the Fore Fathers intended. Change needs to be made through church activism. Christian morality needs to be recognized, and a new law needs to be passed. Once people are able to recognize religion’s place in history and in the government, they will understand the importance of its freedom for which this country stands. Once this is understood, people can work together to make sure that those who stand behind pulpits can have the same freedoms as those who do not.

33. Endnotes In order to return to where the information for the endnote is, click on its number. 11. HR 2357, The House of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. 15 October 2002. Vision America. 17 November 2002 22. HR 2357, The House of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. 15 October 2002. Vision America. 17 November 2002 33. Sec. 501. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc., 15 February 2003, Fourmilab Switzerland 16 February 2003 44. Rob Boston, “Protecting the Pulpit,” Americans United November 2002, 27 Nov. 2002 55. HR 2357, The House of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. 15 October 2002. Vision America. 17 November 2002 66. John Gizzi, “Congressman seeks to free up churches,” World Net Daily 29 October 2001, 17 Nov. 2002 77. Stephen L. Carter, God’s Name in Vain (New York: Basic Books, 2000) 68. 88. Gizzi 99. John Berlau, “Churches Must Follow IRS Gospel,” Insight Mag 22 October 2001, 17 November 2002 http://insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=108894 1010. Berlau 1111. Berlau 1212. Berlau

34. Endnotes In order to return to where the information for the endnote is, click on its number. 1313. “Christian Coalition Wins Victory In IRS Battle,” Maranatha Christian Journal 8 August 2000, 16 February 2003 1414. Ron Paul, “IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty,” Texas Straight Talk, 26 February 2001, 16 February 2003 1515. Ron Paul, “IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty,” Texas Straight Talk, 26 February 2001, 16 February 2003 1616. “Davies, Samuel,” Britannica, 15th ed. 1997. 1717. David Barton, A Spiritual Heritage Tour of the United States Capital (Aledo: WallBuilders, 2000) 36-37. 1818. David Barton, A Spiritual Heritage Tour of the United States Capital (Aledo: WallBuilders, 2000) 38. 1919. “Valley Forge” The Revolutionary War, 16 February 2003 2020. “Washington’s Prayer,” CPEF Online, 16 February 2003 2121. “Washington’s Prayer,” CPEF Online, 16 February 2003 2222. William J. Federer, America’s God and Country (St. Louis: Amerisearch, Inc, 1999) 288. 2323. Federer 289. 2424. Federer 290.

35. Endnotes In order to return to where the information for the endnote is, click on its number. 2525. William J. Murray, ed., The Complete Constitution of the United States of America With Comprehensive Cross Index and History of the Constitutional Convention (Fredericksburg: MFM Publishing, 1999) 7. 2626. Murray 6. 2727. David Barton, Original Intent,(Aledo: Wallbuilder Press, 2000) 334. 2828. Dr. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Legislating Morality (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998) 81. 2929. Federer 10-11. 3030. Federer 5. 3131. Geisler 80. 3232. Robert F. Owens, “Separation of Church and State,” Social Policy 32 (2001): 45. 3333. “Christianity,” Britannica, 15th ed. 1997. 3434. Murray 19. 3535. John E. Semonche, Religion & Constitutional Government in the United States (Middletown: C. Angela Mohr Book Design and Production, 1985) 103. 3636. David Barton, Original Intent,(Aledo: Wallbuilders Press, 2000) 41. 3737. Federer 158.

36. Endnotes In order to return to where the information for the endnote is, click on its number. 3838. David Barton, Original Intent,(Aledo: Wallbuilders Press, 2000) 41. 3939. David Barton, Original Intent,(Aledo: Wallbuilders Press, 2000) 14. 4040. Stephen L. Carter, God’s Name in Vain (New York: Basic Books, 2000) 78. 4141. Owens 4242. Stephen L. Carter, God’s Name in Vain (New York: Basic Books, 2000) 4343. David Barton, Original Intent,(Aledo: Wallbuilders Press, 2000) 198. 4444. “The Danbury Baptists’ letter to Thomas Jefferson,” Separation of Church and State Home Page, 28 November 2002, 15 February 2003 4545. David Barton, Original Intent,(Aledo: Wallbuilders Press, 2000) 44. 4646. “Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists,” Separation of Church and State Home Page, 28 November 2002, 16 February 2003 4747. “Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists,” Separation of Church and State Home Page, 28 November 2002, 16 February 2003 4848. Geisler 83-84. 4949. “California: Ruling unsettles pledge court case,” Free Republic, 18 October 2002, 16 February 2003

37. Endnotes In order to return to where the information for the endnote is, click on its number. 5050. Pastor David L. Brown, “One Nation Under God,” Logos Research Pages, 16 February 2003 5151. “Ohio Motto Constitutional,” Legal Facts, 22 March 2001, 16 February 2003 5252.Federer 41. 5353. Federer 220. 5454. Federer 491. 5555. Stephan L. Carter, The Dissent of the Governed (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998) 28. 5656. "King, Martin Luther, Jr.," Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2003, 16 February 2003 5757. Stephen L. Carter, God’s Name in Vain (New York: Basic Books, 2000) 20. 5858. Geisler 162. 5959. Sec. 501. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc., 15 February 2003, Fourmilab Switzerland 16 February 2003 6060. “Born Again Adults Remain Firm in Opposition to Abortion and Gay Marriage,” Barna Research Online, 23 July 2001, 16 February 2003

38. Endnotes In order to return to where the information for the endnote is, click on its number. 6161. Hadley Arkes, “Separation Anxiety,” National Review 54(2002): 58. 6262. “The Faith Factor in Election 2000: Christians Could Be a Swing Vote,” Barna Research Online 12 September 2002, 15 February 15, 2003 6363. Stephan L. Carter, The Dissent of the Governed (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998) 30. 6464. Marci Hamilton, “PROTECTING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS' RIGHT TO POLITICAL SPEECH: Why The House Of Worship Political Speech Protection Act Should Be Enacted,” Find Law, 15 August 2002, 16 February 2003 6565. “Church Politicking and Congress,” Americans United, April 2002, 17 Nov 2002

39. Presented By Religious Freedom Coalition P.O. Box 77511 Washington, D.C. 20013 (202) 543-0300 www.rfcnet.org Copyright 2003-Religious Freedom Coalition