Will Christians Be
Persecuted In America[1]
© Robert L. Waggoner
It was March of 1775 when a young attorney rode horseback into the small town of Culpepper, Virginia. He was totally shocked by what he saw!
There, in the middle of the
town square, a man was tied to a whipping post, his back laid bare and bloody
with the bones of his ribs showing through the flesh. He had just been whipped.
He had been, like Jesus, scourged mercilessly with whips having been laced with
pieces of metal.
The attorney is quoted as
saying, ‘When they stopped beating him, I could see the bones of his rib cage.
I turned to someone and asked what the man had done to deserve such a beating
as this.’
The reply given was that the
man being scourged was a minister who
refused to take a license. He was one of the twelve men who were locked in
jail because they refused to take a license.
This minister said: ‘I will
never submit to taking your license. I am controlled by the Holy Spirit and
authorized by God Almighty and will not allow you to control me by a license,
no matter what you may do to me!’
With that statement, those
who were trying to control these ministers and their ministries by requiring
them to be ‘licensed,’ took this minister and scourged him to death three days
later.[2]
Shortly afterward, this
young attorney arose to address his fellow delegates in the Virginia House of
Burgesses. He concluded his famous speech with these words.
Gentlemen may cry, Peace,
Peace! - but there is no peace. The war has actually begun! The next gale that
sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our
brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that
gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to
be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I
know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me
death!”[3]
You probably recognize the last sentence of that address and therefore know that the young attorney in this story was none other than Patrick Henry. Most of us recall that Patrick Henry made a fiery speech that lent support to, and helped bring about, the American Revolution. What most of us do not recall, or perhaps never knew, is that Patrick Henry’s speech was motivated by his experience in seeing men denied their religious freedom by their civil authorities.
Patrick Henry went on to
defend preachers who wanted freedom to conduct their ministries free of
government interference. And then, with the ratification of the United States
Constitution’s Bill of Rights in 1791, religious freedom was guaranteed for all
American citizens by the First Amendment.
This was not the first time,
however, that Christians have faced persecution because they would not take a
license from civil authorities. The Apostle John wrote of it in the thirteenth
chapter of the Book of Revelation. This chapter discusses two beasts - a beast
rising up out of the sea – which probably symbolized the Roman empire,
personified by the reigning Caesar, and a beast coming up out of the earth –
which probably symbolized the imperial priesthood which promoted Caesar
worship.
Caesar worship was an
outgrowth of patriotism to the Roman Empire. As Rome conquered the ancient
world, she established trade routes, stopped robbers and pirates, set up a
common postal system, established law and order, and brought peace, safety, and
prosperity to conquered territories. The people were grateful.
Caesar worship developed
gradually. As early as 195 BC the city of Smyrna had erected an altar to “the
goddess of Rome.” In time, something akin to divinity came to be attributed
toward the city of Rome. Then in 44 BC, the day after his death, Julius Caesar
was deified by the Roman Senate. After that, the people wanted to deify the
living Caesars. The Roman Caesars were at first reluctant. Caesar Augustus,
however, did permit a temple to be erected jointly in his own name and that of
Rome. The cities of Asia Minor had already begun to compete with each other for
the favor of erecting a temple to the worship of Caesar.
Rome wanted to unite all its
people. It built the Pantheon in the city of Rome. The idea behind that was to
make the capitol city the religious capitol of all peoples Rome had conquered.
However, this was not as effective as had been hoped. When Caesar worship grew
from the populace, Rome saw in it a way to unite all its people. Thereafter,
Caesar worship was encouraged. The surest route to political power in the
provinces of Rome was through the imperial priesthood.
This is what John referred
to in the last part of the thirteenth chapter of the Book of Revelation.
Regarding the imperial priesthood – the beast coming up out of the earth – John
said that
. . . he causes all, both
small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right
hand, or in their foreheads; and that no man might buy or sell, save he that
had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is
wisdom, Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it
is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred three score and six
(Revelation 13:16-18.).
The mark in the right hand or on the forehead constituted a license. If you had it, you could buy or sell. If you did not have it, you could neither buy nor sell. To get that license, you were required to worship Caesar. However, Christians could not do that because to worship Caesar - to say that Caesar is Lord - meant that they had to reject Jesus as Lord. The result was Christian persecution. The beast coming up out of the earth had power to “cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed” (Revelation 13:15). So great and terrible was the persecution that Rome is said to have been “drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Revelation 17:6).
Religious persecution is
something we read about. It is a part of church history. Or it happens in other
countries. It is not supposed to happen in America! However, for Christians,
religious freedom may be quickly vanishing in America! In the last two decades
we’ve seen too many denials of religious freedom to assume that in the future
we will have religious freedom as we once had.
For those unfamiliar with
recent denials of religious freedom in America, it may prove helpful to list
some cases where religious freedoms were denied. Religious freedoms may be
denied in many ways. Especially significant are those religious freedoms denied
in occupational employment, education, and in government regulations of
churches and their ministries through bureaucratic licensing and zoning
ordinances.
Believers in Christ are
beginning to realize that in the workplace their religious freedoms may be
denied to them almost anytime. Kathy Pierce, a hospital receptionist at the
University of Alabama hospital in Birmingham told supervisors when she started
working in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department that she had religious
based objections to admitting women for therapeutic abortions. Later, however, when
another employee had to be out of the office, she was ordered to process the
admission of abortion patients. When she refused, she was suspended without pay
for two days and placed on probation for four months – a penalty which later
was amended to 90 days.[4]
In Chico, California, Mrs.
Evelyn Smith, a widow, had a vacant duplex for rent. An unmarried couple wanted
to rent it, but Mrs. Smith refused. Her Biblical convictions that sexual
cohabitation is for marriage would not allow her to live with a clean conscience
if she rented to unmarried couples. Shortly after her refusal the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing contacted Mrs. Smith. They told her
they would file charges against her for “marital status” discrimination. An
attorney for the state said Mrs. Smith was trying to force her beliefs on
others.[5]
Believers in creation are
especially discriminated against in the academic workplaces. Jerry Bergman,
himself discriminated against because of his creationists beliefs, wrote a book
entitled, The Criterion: Religious
Discrimination in America in which he declares that belief in creation will
hinder a Ph.D. candidate in biology from obtaining a degree in most public
colleges and universities; that if one already has his Ph.D. and is looking for
a teaching position – if it is known he’s a creationist – he’ll likely not be
hired; that if one is already teaching without tenure – and it is discovered
that he is a creationist – he’ll likely not obtain tenure.[6]
In the educational arenas,
religious freedoms are frequently denied at all levels. Eleven-year-old Rebecca
Higgins gave an oral book report to her sixth grade classmates at Venice Area
Middle School in Florida. She gave her book report on the Bible because she
believed it was “a very important book which can serve as a guide for daily
living.” Afterward, she gave copies to nearly 30 students who wanted copies.
During the next class period, however, a teacher barged into the classroom,
confiscated all copies of the Bibles, and then escorted the girl to the
principal’s office where she was interrogated by school administrators and
denied the right to call her mother.[7]
In Anniston, Alabama, first
grade students were told to bring their favorite books to school for “Show and
Tell.” But when six-year-old Eric Pearson brought in his favorite book, Jesus Loves Me, he was told to take it
home because it was against the law[8].
In Moss Bluff, Louisiana, Valedictorian Angela Kay Guidry was denied the right
to give her graduation address at Sam Houston High School because she refused
to remove from her speech some carefully chosen remarks about how meaningful
Jesus had been in her life.[9]
In Lakewood, Colorado, Ken Roberts, a public school teacher, was directed to
remove from his classroom library two Bible related books, and to not leave his
Bible on top of his desk because these might give an appearance of religion.[10]
Churches have also had many
of their religious freedoms challenged. In Lewisville, Nebraska, the Faith
Baptist church preacher defied a ruling by the state Department of Education
that required all church school teachers be certified by the state. In
response, a Nebraska court ordered the church school closed. When the preacher
and his congregation refused, the Sheriff and his deputies carried people
bodily from the church building one evening as they were holding a prayer
vigil. They then padlocked the doors of the church building. They allowed
entrance into the building only for worship assemblies. The fathers of the
pupils were jailed, and the preacher was imprisoned for criminal contempt.[11]
In Painesville, Ohio, a
Nazarene church faced the possible loss of property tax exemption when it used
its facilities for five days a week as a day care for children.[12]
A U.S. District judge in Virginia declared that church day care centers are not
ministries of the church and are therefore subject to state regulations.[13]
A federal district judge in Virginia said in 1976 that it was unlawful for a
man to conduct a Bible study in his own home, even if the only participants
were members of his own family![14]
These are but a few of the
many denials of religious freedoms faced by all who profess Christianity in
America. Moreover, the number of cases appears to be accelerating. Its been
reported that in 1976 there were no more than 45 cases of litigation in the
courts involving conflicts between church and state. A decade later, the
estimate was up to eight thousand.[15]
The Freedom Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia indicated that in the first six
months of 1984 over 200 cases of religious discrimination were reported to
them.[16]
The question that naturally
comes to mind is “why?” Why are Christians today being denied their religious
freedoms? Why must Christians face discrimination in the workplace? Why are
Bible reading and prayers now prohibited in public schools? Why has there been
a general change in cultural attitudes toward God, Christ, the Bible, the
church, and Christians generally? Why do public policies of government agencies
now frequently discriminate against Christians?
The answer is that a new
religion – a religion totally opposed to Christians – has arisen, quietly and
almost unnoticeably, to positions of great influence and power. It began to
rear its ugly head during the Renaissance. For a while it was suppressed by the
Reformation movement. However, it reasserted itself and produced the so-called
period of the Enlightenment. Slowly, but with increasing rapidity, it grew. It
is now the primary religious threat to Christians in America. This religion is
“secular” humanism.
We will not understand why
religious freedoms are denied to Christians until we realize that we’re in the
middle of a religious war. Humanists also want religious freedoms. Humanists
want freedom to peddle hard core pornography without opposition from
Christians. Humanists want freedom to abort their unwanted, unborn babies.
Humanists want freedom from public recognition of God. Humanists want freedom
from Christian morality and ethics. Because humanists want freedom from
lifetime marriage commitments, they have fought for and obtained no-fault
divorce laws in many states and obtained very lax divorce laws in most other
states. Because humanists want acceptance of homosexuality, they now fight for
legislative enactments against all sexual discriminations. They want to
legalize homosexual marriages. Then homosexual and lesbian poor families can
receive government welfare from taxes paid by Christians.
The religious freedoms
desired by humanists are obviously not compatible with religious freedoms desired
by Christians. Freedom of religion for one group means denials of religious
freedoms for the other. Either Christian values dominate our society and give
freedom of religion to Christians but deny it to humanists, or humanistic
values dominate our society and give freedom of religion to humanists but deny
it to Christians. Either one or the other will prevail and thereby suppress the
other. Religious freedoms for both groups cannot co-exist.
The humanistic worldview is
the basis for many current public policies that produce religious
discrimination against Christians. As Christians begin to perceive what is
happening, Christians are usually startled to observe that humanists now occupy
the high ground. They are firmly entrenched and well fortified in the
principalities and powers of this world.
Christians can understand
better why their religious freedoms are often denied to them when Christians
learn how basic concepts within humanism are transformed into public policies.
A brief look at two of these concepts should be sufficient. The first concept
is that of the theory of evolution.[17]
The second is rejection of the supernatural.[18]
These two may be considered together inasmuch as one is but the flip side of
the other.
The theory of evolution has
to do with much more than biology. Those who accept the theory as fact
generally reject the existence of God, creation, the spiritual nature of man,
the deity of Christ, salvation from sin, and life after death. The theory is
presumed to be the key of all knowledge. Humanists contend that the universe is
self-existing, that all things evolve by chance, that humanity is but part of
nature, and that only through nature can man know anything. Notice what all
this implies regarding the formation of public policies.
First, if it is true that
all things evolve, as declared by the theory of evolution, the Bible must also have evolved. Within thirty years after Charles Darwin set forth his theory of
evolution in Origin of Species in
1859, the evolution of the Bible was popularized in colleges and universities.
Although it had been universally believed for over 3000 years that by the
inspiration of God, Moses had penned, 1400 years before Christ, the first five
books of the Old Testament, it now became fashionable to believe that the
Pentateuch had evolved from sources referred to as J, E, P, and D (and by
combinations of those letters) and that the Pentateuch came to be in its
present form only a hundred years or so before the Jews were taken into
Babylonian captivity. In like manner, other Old and New Testament documents
were also said to result from evolutionary developments. These notions deny the
inspiration of the Bible. They reject divine authority. They make biblical
messages no more significant than any other great piece of human literature.
Second, if it is true that
all things evolve, as declared by the theory of evolution, then there are no fixed legal standards. All
things, including law, must be relative. Slightly more than a decade after
Darwin wrote Origin of Species, the
evolution of law began to be taught by Christopher Langdell, Dean of Harvard
Law School. This revolutionized the study of law in the United States.[19]
By applying the theory of evolution to law, legal statutes need no longer be
absolute. Legal statutes no longer mean necessarily what they say. They can
only mean what the courts say they mean. When the humanistic theory of
evolution is applied to law, it is then impossible to have rule by law. It is
only possible to have rule by men.
Third, if it is true that
all things evolve, as declared by the theory of evolution, then, since mankind
is the highest form of known natural intelligence, people assume they must
decide what is best for themselves and other natural creatures in their
changing natural circumstances. In essence, man
becomes his own god! Moreover, since some people are considered more
intelligent than others, then it is assumed that the more knowledgeable must
decide what is best for everyone. This elite group of knowledgeable people,
dominated by the legal profession, must govern everyone. This they try to do
through civil governments, directing all economic and other human and natural
resources according to their own wills.
Now it must be admitted that
a majority of Americans today do not believe in the theory of evolution.
However, a very large number of the designers and makers of public policies in
government bureaucracies today do believe the theory is true and therefore act
accordingly. Moreover, many theists who work in government bureaucracies fail
to translate their Christian beliefs into public policy declarations. By that
failure, many theists may act like they believe the theory of evolution. Public
policy is often made, therefore, without the fear of God, with little
appreciation of biblical truths, with no understanding of man’s spiritual
nature and needs, with no consideration of judgment to come, and with little
thought for life after death. It is believed that man is basically good, and
therefore, according to humanistic theory, human authority is valid and
sufficient.
Public policies would be
vastly different, however, if theist made policies based on their beliefs.
Imagine what public policy would be if made in accordance with concepts of the
existence, relevancy, and providence of God; the authority of scripture; the
doctrine of creation; the spiritual nature of man; the reality of sin in all
accountable humans; redemption through Christ; judgment to come; and the
eternal destiny of the soul. Under these conditions, public policy should be
based upon absolute standards, recognize a rule of law rather than a rule of
men, and seek consistency with the word of God.
While humanists may
momentarily be passively tolerant of politicians who publicly invoke the name
of God, they are highly displeased if public policies are made in keeping with
Divine principles. Humanists insist on rejection of traditional religious
beliefs as unscientific and inappropriate for human guidance.[20]
They want government policies to be altogether “secular.” They imply that the
First Amendment requires the total separation of religion from all civil
government. However, the First Amendment was originally intended to restrict
only the federal Congress, not congressional bodies of the various states, nor
religious practices of the people.
Moreover, the founding
fathers of this nation realized the necessity of religion for good government.
George Washington said, “[o]f 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 principles.”[21]
The U. S. Congress, in 1787,
declared with the passage of the Northwest Ordinance that “religion, morality,
and knowledge” are “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.”[22]
John Adams observed that “[o]ur Constitution was made for a religious and a
moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”[23]
Moreover, Thomas Jefferson was president of the school board in the District of
Columbia when the books used to teach reading in the schools were the Bible and
Isaac Watts’ hymnal.
Notwithstanding this intent
of our founding fathers, humanists want to neutralize the influence of
Christianity in civil governments. Humanist
Manifesto II declares that “[t]he separation of church and state and the
separation of ideology and state are imperative.”[24]
However, all governments must operate by religious or ideological principles.
If governments do not operate by principles of the Christian religion, then
they will operate by principles of some other religion. Some humanists think
humanism is a religion. Others say it is not. But no one can deny that humanism
is an ideology. What humanists really want is to substitute humanism in place
of Christian influence upon civil governments. To do this they must neutralize
Christianity.
Although the process of
secularization was already neutralizing Christian influence in America, the
neutralization process has quickened since 1947 by a series of legal decisions
by the Supreme Court. Some statements by the Court will demonstrate that the
Court now differs from our founding fathers regarding the role of religion in
government and in society.
In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing
Township,[25] the Supreme
Court said that “[t]he ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First
Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can
set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another.”[26]]
However, our founding fathers would have disagreed because when the First
Amendment was ratified, nine of the thirteen original states had their own
established churches.
Regarding a specific school
prayer, the Court declared in 1962 in the case of Engel v. Vitale[27]
that it was improper to place the “power, prestige, and financial support of
government...behind a particular religious belief.”[28]
Since the prayer was of no specific denomination but reflective of Christianity
generally, what the court did was to establish disbelief in God as the national
religion in America. An even stronger statement was made by the Court in 1968
in the case of Board of Education v.
Allen.[29] The Court
said that “to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must
be a secular legislative purpose and primary effect that neither advances nor
inhibits religion.”[30]
In 1985 the Court was even more explicit. It declared in Thorton v. Caldor, Inc.[31]
that “to pass constitutional muster...a statute must not only have a secular
purpose and not foster excessive entanglement of government with religion, its
primary effect must not advance or inhibit religion.”[32]
These Court declarations
regarding the First Amendment have had the effect of exchanging a citizen’s
right to freedom of religion for society’s freedom from religion. Moreover,
because of these Court declarations, every agency of civil government considers
it now proper to remove the Christian religion from all public practices. In
essence, the theory of evolution is now replacing the Bible as the foundation
of civil governments in America. That’s the major reason Christians now face
religious discrimination in America.
What about the future? Will
current trends in religions discrimination lead ultimately to Christians being
physically and violently persecuted in America? Perhaps! Historically, there
have been two stages in the attack on the church. First, the state and its
agencies are secularized. Second, the state attacks every prerogative or
privilege of the church in an indirect manner so that, in disguised fashion,
its right to exist is denied.[33]
For the most part, the Supreme Court has already secularized the state. Various
prerogatives of the church are now being attacked. Religion is being removed
from the schools and other public domains.
It is possible that churches
in America may someday face restrictions that have been imposed in communistic
countries – since communism is but a political form of humanism. These
restrictions are: first, churches and their members must be registered; second,
only in registered church buildings are Christians permitted to worship
collectively and to talk about the Lord; third, Christians are forbidden to
teach religion to their children; and fourth, Christians are given the least
desirable menial jobs.[34]
To some degree, these
restrictions are already being imposed in America. For example, churches have
to be registered with the IRS regarding tax laws. Sometimes the federal
government seeks to bring a church under control through IRS audits. Zoning
ordinances also restrict Christians from gathering within certain designated
areas for worship. The state, through its various bureaucratic agencies, is
asserting itself and making demands that Christians often seem too willing to
concede to the state.
Civil legislation leading
toward the persecution of Christians, if it comes, will likely be in the form
of restricting freedoms of religion to whatever the state perceives as
necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morality. On the surface,
this sounds good, but such laws would give the state authority to determine the
nature of morality. It would probably contain wording which would prohibit
intolerance or discrimination based upon religious belief. It would probably
not allow for any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on
religious belief.
Such a law would prohibit a
Christian employer from preferring a Christian job applicant. It would prohibit
a job applicant from preferring a Christian employer. It would make parents
subservient to civil authorities in teaching religion to their own children.
Many other implications might also be derived from such a law. Do not think
that such a law might not be passed. Such a law has already been passed in the
Australian Commonwealth.[35]
Unhappily, some Christians have little recognition of the issues at stake. Their attitude seems to be that Christians should not seek to influence laws and regulations passed by civil governments, saying that we cannot advance the Christian religion in government and politics because these must be religiously neutral! Don’t you believe it. Our religion must direct us in everything we do. Paul said, “Whatever you do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord” (Colossians 3:17). Neutrality in politics, or in any other area of life, is rebellion against God!
Christians today are finding
themselves often in situations like that faced by Peter and the apostles. The
Sanhedrin council had called them to task, asking, “Did we not strictly command
you not to teach in this name?” The council had presumed, like many civil
governments now presume, that they could license the preaching of the apostles.
But Peter and the other apostles said, “We ought to obey God rather than men”
(Acts 5:28-29). That
should be our resolution also.
However, just as the
apostles were persecuted for their refusal to obey those Jewish authorities, so
also Christians today must expect to be persecuted. When persecutions come -
and they will - then may our attitudes be as was theirs. May we rejoice that we
are counted worthy to suffer shame for His name (Acts 5:41).
To what extent will persecution come? Will we be beaten, as were the apostles? Will some of us be killed, as was Stephen (Acts 7:54-60) and James (Acts 12:2)? Already some, like the Baptist preacher in Lewisville, Nebraska, have gone to prison because they refused to yield their Christian convictions.
Christians should keep two
things in mind. First, persecution seldom occurs everywhere at the same time.
Second, the enemy attacks weak places first – where he can expect to achieve an
easy victory. That victory, however, may establish a legal precedent by which
the enemy is enabled to attack and win stronger positions.
Because you may not be
persecuted when others are, and because you may think yourself strongly
fortified, you may think you need not fight alongside other Christians in the
battle for religious freedoms. That’s what the enemy wants you to think. That
kind of thinking leads to defeat for Christians. Martin Niemoeller well
describes that kind of thinking – and its futility. He said,
In Germany they came first
for the communists,
and I didn’t speak up
because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade
unionists,
and I didn’t speak up
because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the
Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was
left to speak up.[36]
When Patrick Henry saw
religious persecution, he spoke up. What will we do?
[1]© Copyright. This manuscript was a speech given by the author at the annual lectures of the Shenandoah Church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas in February of 1989, and published in their lectureship book, Terry M. Hightower, ed., Embattled Christianity: A Call To Alarm The Church To Humanism, Shenandoah Church of Christ, 11026 Wurzbach Road, San Antonio, TX 78230, 213-227. Additional material is given related to footnote 35.
[2]Donald Sills. “Leaders Should Learn from Heritage,” Religious Freedom Alert, Vol. II, No. 1, February, 1986, 2, quoting a tract published by Christian Religious Freedom Council.
[3] Same source as above. The complete speech of Patrick Henry may be found in A. Craig Baird, American Public Addresses. (NY: McGraw Hill, 1956), 29-36.
[4]Eric Johnston, Chapter Update - Alabama, The Rutherford Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1. Spring, 1988, 23.
[5]Litigation Status Report, “CWA Defends Widow Who Won’t Rent to Unmarried Couples,” Concerned Women For America, February, 1988, p. 6; also June, 1988, 9-10.
[6]Jerry Bergman. The Criterion: Religious Discrimination in America, (Richfield, MN: Onesimus Publishing, 1984), xi-xv.
[7]“School Board Erred In Seeking Bibles,” The Rutherford Institute Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 3, September/October, 1986, 17; also Vol. 4, No. 2, March-June, 1987.
[8]Linda McMillan, “Alabama School Discovers First Amendment,” Religious Freedom Alert, Vol. III, No. 4, July, 1987, 11.
[9]Mike Yorkey, “Angie’s Graduation Speech Censored,” Focus On The Family, June, 1988, 2-4.
[10]Beverly LaHaye letter to Concerned Women of America (September, 1988), with copy of memo from Ken Roberts to Kathy Madigan, dated 9/18/87.
[11]George Hansen, To Harass Our People: The IRS and Government Abuse of Power. (Washington, DC: Positive Publications, 1984) special section, “Assault on Religion,” SS12-SS20.
[12]Robert Melnick. Chapter Update - Ohio. The Rutherford Institute Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 3, July-September, 1987, 21.
[13]Steven Graber. Chapter Update - Virginia. The Rutherford Institute Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 4, October-December, 1987, 21.
[14]John W. Whitehead, The Separation Illusion. (Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1977), pp. 150-151, citing Independent Record, Thermopolis, WY, January 22, 1976.
[15]Donald Sills, “Understanding Freedom Threats Vital Key,” Religious Freedom Alert, Vol. 1, No. 4, February, 1985, 15.
[16]War on Religious Freedom: The Mask of Neutrality, Virginia Beech, VA: The Freedom Council, 5.
[17]“Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process” (Humanist Manifesto I, Second). “Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method” (Humanist Manifesto I, Fifth). “Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces” (Humanist Manifesto II, Second). “Although the theory of evolution cannot be said to have reached its final formulation, or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported impressively by the findings of science” (A Secular Humanist Declaration, 9).
[18]“It is only by assuming responsibility for the human condition and in marshaling the arts of intelligence that humankind can hope to deal with the emerging problems of the twenty-first century and beyond. If we are to succeed in this venture, must we not abandon the archaic dogmas and ideologies that inhibit creative explorations and solutions?” (Paul Kurtz, Preface to Humanist Manifestos I and II, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1973, 4) “We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. . . . Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so” (Humanist Manifesto II, First). “But we reject those features of traditional religious morality that deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities. Traditional religions...inhibit humans from helping themselves or experiencing their full potentialities” (Humanist Manifesto II, First). “Secular humanism...is opposed to all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values or espouse rule by dictatorship” (A Secular Humanist Declaration, 1st paragraph). “We are doubtful of traditional views of God and divinity” (A Secular Humanist Declaration, 6).
[19]John W. Whitehead, The Second American Revolution. Elgin, IL: David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1982), 46-47.
[20] “Traditional moral codes and newer irrational cults both fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow. False ‘theologies of hope’ and messianic ideologies, substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with existing world realities. They separate rather than unite peoples” (Humanist Manifesto II, Preface). “Secular humanism places trust in human intelligence rather than in divine guidance” (A Secular Humanist Declaration, Conclusion).
[21]Farewell Address (19 Sept., 1796), in John C. Fitzpatrick, ed. The Writings of George Washington. 39 vols. (Washington, DC: The United States Government Printing Office, 1931-44) 35:229.
[22]Article III of Northwest Ordinance of 1787, in Mortimer J. Adler et. al., eds. The Annals of America, 20 vols., by 1977 (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968- ), 3:194-195.
[23]Address to the Militia of Massachusetts, 1798, via “Some People Think God Has No Place In Our Government,” Virginia Beach, VA: The Freedom Council.
[24]Humanist Manifesto II, Ninth.
[25]330 U.S. 1 (1947)
[26]330 U.S. at 15
[27]370 U.S. 421 (1962)
[28]370 U.S. at 431
[29]392 U.S. 236 (1968)
[30]392 U.S. 243
[31]53 Law Week 4853 (1985)
[32]53 Law Week at 4853
[33]John W. Whitehead. The Stealing of America. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1983), 100.
[34]Jan Pit, Persecution: It Will Never Happen Here? (Orange, CA: Open Doors, 1981), 42-43, cited by John W. Whitehouse, above.
[35] Ian Hodge, “The End of Religious Liberty ‘Down Under’,” Chalcedon Report, No. 342, January, 1994, 31-36.
[36]William J. Federer, America’s God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations. Coppell, TX: FAME Publishing Inc., 1994, 480, cited from John Bartlett, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1980. 824.