Source: https://ffrf.org/hlr/HobbyLobby.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:31:01+00:00

Document:
Do these quotes prove we are a Christian nation? Click them to find out.
“There is no dissonance in these [legal] declarations...These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic [legal, governmental] utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people...These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 1892Unanimous Decision Declaring America a Christian Nation Significantly, the U. S. Supreme Court cited dozens of court rulings and legal documents as precedents to arrive at this ruling; but in 1962, when the Supreme Court struck down voluntary prayer in schools, it did so without using any such precedent.
Source: George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation (Oct. 3, 1789). An image of the orginal document.An accurate transcription of the document.Washington's response to the Presbyterian Ministers. More information on Washington’s personal religious beliefs, as evidenced by his actions.
“Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his beneﬁts, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.” - George Washington: Commander-in-Chief in the American Revolution; Signer of the Constitution; First President of the United States Notice the important differences. Washington capitalized “Nations” as well as “Almighty God.” Washington did not capitalize “His” because he was not referring to the Christian god, or any specific god. The proclamation is clearly not Christian. Washington issued this proclamation at the behest of Congress on October 3, 1789, two years before the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making laws respecting religion, was part of our Constitution. New Jersey, the first state to ratify the amendments, would not do so for another seven weeks (November 20, 1789). Ten more states would ratify the amendments over the next two years before they officially became part of the Constitution. A few weeks after issuing the proclamation Congress foisted upon him, Washington responded to a letter from Presbyterian Ministers in Massachusetts and New Hampshire expressing their disappointment in the absence of “some Explicit acknowledgement of the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent inserted some where in the Magna Charta [Constitution] of our country” and approval for the proclamation deceptively quoted by Hobby Lobby. In his November 2, 1789 response Washington observed “that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.” He continued, writing of piety, “To the guidance of the ministers of the gospel this important object is, perhaps, more properly committed.” Washington thought that religion was best left to the private sphere. He agreed with the godlessness of our Constitution. The government would “give every furtherance” to “morality and science,” which might incidentally advance religion, but religion would be left to each individual.
Source: Letter from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (Oct. 11, 1798). A transcription of the original document.Other sources translate the phrase “Avarice, ambition, revenge, and licentiousness,” as “Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry.” The former seems more likely. We were unable to locate an image of the original letter. An image of Adams' letter to Jefferson. A transcription of the militia's response.
Hobby Lobby alters Adams’ original quote, from a letter written on October 11, 1798, to the officers of the Massachusetts militia: “But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams: Signer of the Declaration of Independence; One of Two Signers of the Bill of Rights; Second President of the United States Hobby Lobby left out an entire sentence of Adams’ words without notifying the reader. It is an important sentence. Adams uses “moral” and “religious” as synonyms and the missing sentence goes to that point. Adams does not mention ungodliness or blasphemy or sin, he focuses on moral issues, “avarice, ambition, revenge, etc.” Adams may have equated religion and morality, but thought that neither was divine or supernatural. Writing to Jefferson on December 12, 1816, he mentioned that he had “devoted” himself to theological study for “the last year or two” and listed more than 20 volumes of religious writing and history he read: “Romances all! I have learned nothing of importance to me, for they have made no change in my moral or religious creed, which has, for fifty or sixty years, been contained in four short words, ‘Be just and good.’ In this result they all agree with me.” The conclusion Adams drew from his study of religious texts was simple: “universal toleration.” Something that can only be achieved when we have a government that is truly secular, that is truly free from religion. Incidentally, a full reading of both the Militia’s and Adams’s letters makes it clear that they were discussing fidelity to their country and government, not religion. Hobby Lobby's claim that Adams was one of the two signers of the Bill of Rights is a bit disingenuous, too. First, Adams, as Vice President, signed it along with Frederick Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House, because representatives of the whole Congress approved the language. Those two signed it for the whole House – but so did John Beckley, Clerk of the House, and Samuel Otis, Secretary of the Senate.
Source: James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785). FFRF's July 4 ad page, with links to a transcript and images of the original document.
This out-of-context quote does a disservice to Madison. It is from his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. This beautiful document is something that everyone should read. The quote is part of Madison’s first argument against a tax to support teachers (ministers) of the Christian religion proposed by Patrick Henry (later cited by Hobby Lobby). But this particular quote makes up the second part of Madison’s first argument for religious freedom. The first part is all about individual conscience and reason: “Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, ‘that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.’ [Virginia Declaration of Rights, Art. 16] The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men:” Only after pointing out that “reason,” “evidence,” and “minds,” determine belief does Madison point out that beliefs are not only a right, but “wholly exempt” from the power of “civil government.” He is not saying that one must believe in a god to be a member of society, he is saying that society and government cannot dictate one’s beliefs because they are the product of the mind, which government’s cannot legislate. Hobby Lobby’s presentation of the quote, alluding that a particular belief is required, is therefore antithetical to Madison’s point. From Madison, picking up where the above stopped: “It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.” - James Madison: Signer of the Constitution; Fourth President of the United States Don’t take our word for it; read this document for yourself. When you’re reading, notice that Madison does not discuss the Christian god, he never mentions Jesus. He always uses deistic terms like “Creator,” or “Governour of the Universe.” This actually refutes Hobby Lobby’s Christianity.
Source: Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18 (1785). An image of the page of the original document where this quote originates.The cramped text near the bottom quarter of the page is the quote at issue. This was added during Jefferson's five years of revising the text. A transcription of the document.
Once again we see the deliberate capitalization and removal from context to make the quote appear more Christian than it truly is: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of god; That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! the Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest. -- But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind.”- Thomas Jefferson: Signer and the Principal Author of the Declaration of Independence; Third President of the United States Neither “His” was capitalized by Jefferson because he was not referring to the Christian god. Nor was Jefferson stating that our rights are a “gift of god,” only that this was “a conviction in the minds of the people.” Other clever editing helps to pull this quote out of context. Jefferson was discussing, in the context of “manners,” the evils of slavery and the possibility of a slave revolt. The quote begins: For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed . . . . Hobby Lobby then cuts off the quote, replacing a colon with a period. This quote has little to do with religion or divine retribution. Jefferson is basically saying, to paraphrase the bible he cut up with a razor to excise the supernatural, you reap what you sow.
Source: John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport (July 4, 1837). A transcript of the speech. A short video explaining why our nation is not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. John Quincy Adams' diary online.
“Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birth day of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfilment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Saviour and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?” - John Quincy Adams: Statesman; Diplomat; Sixth President of the United States This is from a speech JQA gave on July 4, 1837, and to answer his questions, no – our government is in no way based on Jesus’ birthday, his gospel, his mission, or the precepts of Christianity. Nor did we fulfill vague biblical prophecies, or heavenly announcements for which there is no evidence except hearsay. Our nation is not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Hobby Lobby has done some strange editing. They disingenuously end the last question in the quote early. JQA’s true quote rambles on with religious nonsense, including fulfilling prophecies, prophets, and announcements from Heaven: “That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?” Presumably Hobby Lobby cut the quote off early because it is religious nonsense and they didn’t wish to seem silly. Incidentally, JQA discusses the “two-fold” object of the Declaration later on the same page and he failed to mention a religious purpose. The purposes are “First, to proclaim the People of the thirteen United Colonies, one People, and in their name, and by their authority, to dissolve the political bands which had connected them with another People, that is, the People of Great Britain. Secondly, to assume, in the name of this one People, of the thirteen United Colonies, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station, to which the Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God, entitled them.” It’s almost as if he needed to get the religious stuff out of the way before getting to the true purpose and foundation of our country. Oh, and the phrase, “the Law’s of Nature of Nature’s God” was originally Jefferson’s and he was referring to natural law, which he did not think supernatural. He thought that “a free people claiming their rights” derived those rights “from the laws of nature.” Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774). He was explicit regarding the natural, not supernatural foundation of rights: “Questions of natural right are triable by their conformity with the moral sense & reason of man. Those who write treatises of natural law, can only declare what their own moral sense & reason dictate in the several cases they state.” Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on French Treaties (Apr. 28, 1793) (emphasis added). So no, the Declaration is not a religious document and did not found a Christian nation. Finally, John Quincy Adams was, like his father, a Unitarian — a fairly liberal sect that denies the trinity among other things. This liberality shows up in his diary:When I observe into what inconsistent absurdities those persons run who make speculative, metaphysical religion a matter of importance, I am fully determined never to puzzle myself in the mazes of religious discussion, to content myself with practising the dictates of God and reason so far as I can judge for myself, and resign myself into the arms of a Being whose tender mercies are over all his works. John Quincy Adams, Life in a New England Town, 1787-1788: The Diary of John Quincy Adams, (Charles Francis Adams ed. 1903).
Source: William Wirt, Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (1836). Jim Cox's article about the dubious attribution of the speech to Patrick Henry.
Source:Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers, and Consequent Duties of Citizens of the United States of America (Apr. 25, 1799). A published version of the sermon.
“In all those countries where there is little or no religion, or a very gross and corrupt one, as in Mahometan and Pagan countries, there you will find, with scarcely a single exception, arbitrary and tyrannical governments, gross ignorance and wickedness, and deplorable wretchedness among the people. To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness, which mankind now enjoy. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism. I hold this to be a truth confirmed by experience. If so, it follows, that all efforts made to destroy the foundations of our holy religion, ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessing which flow from them, must fall with them.” - Jedidiah Morse: Patriot and Educator, called “The Father of American Geography” One can’t help but wonder to what “efforts to destroy the foundations of our holy religion” Morse is referring in this 1799 sermon. The answer is probably the reason Hobby Lobby decided to omit this part of the quote. Yale historian David Brion Davis points out that the purpose of this sermon – for it was a sermon – was to present “elaborate ‘proof’ that the Illuminati had infiltrated the Democratic-Republican Societies (or clubs) which supported Thomas Jefferson.” David Brion Davis, The Fear of Conspiracy: Images of Un-American Subversion from the Revolution to the Present 45-48 (1971). The sermon laid out Morse’s conspiracy theory: “. . . I intend, my brethren, to lay before you what I humbly conceive to be our real and most alarming dangers; those which have a malign aspect, both on our religious and our political welfare. Believing, as I firmly do, that the foundations of our most precious interests are formidably assailed, and that the subtil [sic] and secret assailants are increasing in number, and are multiplying, varying, and arranging their means of attack, it would be criminal in me to be silent.” He discussed “the hostile designs, the insidious arts and demoralizing principles of a foreign nation. . . the French nation.” He “long suspected that secret societies, under the influence and direction of France, holding principles subversive of our religion and government, existed somewhere in this country” eventually naming the group: the “Society of Illuminati.” McCarthy may have been reading Morse when he began his hunt for communists. Reading Morse’s screed against these “secret enemies” and their attempts to tear down the clergy, one can’t help but think his Christian persecution complex mutated into an even more virulent strain of paranoia. Jedidiah (not Jedediah, Hobby Lobby) Morse, father of Samuel Morse, inventor of the telegraph, was a Yale educated pastor. He was not a politician, statesman, or active in the Revolution or formation of the Constitution in any way—he was certainly not a founding father as Hobby Lobby claims. While a talented geographer, he was basically a Christian pastor from the founding era. His sole involvement with the government came when he was appointed to visit with the Native Americans. Quoting him is as valuable and worthwhile quoting Joel Osteen or Pat Robertson on freedom and civil government – not very.
Source:Benjamin Franklin, Address to the Federal Convention of 1787 (June 28, 1787). An image of Franklin's original handwritten speech.A printed version of Madison's recording of Franklin's speech. (There are discrepancies between this transcription and the original manuscript, mainly in capitalization and punctuation. Our quotation is based on Franklin's original version.) More about Franklin's views on religion and government.
Source:William Jay, 2 The Life of John Jay (1833). The Life of John Jay online. Video explaining how we were not founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
According to the Hobby Lobby source website, the first quote is from John Jay: The Winning of the Peace. Unpublished Papers 1780-1784, edited by Richard B. Morris (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980), Vol. II, p. 709. According to Morris, this quote is from a letter Jay wrote to his eldest son, Peter Augustus Jay on April 8, 1784. We haven’t been able to locate the original or even a transcript. But it is interesting that this letter was unpublished prior to 1980 and that it was written before our Constitution or First Amendment were drafted. More importantly, it was a private letter from a father to a son espousing private advice. This has nothing to do with our nation or government. It is a private religious opinion. According to the Hobby Lobby source website, the second quote is from William Jay’s The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 376. It is from a letter Jay wrote to John Murray, Jr. on October 12, 1816. We haven’t been able to locate the original, but the book cited can be viewed online. This was written when Jay was no longer holding any public office or government position, but as vice president of the American Bible Society. In fact, Jay had been retired for 15 years. The letter is about the Christian view of just war. “Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”- John Jay: Co-Author of the Federalist Papers; First Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court So it’s time to admit it: the founders were not gods, not demi-gods, not perfect men (none of the three exist!). They were, like every other human throughout time, flawed. Here, John Jay is simply wrong. Providence, in the sense of a “theistic guiding hand,” did not give our people the vote. Providence in the sense of “blind chance” played a role. But our democratic republic was bequeathed to our people by the people. They fought, and won, a war for self-government. The omitted preceding sentence even suggests that Jay means a chance Providence, not a theistic one: “Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous.” John Jay was one of the more orthodox religious founders, first a member of the Anglican church then the Protestant Episcopal church. He was a Christian, but we are not and have never been a Christian nation. We were not even founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Notice also that he does not say electing Christian leaders are required, only that a voter can prefer them. The latter is historically true and the former, if truly a requirement, would violate the no religious test clause Art. 6, paragraph 3 of the Constitution. Even though Jay was religious, he was not necessarily keen on mixing religion and government. According to John Adams, “When the [First Continental] Congress first met, Mr. Cushing made a motion that it should be opened with prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay of New York, and Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina, because we were so divided in religious sentiments . . . .” John Adams, Sept. 16, 1774 letter to Abigail Adams. Jay and Rutledge served as First and Second Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, respectively; Rutledge was an Associate Justice.
Source:The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D.: Late One of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and Professor of Law in the College of Philadelphia, 104-106 (Bird Wilson ed., 1804).
“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. Of that law, the following are maxims—that no injury should be done—that a lawful engagement, voluntarily made, should be faithfully fulfilled. We now see the deep and solid foundations of human law. It is of two species. 1. That which a political society makes for itself. This is municipal law. 2. That which two of more political societies make for themselves. This is the voluntary law of nations. In all these species of law—the law eternal—the law celestial—the law natural—the divine law, as it respects men and nations—the human law, as it also respects men and nations---man is deeply and intimately concerned. Of all these species of law, therefore, the knowledge must be most important to man. Those parts of natural philosophy [science], which more immediately relate to the human body, are appropriated to the profession of physic. The law eternal, the law celestial, and the law divine, as they are disclosed by that revelation, which has brought life and immortality to light, are the more peculiar objects of the profession of divinity. The law of nature, the law of nations, and the municipal law form the objects of the profession of law. From this short, but plain and, I hope, just statement of things, we perceive a principle of connection between all the learned professions; but especially between the two last mentioned. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both. From this statement of things, we also perceive how important and dignified the profession of the law is, when traced to its sources, and viewed in its just extent. The immediate objects of our attention are, the law of nation, the law of nations and the municipal law of the United States, and of the several states which compose the Union. It will not be forgotten, that the constitutions of the United States, and of the individual states, form a capital part of their municipal law. On the two first of these three great heads, I shall be very general. On the last, especially on those parts of it, which comprehend the constitutions and public law, I shall be more particular and minute.” - James Wilson: Signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; Original Justice on the Supreme Court Although Wilson studied for the ministry while at school in his native Scotland, he never once capitalizes the phrase “divine law” in the book quoted. Nor does he intend that laws must be based upon the bible: “Laws may be promulgated by reason and conscience, the divine monitors within us. They are thus known as effectually, as by words or by writing : indeed they are thus known in a manner more noble and exalted. For, in this manner, they may be said to be engraven by God on the hearts of men : in this manner, he is the promulgator as well as the author of natural law.” Wilson was an influential founder and brilliant jurist. But as his attempts to disentangle eternal law, celestial law, divine law, natural law, municipal law, and the law of nations show, religion makes intelligent people talk rot.
Sources: Joseph Story, Value and Importance of Legal Studies (Aug. 25, 1829). Letter from Joseph Story (Mar. 24, 1801). Book containing first source.Book containing second source. Book containing Story's discussion of the No Religious Test Clause. Text of Jefferson's essay, Whether Christianity Is Part of the Common Law?
Source:Report on the Abolition of the Office of Chaplain, S. Rep. No. 32-376 (1853). A reprinting of the report.
This heavily edited quote comes from a Report on the Abolition of the Office of Chaplain. That’s right, the Senate was looking into abolishing congressional chaplains. Why? The answer is in the first line of the report: “The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred sundry petitions praying Congress to abolish the office of Chaplain . . . .” Congress was so besieged with petitions to abolish congressional chaplaincies that they actually issued three separate reports from 1850-1854. Christopher Lund, The Congressional Chaplaincies, 17 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1171, 1199-1200, n. 126-127 (2009). (Hobby Lobby quotes one from 1854 text.) These reports recommended keeping the chaplains using a political analysis cloaked in legalese. Despite the recommendations, the political pressure mounted and the House and Senate actually “suspended their regular chaplaincies and went with a rotation system where unpaid local ministers” gave invocations. Id. In the House, the change passed 84-39. The only recorded opposition claimed that the change did not go far enough. Id. “For the whole Thirty-fifth Congress, neither the House nor the Senate had an institutional chaplain.” Id. Hobby Lobby, unsurprisingly, alters the genuine quote to change its meaning: “True, selections [of a clergyman for the position of congressional chaplain], in point of fact, are always made from some one of the denominations into which Christians are distributed; but that is not in consequence of any legal right or privilege, but by the voluntary choice of those who have the power of appointment. This results from the fact that we are a Christian people,—from the fact that almost our entire population belong to or sympathize with some one of the Christian denominations which compose the Christian world. And Christian will of course select, for the performance of religious services, one who professes the faith of Christ. This, however, it should be carefully noted, is not by virtue of provision, but voluntary choice. We are Christians, not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay due regard to Christianity, and have a reasonable respect for its ministers and religious solemnities?”Senate Judiciary Committee Report, January 19, 1853 This quote is about demography; it is not a legal description. The Senate is attempting to justify its selecting and preference of Christian chaplains by claiming that all Americans are Christian so naturally their congressmen would choose Christian chaplains. The claim that Americans were all Christian is breathtakingly wrong. According to constitutional scholar Leo Pfeffer, “in 1790 not more than one out of eight Americans and possibly as few as one out of twenty-five belonged to any church . . . .” Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom 166 (1967). Here are some fun facts, from Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, The Churching of America 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy, 16 (2002 paperback ed.): • On the eve of the Revolutionary War, only 17% of Americans were churched. • In 1850, shortly before the quote at issue, only 34% of Americans were churched. • By the start of the Civil War, 37% were churched. (“Churched” is defined as being a member of, or claiming membership in, a religious body. Thus, this term is not equivalent to the self-identification surveys done nowadays. However, it is the best measure we have of historical religiosity.) So no, not all Americans were Christian. This report was simply politicians trying to get away with violating the Constitution by pandering to their base. And if we only owe a “reasonable respect” for religion and not special privilege, Hobby Lobby ought to join FFRF’s lawsuit against the parsonage exemption.
Source: H.R. Rep. No. 124, 33d Cong., 1st Sess. (1854). A reprinting of the report.
“At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect.[The ellipsis Hobby Lobby inserted here represents 1,601 omitted words.]In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.” House Judiciary Committee Report, March 27, 1854 The first sentence of this quote is very similar to a quote by Justice Story, only Justice Story was much more circumspect than the House Judiciary Committee that butchered his words: Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 1868 (1833) (emphasis added). So, to suit its own ends, Hobby Lobby distorted a quote from a House Committee Report, from a portion which in turn had cannibalized and distorted a quote from a Supreme Court Justice (who Hobby Lobby misquotes elsewhere in their July 4 ad). It’s like a game of telephone. Finally, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected this narrow constitutional interpretation of Justice Story’s: “At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.” Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52-54 (1985). In a footnote after the first sentence, the Court references the first part of Hobby Lobby’s quote, which the Court then rejects in the next sentence.
Source: New Englands First Fruits (1643). New England's First Fruits online. For the curious, more information about Bob Jones University's student guidelines. An image of Madison's letter to Everett. A transcript of the letter. An image of Jefferson's letter to Roscoe. A transcript of the letter.
Who cares! These are private, not state, schools. They can be as religious or nonreligious as they choose. Hobby Lobby cuts the Harvard quote off early so they should have an ellipsis, but the meaning stays the same. Also, Harvard was founded in 1636, but these are from the 1643 book New Englands First Fruits, not specifically Harvard. But that question can remain open because this no more proves anything about our nation’s founding or our government than quoting Bob Jones University’s rule that “Students are not to watch movies on campus. In private homes students may view G-rated movies and movie trailers.” All the guidelines for private religious institutions show is that they were private religious institutions (the Bob Jones University rule shows that it is striving to make Nineteen Eighty-Four a reality). The mixing of religion and education always causes problems, even for the Founders. James Madison, active in the founding of the University of Virginia – a public and secular school – wrote to Edward Everett, a professor at Harvard, explaining the importance of severing religious instruction from public education. We are unable to locate a copy of Everett’s original letter, but apparently Harvard had serious problems by mixing religion and education. Madison wrote: I am not surprised at the dilemma produced at your University by making theological professorships an integral part of the System. The anticipation of such an one led to the omission in ours; the Visitors being merely authorized to open a public Hall for religious occasions, under impartial regulations; with the opportunity to the different sects to establish Theological schools so near that the Students of the University may respectively attend the religious exercises in them. The village of Charlottesville also, where different religious worships will be held, is also so near, that resort may conveniently be had to them. A University with sectarian professorships, becomes, of course, a Sectarian Monopoly: with professorships of rival sects, it would be an Arena of Theological Gladiators. Without any such professorships, it may incur for a time at least, the imputation of irreligious tendencies, if not designs. The last difficulty was thought more manageable than either of the others. On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative but between a public University without a theological professorship, and sectarian Seminaries without a University. . . . With such a public opinion, it may be expected that a University with the feature peculiar to ours will succeed here if anywhere. Some of the Clergy did not fail to arraign the peculiarity, but it is not improbable that they had an eye to the chance of introducing their own creed into the professor's chair. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Roscoe, wrote of the University of Virginia, the first true university level state school in the country:This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it. So religion doesn’t belong in education. Oh, and Harvard and Yale agree. Those guidelines are long gone.
Source:Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892). The Holy Trinity decision. Brewer's book, The United States A Christian Nation.
The real issue with this quote is Hobby Lobby’s description of the case, which is inaccurate. This case involved the Alien Labor Contract Law. The court did not declare (i.e., it did not hold, but only stated in dicta) that this is a Christian nation. The court ruled that the Alien Labor Contract Law did not prevent churches from contracting to bring pastors from other countries to minister to their congregation. That’s it. It was an issue of statutory interpretation. The opinion, written by Justice David Brewer, makes the statement, but it is not really relevant to the case or holding. Coming from Brewer, the devoutly religious “[s]on of a Congregationalist minister-missionary” and former Sunday school teacher, the claim should not be surprising. Steven K. Green, Justice David Josiah Brewer and the “Christian Nation” Maxim, 63 Alb. L. R. 427, 433 (1999). Of course, if Hobby Lobby wanted to truly relate Justice Brewer’s meaning in these two paragraphs, they should have looked to the book he wrote to clarify them, The United States A Christian Nation. Brewer, referring to his Holy Trinity opinion asks and answers a question Hobby Lobby’s dearth of subtlety prevents them from comprehending: But in what sense can it [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. So we are not a Christian nation in any meaningful way. Brewer falls short. He relies mostly on our pre-constitutional, colonial history – that religious people came to this country originally, some on religious missions. When it comes to actually showing that our government and laws are substantively based on Christianity, Brewer demurs: I could show how largely our laws and customs are based upon the laws of Moses and the teachings of Christ; how constantly the Bible is appealed to as the guide of life and the authority in questions of morals; how the Christian doctrines are accepted as the great comfort in times of sorrow and affliction, and fill with the light of hope the services for the dead. . . . But I must not weary you. Brewer claims he “could show,” but if he could have, he would have. Many have tried to show that our Constitution and laws are Christian or biblical, but it simply cannot be done. Hobby Lobby’s description of Supreme Court precedent that “struck down voluntary prayer in schools” is misleading. Hobby Lobby doesn't provide a case citation, only a year: 1962. It appears to be referring to Engel v. Vitale, a 1962 case. Hobby Lobby’s description of the case is inaccurate, and the factual description they give is more simlilar to Abington v. Schempp, a 1963 case, than Engel. Either way, the Supreme Court has never “struck down voluntary prayer” in school. Schempp prohibited schools from “requiring the selection and reading at the opening of the school day of verses from the Holy Bible and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the students in unison.” Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 223 (1963) (emphasis added). These were not voluntary, they were “required” and “prescribed as part of the curricular activities of students who are required by law to attend school.” Id. If Hobby Lobby was referring to Engel v. Vitale, the description is misleading. There, a school board actually wrote a prayer for students to recite every day. The “prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs.” Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 425 (1962). This clearly violates the Constitution: “the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.” Id. Read the case: the prayer was not voluntary. A government-imposed duty, or even request, to pray is naturally coercive: “When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.” Id. at 431. Even the dissent recognized that students’ Free Exercise rights, i.e. their ability to engage in voluntary prayer, were not an issue in the case: “The Court does not hold, nor could it, that New York has interfered with the free exercise of anybody's religion. For the state courts have made clear that those who object to reciting the prayer must be entirely free of any compulsion to do so, including any ‘embarrassments and pressures.’” Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 445 (1962) (Stewart, J., dissenting) (citations omitted). Contrary to Hobby Lobby’s post-quote assertion, the court used precedent. The majority relied primarily on “our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights with its prohibition against any governmental establishment of religion.” Id. at 433. But it also cited copious history, texts, and James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. What Hobby Lobby means to say is that no other Supreme Court precedent was cited (even though, technically, the majority did cite Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) in a footnote and Justice Douglas' concurrence cited: McCollum, etc. v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 563 (1961)). Notice the dobule standard: Hobby Lobby's precedent standard for Church of the Holy Trinity was “court rulings and legal documents as precedent,” but for the unnamed 1960s decision legal documents such as the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not count as precedent – only court decisions would do. In Schempp, the 1963 case, the Supreme Court explained this further: “in Engel v. Vitale, only last year, these principles were so universally recognized that the Court, without the citation of a single case and over the sole dissent of Mr. Justice STEWART, reaffirmed them.” Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 220-21 (1963). In the Schempp decision, from pages 214 through page 222 the Court is only citing, discussing, and examining precedent. The Court cited: Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952); Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States (83d ed. 1962); James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments; Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947); Board of Education of Cincinnati v. Minor, 23 Ohio St. 211 (1872); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961); People of State of Ill. ex rel. McCollum v. Bd. of Ed. of Sch. Dist. No. 71, Champaign Cnty., Ill., 333 U.S. 203 (1948); West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment; The Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Brennan’s concurrence cites even more precedents, including plenty showing the importance of secular education long before the 1960s: • “. . . President Grant’s insistence that matters of religion should be left ‘to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions.’” Schempp, 374 U.S. at 273 (Brennan, J., concurring). • “. . . Theodore Roosevelt's declaration that in the interest of ‘absolutely nonsectarian public schools’ it was ‘not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in those schools.’” Id. • “. . . the message of an Ohio Governor who vetoed a compulsory Bible reading bill in 1925: ‘It is my belief that religious teaching in our homes, Sunday schools, churches, by the good mothers, fathers, and ministers of Ohio is far preferable to compulsory teaching of religion by the state. The spirit of our federal and state constitutions from the beginning (has) been to leave religious instruction to the discretion of parents.’” Id. at 273-4. • “. . . the opinions of the Attorneys General of several States holding religious exercises or instruction to be in violation of the state or federal constitutional command of separation of church and state.” Id. at 274. • “. . . the courts of a half dozen States found compulsory religious exercises in the public schools in violation of their respective state constitutions” including Illinois, Louisiana, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Washington, Nebraska. Id. In conclusion, whichever case Hobby Lobby is referring to, a student’s ability to voluntarily pray in their own way in school has never been in danger.
Source:Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 43 U.S. 127 (1844). The decision.
“Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the college—its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained, and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the college by lay-teachers? Certainly there is nothing in the will, that proscribes such studies. Above all, the testator positively enjoins, ‘that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instil into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that on their entrance into active life, they may from inclination and habit evince benevolence towards their fellow-creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.’ Now, it may well be asked, what is there in all this, which is positively enjoined, inconsistent with the spirit or truths of Christianity? Are not these truths all taught by Christianity, although it teaches much more? Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?”Vidal v. Girard’s Executors As the omitted language indicated this is not about schools, it’s about one particular school created by a will. Understanding Hobby Lobby’s alteration of this quote requires understanding the underlying case. Hobby Lobby’s disingenuous description is worthless and wrong. This case involved a will, and therefore only Pennsylvania law, not the U.S. Constitution. Freethinker Stephen Girard’s will created a charitable trust that would fund a college to educate 300 orphan children, so long as “no ecclesiastic, missionary, and minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever . . . nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor . . . .” Teachers were to instruct students on “pure morality, general benevolence, a love of truth, sobriety, and industry” without reference to religion. Girard had amassed a substantial fortune, real property worth $1.7 million and personal property worth $5 million (around $140 million today). He died in 1831, without a wife or children, but his brother and four nieces challenged the will, specifically the orphan college provision, as “derogatory and hostile to the Christian religion” as “antichristian, and therefore repugnant to the law of Pennsylvania.” If they had succeeded, the relations (or possibly Philadelphia, another issue before the Court) would inherit the portion of the estate meant to go into the orphan college trust, about $2 million. Girard prohibited religion in his schools because “there is such a multitude of sects, and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans, who are to derive advantage from this bequest, free from the excitement which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce . . . .” So did the Court decide to “commend and encourage the use of the bible in government-run schools”? No! The Court upheld the provisions of Girard’s will excluding all religious instruction and even visitation by ministers to his school for orphans, finding it perfectly valid and in keeping with Pennsylvania law.
Source: Alexis de Tocqueville, 1 De la Démocratie en Amérique (1835). The original text, in French. The “confuse” translation, by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (2011).The “confound” translation, by Arthur Goldhammer (2012). How Google translates confondent.
Source: Achille Murat, The United States of North America (1833). An online copy of Murat's book.
Who cares! What any religious text written thousands of years ago says about religion and government is completely irrelevant to the government of the United States of America, which is founded on a document that prohibits “an establishment of religion.” Hobby Lobby is even misusing the quote from Psalms. “Nation” in that context does not refer to a state or country, it refers to a group of people. Here’s the full quote according to the New Revised Standard Version:Happy is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage. This doesn’t refer to a country, but to the group of people who wrote that particular book of the bible and not-so-humbly thought themselves “chosen.” And when “Lord” is written in all capital letters (or small caps) it is the moniker of the Hebrew god, Yahweh. So what this really says is:“Happy are the Hebrew people who worship Yahweh, for Yahweh has chosen them.” This is probably not what Hobby Lobby really means when they use the quote.

References: v. 
 Art. 16
 Art. 6
 § 1868
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.