Liberty
Advocate
http://www.libertyadvocate.com/
Religion, Reading, ‘Riting, and ‘Rithmetic:
A Defense of the Bible in Public Schools
by
Karen Pansler Lam, J.D.
We are witnessing the
devastating moral destruction of America. And much of this can be blamed on
public schools. Prayer and the Bible were removed from public schools and
replaced with psychobabble, polytheism, and other pagan propaganda.
Public schools are not neutral
toward Christianity. Public schools are anti-Christian. They indoctrinate
students with multiculturalism, another name for polytheism – the worship of
many gods, or idolatry. Public schools teach Christianity is not the one
true religion; all religions are equal with Christianity: Buddhism,
Hinduism, Mohammedanism (Islam), and other false religions. Public schools
teach idolatry.
When the Bible was removed from
public education, the liberals replaced Biblical truths with relativism,
atheism, communism, socialism, activism, ecumenism and other anti-God isms.
Now public schools teach students there are no standards, including no moral
standards.
And we wonder why youth suicide
is at an all-time high?
And we wonder why youth destroy
themselves with drunkenness, fornication, drugs, and other self-destructive
acts?
And we wonder why youth commit
school massacres and other violent acts?
America’s youth are schooled in
immorality and rebellion against God. Consequently, America is in moral
chaos.
What’s the answer?
There is only one answer:
America must be moral again. And you cannot separate morality from religion.
Therefore, we must demand the Bible be restored to its rightful place in our
public schools… Religion, Reading, ‘Riting, and ‘Rithmetic.
Early American Schools
Taught Religion
Our Founding Fathers understood
the importance of the Bible in education. At first, in most of the colonies
there was little regular education of the children. But in the hearts of our
forefathers was a deep-seated reverence for Christian education, and they
presently began to build schoolhouses.
The first public school was in
New England. In 1647, Massachusetts passed a law requiring every township
having 50 householders to provide a teacher and a school building where the
children were to be taught to read the Bible. This law was known as the
Old Deluder Satan Act.
Our forefathers wisely understood Satan is a deluder and tries to keep us
from the true knowledge of the Scriptures.
Note the intent of the law was to teach children to read and understand “the
true sense and meaning of the original” Scriptures so they would not be
deceived by “saint-seeming deceivers” (false interpreters).
The Old Deluder Satan Act
states:
It being one chief project of that old
deluder Satan to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures,
as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter
times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so at least the true sense
and meaning of the original might be clouded by false glosses of
saint-seeming deceivers, that learning might not be buried in the grave of
our fathers in the church and commonwealth,
the Lord assisting our endeavors:
It is therefore ordered that every
township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord has increased them to the
number of 50 householders, shall then forthwith appoint one within their
town to teach all such children as shall resort to write and read…
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/deluder.html
Early Americans were
wise enough to understand that we must learn the true sense and meaning of
the Scriptures so we will not be deceived by false interpreters. So, they
opened schools for chiefly religious purposes.
The curriculum in the common
elementary schools of the New England colonies was summed up as the “four
R’s” – Religion, Reading, 'Riting, and 'Rithmetic.
The child’s first schoolbook
was the hornbook, a leaf of paper printed on one side and pasted on a thin
oak board with a stubby handle. The hornbook included the alphabet in small
letters and capitals, combinations of consonants and vowels, and the Lord’s
Prayer.

The first book that succeeded
the hornbook in general use in the schools of the colonies was
The New England Primer.
Printed in 1690, it was the beginning textbook for students well into the
twentieth century. It was the principal text in all types of American
schools: public, private, home, etc. In addition to the
alphabet it contained a syllabarium, prayers, and religious catechisms. And
most of the letters of the alphabet were illustrated with Biblical scenes.
Later, other textbooks were
printed for American schools. For example, Noah Webster wrote
Grammatical Institute of the
English Language
consisting of three parts: Spelling (1783), Grammar (1784), and Reading
(1785). In 1790 Webster’s
Little Reader’s Assistant
contained
stories with moral
lessons and dialogues giving rules of behavior.
McGuffey Readers
also reflected the moral spirit
of the age. They taught promptness, goodness, kindness, honesty,
truthfulness, reverence, and piety.
However,
about 1890, as the United
States became flooded with "new" immigrants, Christianity was subverted in
textbooks. To explain, often the term “the
old immigration” is used to distinguish the wave of “the new immigration”
about 1890. The old immigrants all came from northern and western Europe.
Whether from England, Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia, or France, most of them
fitted readily into the life and customs of America. America was the
“melting pot.”
For example, my ancestors
arrived in America from Germany in the 1700s. They learned English as their
primary language. They became members of Old Salem Lutheran church in Lebanon,
Pennsylvania. They adopted American traditions. They did not segregate and
cause division by declaring themselves "German-Americans." They were
Americans.
Moreover, my ancestors were
American patriots and zealously supported and defended our nation’s
interests. They worked hard and were self-supporting. And some were
seriously injured or lost their lives in wars defending our liberty.
But the new immigration
beginning about 1890 was different from the old immigration. The new
immigrants came from southern Italy, Poland, and Russia. They were clannish
and stayed by themselves. They insisted as being known as “Italians” or
“Polish” and so forth instead of being “Americans.” They segregated in
sections of the city known as “Little Italy” or “Little Poland” where the
customs and languages of the countries from which they came were
perpetuated. Their loyalty was to their fatherland. And some refused to
learn to speak English.
Opposition arose by
Americans who feared the huge influx of Roman Catholics,
imbeciles, criminals, liberals, reformers, socialists, anarchists and other
radical malcontents, would change the political, social and religious
character of our nation. Because immigrants came from countries of Eastern
Europe where lower standards of life and work prevailed, they threatened to
destroy our standards…including academic standards.
Because the new immigrants
refused to become true Americans and rebelled against our Christian
heritage, many schoolbooks became multicultural and rarely mentioned the
name of God, and the name of Jesus Christ was suppressed. Even
McGuffey Readers
were secularized.
McGuffey's name was featured on these revised editions, yet he neither
contributed to them nor approved their content.
Since there was not the
like-mindedness of new immigrants to become Americanized, the government
passed quota restrictions for nationalities. Gradually, the government
raised the bar to safeguard our own workers, industries, and civilization. Unfortunately, later the bar was lowered
and has remained low.
Additionally, the nineteenth
century was the golden age of American liberal theology. For example,
Darwin’s false theory of evolution was promoted as true by liberal
theologians. Some evangelical leaders succumbed to evolution propaganda,
others attacked Darwinism. Also, liberals challenged the Bible as the
inerrant Word of God. Theology, the scientific study of the Scriptures,
replaced the guiding of the Holy Spirit into all truth. Seminaries became
cesspools of liberal theology.
Consequently, immigrants who
rebelled against America’s Christian culture and liberal
theologians who rebelled against true Christianity laid the groundwork to
destroy America’s Christian character.
But America was founded by
Christians to be a Christian nation forever.
Dr. Benjamin Rush: Defender of the
Bible in Colonial Public Schools

From its
early Christian founding, the enemies of Christ fought to secularize
America, including education. Our forefathers bravely contended with Deists
and other infidels. One defender of the use of the Bible in colonial public
schools was Dr. Benjamin Rush
(1745-1813). Dr. Rush was a distinguished physician and signer of the
Declaration of Independence. Dr. Rush was an outspoken Christian,
statesman, and pioneering medical doctor. He was a prolific author,
publishing the first American chemistry textbook. In 1797, President John
Adams appointed Rush as Treasurer of the U.S. Mint, a position he held until
1813. He also founded America's first Bible society. At the time of his
death in 1813, he was heralded as one of the three most notable figures of
America, the other two being George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.
In his tract, A Defence of
the Bible in Schools, Dr. Rush wrote the Bible “should
be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing
the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to
produce private and public temporal happiness.”
You can read
the entire tract @
https://www.biblebelievers.com/Bible_in_schools.html
Dr. Rush argues:
1. That Christianity is
the only true and perfect religion; and that in proportion as mankind adopt
its principles and obey its precepts they will be wise and happy.
2. That a better knowledge of this religion is to be acquired by reading the
Bible than in any other way.
3. That the Bible contains more knowledge necessary to man in his present
state than any other book in the world.
4. That knowledge is most durable, and religious instruction most useful,
when imparted in early life.
5. That the Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any
subsequent period of life.
One argument by Dr. Rush in
favor of the use of the Bible in schools is “founded
upon an implied command of God and upon the practice of several of the
wisest nations of the world.”
In the sixth chapter of
Deuteronomy, we find the following words, which are directly to my purpose:
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this
day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy
children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when
thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up."
It appears, moreover, from the history of the Jews, that they flourished as
a nation in proportion as they honored and read the books of Moses, which
contained the only revelation that God had made to the world. The law was
not only neglected, but lost, during the general profligacy of manner which
accompanied the long and wicked reign of Manasseh. But the discovery of it
amid the rubbish of the temple by Josiah and its subsequent general use were
followed by a return of national virtue and prosperity. We read further of
the wonderful effects which the reading of the law by Ezra, after his return
from his captivity in Babylon, had upon the Jews. They showed the sincerity
of their repentance by their general reformation.
…
But the benefits of an
early and general acquaintance with the Bible were not confined to the
Jewish nation; they have appeared in many countries in Europe since the
Reformation. The industry and habits of order which distinguish many of the
German nations are derived from their early instruction in the principles of
Christianity by means of the Bible. In Scotland and in parts of New England,
where the Bible has been long used as a schoolbook, the inhabitants are
among the most enlightened in religions and science, the most strict in
morals, and the most intelligent in human affairs of any people whose
history has come to my knowledge upon the surface of the globe.
Interestingly,
many modern Christians argue that children should not be taught doctrine in
school. But Dr. Rush refuted this argument:
I know there is an
objection among many people to teaching children doctrines of any kind,
because they are liable to be controverted. But let us not be wiser than our
Maker. If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of
the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary. He came to
promulgate a system of doctrines, as well as a system of morals. The perfect
morality of the Gospel rests upon a doctrine which, though often
controverted, has never been refuted; I mean the vicarious life and death of
the Son of God. This sublime and ineffable doctrine delivers us from the
absurd hypothesis of modern philosophers concerning the foundation of moral
obligation, and fixes it upon the eternal and self-moving principle of LOVE.
It concentrates a whole system of ethics in a single text of Scripture: "A
new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, even as I have
loved you." By withholding the knowledge of this doctrine from children, we
deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their
minds. We do more; we furnish an argument for withholding from them a
knowledge of the morality of the Gospel likewise; for this, in many
instances, is as supernatural, and therefore as liable to be controverted,
as any of the doctrines or miracles which are mentioned in the New
Testament. The miraculous conception of the Saviour of the world by a virgin
is not more opposed to the ordinary course of natural events, nor is the
doctrine of the atonement more above human reason, than those moral precepts
which command us to love our enemies or to die for our friends.
Especially
applicable to today's denunciation of doctrines, this comment is
worth repeating: “If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the
mission of the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary. He
came to promulgate a system of doctrines, as well as a system of morals.”
Dr. Rush also argued that the education of our youth in Christian principles
would prevent crimes:
But passing by all
other considerations, and contemplating merely the political institutions of
the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in
punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be
republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and
perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal
education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the
Bible; for this divine book, above all others, favors that equality among
mankind, that respect for just laws, and all those sober and frugal virtues
which constitute the soul of republicanism.
Above all, Dr. Rush
argued the Bible should be given preference to all other books in school…
I wish to be excused from
repeating here that if the Bible did not convey a single direction for the
attainment of future happiness, it should be read in our schools in
preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of
that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public
temporal happiness.
Where are men
of such wisdom and boldness today?
Today’s
religious and political leaders will be held accountable to God for cowering
behind ecumenism and refusing to stand up for the Bible in public schools.
Daniel Webster Defends the
Religious Instruction of Youth in Schools

In the 1700s, men such as Dr.
Benjamin Rush understood our Christian obligation to America’s youth and
defended the teaching of the Bible in public schools. In the 1800s, men such
as Daniel Webster defended religious instruction in schools. Webster was constantly in
public life, as representative, senator, or in the cabinet. He was a great lawyer and orator. And as a statesman he stood second to none.
In 1844, in the case of Stephen
Girard’s will, Webster powerfully and eloquently argued before the United
States Supreme Court the absolute necessity of the religious instruction of
the young in public
schools. Mr. Girard’s will bequeathed two million dollars to the city
government of Philadelphia to build a college (school) for boys between the
ages of six and ten years. However, Girard stipulated that ministers of
religion were to be excluded from any station or duty in the college and
even denied to them the right of visiting the college.
Let’s examine excerpts from
Webster’s powerful argument…
The learned counsel said that the State
of Pennsylvania was not an infidel State. It is true that she is not an
infidel State. She has a Christian origin—a Christian code of laws— a system
of legislation founded on nothing else, in many of its important bearings
upon human society, than the belief of the people of Pennsylvania—their firm
and sincere belief, in the divine authority and great importance of the
truths of the Christian religion. And she should the more carefully seek to
preserve them pure.
Did you notice the State of
Pennsylvania had a Christian origin?
Now, in order to a right understanding of
what was Mr. Girard's real intention, and original design, we have only to
read carefully the words of the clause I have referred to. He enjoins that
no ministers of religion, of any sects, shall be allowed to enter his
college, on any pretence whatever. Now, it is obvious, that by sects, he
means Christian sects. Any of the followers of Voltaire or D'Alembert may
have admission into this school whenever they please, because they are not
usually spoken of as "sects.'' The doors are to be opened to the opposers
and revilers of Christianity, in every form and shape, and shut to its
supporters. While the voice of the upholders of Christianity is never to be
heard within the walls, the voices of those who impugn Christianity may be
raised high and loud, till they shake the marble roof of the building.
Just like today, the doors of
the public school are closed to the Christian voice, while the doors
are opened to the opposers and revilers of Christianity: “While the voice of
the upholders of Christianity is never to be heard within the walls, the
voices of those who impugn Christianity may be raised high and loud, till
they shake the marble roof of the building.”
It is all idle, it is a mockery, and an
insult to common sense, to maintain that a school for the instruction of
youth, from which Christian instruction, by Christian teachers, is
sedulously and rigorously shut out, is not deistical and infidel, both in
its purpose and its tendency. I insist, therefore, that this plan of
education is, in this respect, derogatory to Christianity, in opposition to
it, and calculated either to subvert or to supersede it.
A similar argument should be
heard loud and clear today…
A school in which Christianity
is sedulously and rigorously shut out is infidel, both in its purpose and
its tendency. This plan of education is derogatory to Christianity, in
opposition to it, and calculated to either overthrow it or to replace it
with something allegedly superior. Irrefutably, public schools have
dethroned Christianity and enthroned ecumenism – polytheism, or idolatry.
In the next place, this scheme of
education is derogatory to Christianity, because it proceeds upon the
presumption that the Christian religion is not the only true foundation, or
any necessary foundation, of morals. The ground taken is, that religion is
not necessary to morality.
Webster argues that true
Christians have always insisted on the absolute necessity of including
religious truth in the education of youth…
So the Christian world has not thought;
for with that Christian world, throughout its broadest extent, it has been,
and is, held as a fundamental truth, that religion is the only solid basis
of morals, and that moral instruction, not resting on this basis, is only a
building upon sand. And at what age of the Christian era have those who
professed to teach the Christian religion, or to believe in its authority
and importance, not insisted on the absolute necessity of inculcating its
principles and its precepts into the minds of the young? In what age, by
what sect, where, when, by whom, has religious truth been excluded from the
education of youth? No where ; never, Every where, and all times, it has
been, and it is, regarded as essential. It is of the essence, the vitality,
of useful instruction. From all this, Mr. Girard dissents. His plan denies
the necessity and the propriety of religious instruction as a part of the
education of youth. He dissents, not only from all the sentiments of
Christian mankind, from all common conviction, and from the results of all
experience, but he dissents, also, from still higher authority—the word of
God itself.
And Webster argues the highest
authority – the Word of God: “Suffer little children to come unto me.”
There is an authority still more imposing
and awful. When little children were brought into the presence of the Son of
God, his Disciples proposed to send them away ; but he said, " Suffer little
children to come unto me"—unto me; he did not send them first for lessons in
morals to the schools of the Pharisees or to the unbelieving Saducees, nor
to read the precepts and lessons phylacteried on the garments of the Jewish
priesthood; he said nothing of different creeds or clashing doctrines ; but
he opened at once to the youthful mind the everlasting fountain of living
waters, the only source of immortal truths ; " Suffer little children to
come unto me." And that injunction is of perpetual obligation. It addresses
itself to-day with the same earnestness and the same authority which
attended its first utterance to the Christian world. It is of force every
where, and at all times. It extends to the ends of the earth, it will reach
to the end of time, always and every where sounding in the ears of men, with
an emphasis which no repetition can weaken, and with an authority which
nothing can supersede—" Suffer little children to come unto me."
Webster addresses the argument that religion should not be taught because of differing
doctrines…
But this objection to the multitude and
differences of sects is but the old story—the old infidel argument. It is
notorious that there are certain great religious truths which are admitted
and believed by all Christians. All believe in the existence of a God. All
believe in the immortality of the soul. All believe in the responsibility,
in another world, for our conduct in this. All believe in the divine
authority of the New Testament. Dr. Paley says that a single word from the
New Testament shuts up the mouth of human questioning, and excludes all
human reasoning. And cannot all these great truths be taught to children
without their minds being perplexed with clashing doctrines and sectarian
controversies? Most certainly they can.
The truth is, that those who really value
Christianity, and believe in its importance, not only to the spiritual
welfare of man, but to the safety and prosperity of human society, rejoice,
that in its revelations and its teachings there is so much which mounts
above controversy, and stands on universal acknowledgment. While many things
about it are disputed, or are dark, they still plainly see its foundation,
and its main pillars: and they behold in it a sacred structure, rising up to
the heavens. They wish its general principles, and all its great truths, to
be spread over the whole earth. But those who do not value Christianity, nor
believe in its importance, to society or individuals, cavil about sects and
schisms, and ring monotonous changes upon the shallow and so often refuted
objections founded on alleged variety of discordant creeds and clashing
doctrines.
In the past, all Christian
denominations believed the fundamental doctrines. Today, Christians denounce doctrines – “doctrine doesn’t matter” –
and replace doctrines with social justice jingles feeling “spiritual unity”
is more important than Biblical Truth.
Modern Christians don’t truly value Christianity, and believe in its importance, not only to the spiritual
welfare of man, but to the safety and prosperity of human society. Thanks to
Rick Warren and other false teachers, they believe the liberal theology of
humanistic social justice is the answer to the safety and prosperity of
human society.
Webster further points out that
in the charter of Pennsylvania, as prepared by its founder, William Penn,
the preservation of Christianity is one of the great and leading ends of
government.
We have in the charter of Pennsylvania,
as prepared by its great founder, William Penn—we have in his "great law,"
as it was called, the declaration—that the preservation of Christianity is
one of the great and leading ends of government. This is declared in the
charter of the State. Then the laws of Pennsylvania—the statutes against
blasphemy, the violation of the Lord's day, and others to the same effect,
proceed on this great, broad principle, that the preservation of
Christianity is one of the great ends of government. This is the general
public policy of Pennsylvania. On this head we have the case of Updegraffe
against the Commonwealth, 11th Sargent & Rawle, page 394; in which a
decision in accordance with this whole doctrine was given by the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania. The solemn opinion pronounced by that tribunal begins
by a general declaration that Christianity is and has always been part of
the common law of Pennsylvania. I have said, your Honors, that our system of
oaths in all our courts, by which we hold liberty and property, and all our
rights, are founded on or rest on Christianity and a religious belief. So
does the affirmation of Quakers—that rests on religious scruples drawn from
the same source, the same feeling of religious responsibility.
Webster establishes the general
principle that Christianity is part of the law of the land…
But how, or when it may be established,
there is nothing that we look for with more certainty than this general
principle, that Christianity is part of the law of the land. This was the
case among the Puritans of England, the Episcopalians of the Southern
States, the Pennsylvania Quakers, the Baptists, the mass of the followers of
Whitefield and Wesley and the Presbyterians—all—all brought and all adopted
this great truth—and all have sustained it. And where there is any religious
sentiment amongst men at all, this sentiment incorporates itself with the
law. Every thing declares it! The massive Cathedral of the Catholic; the
Episcopalian Church, with its lofty spire pointing heavenward; the plain
temple of the Quaker; the log church of the hardy pioneer of the wilderness;
the mementos and memorials around and about us—the grave yards—their
tombstones and epitaphs—their silent vaults—their mouldering contents—all
attest it. The dead prove it as well as the living! The generation that is
gone before speak to it, and pronounce it from the tomb! We feel it! I All,
all, proclaim that Christianity—general, tolerant Christianity—Christianity
independent of sects and parties—that Christianity to which the sword and
the fagot are unknown—general, tolerant Christianity, is the law of the
land!
Webster declared: “Christianity
is the law of the land!”
The Court and Webster disagreed
about the interpretation of the will. Webster correctly argued the spirit of
the will openly assailed Christianity. However, the Court rejected this
interpretation and insisted the exclusion of Christian ministers from the
school on the grounds of sectarian conflict did not necessitate exclusion of
Christian education in general. The Court dismissed Webster’s argument that
the will was hostile to Christianity, thus deciding the trust to be valid.
Of course, we know the real reason the Court
ruled in favor of the city trust: Money speaks louder than words - even the
Word of God - when the money is for government spending.
However, a local committee of eight members of
several different denominations was so moved by Webster's powerful and
eloquent argument before the United States Supreme Court that it requested and obtained his
permission to print and distribute the speech.
(Read the entire speech @
https://archive.org/details/mrwebstersspeech00web).
They believed in
Christianity and its necessity as a basis for moral education.
Listen...
America must be moral again.
And the Christian religion is the only true
foundation of morals. Religion is necessary to morality.
Therefore, we must demand the
Bible be restored to its rightful place in our public schools… Religion,
Reading, ‘Riting, and ‘Rithmetic.
Engel v. Vitale
Separation of Church and State?
As explained earlier, about
1890, as the United States became flooded with new immigrants, Christianity
was submerged and many schoolbooks became secular. They rarely mentioned the
name of God, and the name of Jesus Christ was suppressed. But many public schools still
included prayer, Bible reading, the celebration of Christmas and other
Christian holy days, and other Christian activities.
Then…
In the late 1950s, the United
States Supreme Court superseded Christianity in public schools under the false governing
principle of “separation of church and state” – a phrase not found in the
Constitution or Bill of Rights or any United States governing document.
In New Hyde Park, New York, as
part of the schools’ opening exercises over the intercom, students were
asked to rise and bow their head and recite the twenty-two-word Regents’
Prayer. No student was required to recite the prayer; students could stand
silent if they chose.
Five parents with a total of
ten children in the New Hyde Park School District, near the New York City
boundary, found the prayer offensive and in 1959 filed a lawsuit against the
local school board. The objecting parents had varied religious backgrounds:
two were Jewish; one was Unitarian; another was a member of the Ethical
Culture Society; and the fifth was atheist.
All of the parents argued the
school prayer violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. This
amendment prohibits the government from passing laws establishing a national
church. And the prayer, they maintained, was contrary to their particular
religious beliefs and practices.
Read the prayer…
Almighty God, we acknowledge
our dependence upon Thee,
and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our
country.
The Supreme Court of the United
States agreed to hear the case. Its final decision in the summer of 1962
sent shock waves across the country: The Court ruled prayer in schools
unconstitutional. Citizens were outraged. Politicians, religious leaders,
and average citizens alike called the decision “shocking” and “tragic.” The
national outrage proved that in 1962 the majority of Americans believed the
United States was a Christian nation.
The Supreme Court examined the
Establishment Clause to determine the outcome of
Engel v. Vitale.
Instead of justly applying the true intent of the Founding Fathers when they
wrote the Constitution, and faithfully interpreting the plain and simple
language of the Clause, the Supreme Court wickedly superseded Christianity
in public schools and replaced it with infidelity, in keeping with the
radical theology of the day.
An
American liberal theological movement
radically declaring "the death of God" rose to prominence in the late 1950s
and 1960s. Just as progressive theologians
radically demanded a secular interpretation of the Bible, progressive
Supreme Court Justices radically demanded a secular – ecumenical - interpretation of
the Constitution in keeping with the cry, “God is dead!"
And
the progressive,
ecumenical significance of the Court’s radical declaration was loud and
clear: God is dead in America’s public schools.
Recall Daniel Webster’s argument…
It is all idle, it is a mockery, and an
insult to common sense, to maintain that a school for the instruction of
youth, from which Christian instruction, by Christian teachers, is
sedulously and rigorously shut out, is not deistical and infidel, both in
its purpose and its tendency. I insist, therefore, that this plan of
education is, in this respect, derogatory to Christianity, in opposition to
it, and calculated either to subvert or to supersede it.
Engel v. Vitale
maliciously
intended to supersede Christianity under the false governing
principle of “separation of church and state” – a phrase not found in any
United States governing document. “Separation of church and state” was a
phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 in a letter to Danbury Baptists
assuring them the government would not meddle in church affairs.
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
The First Amendment says the
federal government may not establish a
national church and
demand mandatory attendance or tithes. Remember that colonial America was
Christian America, and even secular sources acknowledge the plain meaning...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion": Article 1 of the first ten amendments to the
Constitution of the United States (1791) prohibits the establishment of a
state religion, such as the Church of England. In other words, the law may
not establish a national church
and demand mandatory attendance or mandatory tithes.
American colonists were not forced to be members of the Church of England or
any other state religion; and could freely worship in the Christian church
of their choice.
The
Church of England
is the officially established religious institution[3]
in
England,
and also the
Mother Church
of the worldwide
Anglican Communion.
The
British monarch
is the
titular leader of the
Church of England."
The
First Amendment
to the
U.S. Constitution
explicitly forbids the
federal government
from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids
either designating an official
church for the United States,
or interfering with
State
and local official churches ¡ª which were common when the First Amendment
was enacted. It did not prevent
state governments
from establishing official churches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion
The intent of the First Amendment
never was to subvert or supersede Christianity. However, in 1962, the United
States Supreme Court maliciously misinterpreted the Establishment Clause to
supersede Christianity in public schools and replace it with ecumenical
infidelity - polytheism, or idolatry. In modern terminology, Secular
Humanism.
The ungodly United States
Supreme Court decision changed the future, not only of prayer in public
schools, but of Bible-reading and other religious exercises.
Christians
are Commanded to Possess the Land
Some Christians
argue America must be a polytheistic nation alleging this is Biblical. This
is wrong…
When the Israelites went up out
of Egypt a large, mixed multitude of foreigners accompanied them. Among the
Israelites there were at all times those who were not Hebrew. They were
tolerated and granted some privileges. But they had to comply with certain
laws.
Foreigners shall not blaspheme
the Name of the Lord (Lev. 24:16).
Foreigners shall not indulge in
idolatrous worship (Lev. 20:2).
Foreigners shall not commit
acts of indecency, such as homosexuality (Lev. 18:26).
Foreigners shall not eat the of
blood of animals that had died a natural death or had been torn by wild
beasts (Lev. 17:10, 15).
Foreigners shall not eat
unleavened bread during the Passover (Ex. 12:19).
In consideration for obeying
these laws, Gentiles were protected and tolerated.
Simply put, the Hebrews held
dominion over strangers.
They were not allowed to come
into the land and trample on or overthrow the Hebrew culture.
And before entering Canaan, God
commanded the Israelites:
Go in and possess the land
which the Lord God of your fathers gave to you.
Deuteronomy 4:1
In other words, God gave the
Israelites
dominion over Canaan. They were
given rightful ownership of Canaan.
God gave the Pilgrims and
Puritans dominion over America, and it is our inheritance as long as we are
a righteous nation. But we will lose our inheritance if: 1) we turn our
backs on God; He will take it away from us, or; 2) we ignorantly or
knowingly allow pagans to dispossess us of our land.
However, nowhere does the Bible
instruct us to allow pagans to rob our children of
their Christian inheritance, including their right to Christian education in
public schools.
In years past, school children
sang patriotic songs, recited patriotic poems, celebrated American holidays,
and so forth. Today, students are indoctrinated with globalist
propaganda such as multicultural literature and songs; and students are not
allowed to celebrate Christmas, Easter, and other American and Christian
holidays. They are renamed “Winter Holiday,” “Spring Holiday,” and other
secular days instead of their rightful celebration as holy days.
Many Christians have been deceived
into believing the Bible teaches America must be ecumenical.
Listen…
The intent of ecumenism is to
subvert or supersede Christianity.
This is the spirit of
antichrist.
Children must be schooled in
Biblical truths.
Martin Luther: Schools
Without the Holy Scriptures are Wide Gates to Hell

Martin Luther
felt strongly that no one should his child to a school where the Bible is
not supreme…
I would advise no one to
send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution
that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God’s word becomes corrupt.
Because of this we can see what kind of people they become in the
universities and what they are like now. Nobody is to blame for this except
the pope, the bishops, and the prelates, who are all charged with training
young people. The universities only ought to turn out men who are experts in
the Holy Scriptures, men who can become bishops and priests, and stand in
the front line against heretics, the devil, and all the world. But where do
you find that? I greatly fear that the universities, unless they teach the
Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide
gates to hell.
Alas, our public schools are
wide gates to hell!
Suffer Little Children to
Come unto Me
Just as God gave the ancient
Hebrews the Promised Land to establish as a righteous nation, God gave our
Christian forefathers the New Promised Land – America - to establish as a
righteous nation. And our Founding Fathers were determined to found America
on the Rock of Jesus Christ.
In the hearts of our
forefathers was a deep-seated reverence for Christian education, and they
built schoolhouses for teaching the four R’s: Religion, Reading, ‘Riting,
and ‘Rithmetic.
But infidels have worked
tirelessly to transform America from a Christian nation into an idolatrous
nation. And one of their devilish tactics has been to subvert or supersede
Christianity in our public schools. The United States Supreme Court’s ruling
in Engel v. Vitale
and subsequent
public-school cases shows the spirit of antichrist that seeks to rob our
children of their Christian heritage, including a public Christian
education. Instead, public schools indoctrinate students with
multiculturalism, another name for polytheism; and devilishly incite
children to rebel against Christianity as the only true religion.
Martin Luther was right: Schools
without the Holy Scriptures are wide gates to hell.
We can no longer turn a blind
eye to the moral devastation of America as a result of antichrist public
education: suicide, drugs, school massacres and other violent acts,
illegitimate births, and other rebellion against God.
America must be moral again.
And you cannot separate morality from religion.
The Bible must be restored to
its rightful place in our public schools.
Listen…
“Suffer
little children to come unto me” has an authority which no one can
supersede, not even the United States Supreme Court.

Suffer
little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me:
for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:14
May
2018
Liberty
Advocate
http://www.libertyadvocate.com/