-by Patrick J. Zuniga
Public Domain: Courtesy of Library of Congress
Judeo-Christian: A characterization of a person, a group of people, or a nation who predominantly embrace basic Old and New Testament biblical teachings and values as the foremost standard, compass, or guide in their private behaviors, diverse relationships, and civic order; regardless of whether such an embrace fully agrees with, or does not fully agree with, certain aspects and specific doctrines of religious orthodoxy.
What do advocates of America’s religious heritage mean by the statement: America is a Judeo-Christian Nation. And what do they hope to achieve by embracing such a claim? Certainly not a theocracy as practiced in Muslim countries, or a hegemony of ecclesiastical dominion and control as it existed over Europe throughout the Middle Ages. Nor do they suggest the rigid Protestantism of Cromwell’s England, or the hypocrisy and doctrinal error prevalent among radical identity movements promoting racial distinctions, theological superiority, power cultism, and/or secret societies. A true Judeo-Christian nation must have a convincing measure of faith in the bible and Christ. There must be a desire for universal biblical teachings and Christian character at its’ inception, and during its subsequent development, if it is to be genuinely Christian. When a country, any country, has a general consensus among the constituency of its people – with all their human faults and failings – who claim the Christian creed rooted in old and new testament origins as their religious base; seek to faithfully inculcate within their civic body those same traditions and beliefs; and bequeath to future generations those traditions, then said nation can rightfully be called Judeo-Christian or Christian. Is this true of America?
As one ponders the interwoven multi-cultural diversity in America today inherited from ancient civilizations, viz, indigenous natives, Africa, Roman and Grecian antiquity, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and the Orient, it is understandable how the idea of a ‘Christian’ Nation classification will be quickly challenged. Especially since many of these past and present cultures are often in conflict theologically and philosophically with core Christian doctrine. Considering further how the U.S. government is a neutral entity and represented by the eagle (Caesar) and not the dove (the Church), it becomes even more difficult seeing America as a ‘religiously’ Christian Nation.
Nevertheless, even with this diverse cultured blend, and with the elected governing powers constitutionally forbidden toward favoring any particular religious persuasion, America in heart and essence always has been, and is, a democratic republic established by a predominance of Judeo-Christian people whose chief desire has been the enactment of just laws, provide an atmosphere of freedom for one and all, transmit the Christian faith and biblical values to their offspring through established churches, religious institutions, and the public school system – i.e., in U.S. beginnings and origins.
Judiciously reviewing the opinion of the Illinois supreme court ruling of 1883 ( ruling opinion and commentary notes are in the ‘Notes’ section) there is an abundance of evidence supporting this claim. The United States in fact, in experience, in history, and in substantial quantity, is a nation of multitudes united by a general Christian philosophical heritage, which also upholds the essential principles of Holy Scripture, and therefore can claim both a virtual and practicing Judeo-Christian Nation status by reason of this prevailing heritage.
In 1620 the Pilgrims of Plymouth Bay dedicated the land, themselves, and their descendants in the Christian Savior’s name. On Cape Henry, Va. similar ceremonies were inaugurated thirteen years before the Mayflower pact. And William Penn introduced his “Holy Experiment” (golden rule society) – a tiny colony named Philadelphia, founded in the latter part of the 17th century. Obviously these dedications by and of themselves mean little unless they are lived out in good faith and then followed up by their progeny. And they were.
Despite the moral shortcomings inbred in all people groups, adherence to the Judeo-Christian lifestyle by successive generations flourished in the new continent well into the 18th century and beyond. (1) When the constitution was framed and became functional law it was formed and established respecting many scruples and moorings of colonial Christian America; and their diligent groping for checks and balances resulted in the 1st amendment which says: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion…”. That proviso is very clear and wise; for at one in the same time it protects non-Christians with a legal framework in their philosophical pursuits, and secures universally cherished Christian beliefs and differing viewpoints by “not prohibit(ing) the free exercise thereof.” The 1st amendment has in effect allowed this foundational and traditional Faith among America’s constituency a secure prosperity; not primarily through political or temporal power, but rather through principles of freedom and grace – Christianity’s true medium for growth.
America is not, and never was meant to be, a ‘controlling’ secular republic -as atheist, secularists, et al, push – which invites all religions free participation, and the majority religion is coincidentally Christianity. In other words, a confederacy of secularists and non-Christians did not get together back in the 18th century and say, “Let us establish a free secular republic among the former English American colonies. And let any religion practice openly therein, but this republic will ever remain a pure secular state.” If this were indeed true the burden of proof is on those who would claim America’s republic was originally intended by her founders as a dominating secular nation (people), and then progressed in that irreligious strain for the sake of non-religious freedoms. Not true. As a matter of polling accuracy more than 90% + of America’s indigenous colonial population and her founders – although holding differing views – were fervently orthodox in Christian doctrine by the time of the Revolution, with a sprinkling of Deist, unorthodox leanings, and other religious persuasions in the mix. And it was in such a God fearing religious societal context wherein this national multitude developed, matured, and eventually birthed the Constitution of the United States of America.
Therefore, the doctrine of “Separation of Church and State,” which has gradually metastasized into an anti-Christian bias, has been unconstitutional in many of its influential court rulings. Numerous judgments passed down from the bench adjudicating in this specific venue have been a twisted rendering of the founding fathers original intent that, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion.” (eg. Permitting a privately funded nativity scene in the town Commons hardly constitutes the legal establishment of a particular religion.) (2)
Neither is America (and never was) a deliberate amalgamation of many religions simply because the constitution allows all groups a practicing freedom under the umbrella of its’ democratic principles. Notwithstanding the many other religious philosophies pouring in from around the world over the decades, promoting their own identity agendas, America is much more overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian in reputation and character. So with all due respect toward the wholesome endowments made by non-Christian institutions, movements, organizations, and philosophies, it can be honestly stated: Without the auspices of a strong Judeo-Christian faith and influence, America – a truly free America as we know it today and someday more perfectly so – would not exist. Arrogant? No, just wonderfully true. Simply because the heart and substance of a true Christian faith when authentically practiced will always produce genuine freedom in every area of personal and social life.
Years into the expansion of our unique E Pluribus Unum various aspects of canon law led the way as a faithful guide for her legal rulings and liberties. Scriptural wisdom(s), including the gospels, were taught in most state public school systems without contest up until the 1960’s; and are still academically welcomed by millions of students outside these common educational institutions in home schools, Sunday schools, parochial communities, and private campuses. Without question the warp and woof of America’s spirituality has always been, and still is, predominantly Judeo-Christian.
In view of this undeniable truth when Americans say “God Bless America,” or “One Nation Under God,” what exactly are they saying? Who is this God? He is obviously not some impersonal god of politically correct modernism, or the deity of a religious-credo which contradicts the Christian faith. He is clearly the God of scripture, the God of Israel, the God of the apostles, the God of the Church, the God of our founding fathers, the Creator of all things, Who calls Himself authoritatively Lord Almighty God. This profession then, ‘One Nation Under God’, is the unashamed statement of faith by America’s Judeo-Christian citizenry and anyone who worships that One in the same Father God.
A number of dissenting positions on this issue will concede that America at one time was in some socio-religious degree a flawed Christian population but not an officially established entity as such.
There is no argument that American citizens have been flawed like any other national citizenry, and that demographics in just about every area of sociological life have morphed in the U.S. over the past one hundred plus years, especially in the domain of religion. The statistics of Christian Americans per capita is not anywhere near the 90% level of the 18th century. Add an increasing crime rate, immorality, and a host of other sins the idea or claim of a Christian nation is diminished. And as far as being officially Christian, America’s motto or constitutional decree has never been One Nation Under the Christian Faith. Yet, who we are today, “One Nation Under God,” is who we were in the beginning. Roots determine the whole tree in all its growth and development, irrespective of flaws or harmful intrusions. And by no means do true believers in Christ call anything without a Christian label as a harmful intrusion, for many cultures and religions have contributed good and honorable things, enriching the American experience. But rather we specifically mark those destructive elements which are universally recognized as harmful, or any unholy practice unequivocally condemned by the God of scripture.
Sadly, or tragically, many iniquities have cropped up in unfolding generations that have infected American society with detrimental consequences: injustices toward the poor and needy; wrongs committed against Native and African Americans; crime organizations; substance abuse; sexual immorality; and an abortion industry fueled by greed are a few examples. Aberrations like these have wrought unavoidable natural ills and have also brought in their wake a terrible chastening by Almighty God – for He is just.
All of this being what it is America still has a substantial amount of Christians, Christian heritage, Christian values, and Christian influence which convict her of being a Christian culture in Heritage and development. Or better said: A nation whose spiritual/religious infrastructure, past and present, though very much criticized, challenged, and assaulted by detractors was and is more abundantly Judeo-Christian than any other credo. In spite of her many dismal realities, the United States has not ceased being anything less than a Nation called by the grace of God to fulfill the biblical mandate of freedom, good works, and good news among its’ inhabitants; and be at peace with all cultures and nations which are at peace with this mandate.
A statement of Heritage faith:
We The People of the universal Judeo-Christian faith believe that these United States of America were established by the God of Holy Scripture to provide first and foremost a place of freedom and security for those who worship Him within any institutional, or by any free, expressive form; to constitute a nation of life, liberty, and well-being for all who will be at peace with this purpose and with one another, regardless of religious or non religious philosophy. And that His Mighty Hand will preserve America’s life, liberty, religious heritage, and unique standing in the world by powerful judgements and mercies poured out.
Notes:
(1) Colonial Christian America had a good sense of its spiritual and legal responsibilities in connection with its christian ‘scruples and moorings’. Leaders of the colonies, by these inherited traits, succeeded in giving birth to an enduring constitution, and a freedom based republic; even though many serious imperfections had yet to be overcome. The slavery issue was one, and there were numerous such wrongs. However, these historical evils were not a fatal blight upon colonial Christian America’s religious veracity. All civilizations and cultures in every epoch have had their own moral issues and outrages. This merely bespeaks of the sad condition of humanity over all. Colonial America was not exempt from mankind’s good and evil dilemma. America in the past definitely needed, and still needs, God’s grace.
(2) Due to Christian action organizations, some of these judgments have been modified in the Supreme Court, viz, ‘The Equal Access Act’. However, more changes and reversals are sure to be forthcoming as America’s heritage advocates continue to combine prayer and constitutional action.
Illinois Supreme Court Opinion:
“Our government is unlike the British government, as that government combines the ecclesiastical and secular powers. Its constitution is based upon the union of church and State, and it claims and exercises the power to enforce the faith and doctrines of the established church, by statutes imposing penalties for failing to perform religious duties and requirements, and compelling all to contribute support to the State church; on the contrary, however, a total severance of church and State is one of the great controlling foundation principles of our system of government. (3) The spiritual welfare of our people is left entirely to the hierarchy of the various churches. The government protects all alike in their religious beliefs and unbeliefs. It is no part of the function of our government to prescribe and enforce religious tenets. The great purpose of the formation of our system of government is to protect the people in the enjoyment of their temporal and spiritual rights, and to prohibit crime, vice and wrong to any portion of the community, and to pass and enforce laws for the promotion of the temporal interests of the people, and, as far as possible, secure their temporal welfare and happiness. Although it is no part of the functions of our system of government to propagate religion, and to enforce its tenets, when the great body of the people are Christians, in fact or sentiment, our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. And in this sense, and to this extent, our civilization and institutions are emphatically Christian, (4) but not for the purpose of compelling men to embrace particular doctrines or creeds of any church, or to support one or another denomination by public burthens, but simply to afford protection to all in the enjoyment of their belief or unbelief. (5) But the State has the unquestioned power to suppress crime, vice and immorality, even if such acts are claimed to be the exercise of religious belief. ” (6) ~ Richmond v. Moore, 107 Ill. 429, 1883 WL 10319 (Ill.), 47 Am.Rep. 445 (Ill. 1883).
- This quote is accurately submitted in context and properly sourced here. At times it has been erroneously attributed with an 1892 U.S. Supreme Court decision which involved Holy Trinity Church, and thereby misapplied by some heritage apologists. Although the above statement is considered merely a nineteenth century State court opinion, a fact which draws contempt from certain quarters in the 21st century by reason of its venue, the insight, nevertheless, given by this particular Justice is quite penetrating. In my estimation it is an excellent guideline for modern court cases addressing Christianity and religion in American civic life and law.
Notes on the Illinois Supreme Court Opinion:
(3) This is obviously made in reference to a constricting legal, and unproductive, binding of the two entities as it is in Great Britain. In this respect, the separation – or ‘ the constitutional freedom and rights’ – of church and state in the U.S.A. is absolute and fervently applauded. But in reading this statement carefully, it doesn’t at all mean that the Church has absolutely no voice or redress in the halls of government, no wisdom to offer its legislature and courts; that the bible may not be used as an instrument of inspiration and counsel by governing officials, or be taught and utilized in public institutions.
(4) A clear point of opinion in this case by the presiding Justice: the propagation of the Christian faith is not the government’s responsibility, nor can it be. The government’s sole duty is to protect the citizenry and secure their constitutional rights. But at the same time it is vividly inferred that so many of America’s customs and laws are based on the tenets of Christianity by reason of her religious roots, and as such these sentiments should not be molested or muzzled by unbelievers, or critics, who would utilize an unlawful manipulation of the “Separation of Church and State” doctrine in court proceedings, i.e., this dominant American creed should, and of a right ought to, be allowed full and free expression in public places (such as public schools and public work sites) and in government halls by governing officials, when such expressions are not deliberate extravaganzas with the intent to harass, incite, or provoke the general public, or infringe upon the privacy of others.
(5) Another clarification how the separation of church and state principle merely delineates (or should merely delineate) that citizens must not be forced to pay for, or participate in, any public display or service of a particular religious persuasion; therefore a tax supported nativity scene, etc., in a public square could clearly be interpreted as unconstitutional, whereas a privately funded presentation in a city commons should be welcomed as freedom of religious expression.
(6) Re: (4) – In cases where overt expressions in public settings are criminal or morally odious to the general public, and/or disparaging to the Christian faith, and/or vilifying toward other faiths, either by open pejorative displays, or controversial and questionable demonstrations, the courts would then have power to rule individually in these venues and take full advantage of any and all legal constitutional precedence.
Blessed is the nation whose God is Lord. Psalm 33: 12
“The religious underpinnings of American political and legal institutions have been duly noted by legal scholars, historians, judges, politicians, and clergymen alike. Church polities provided models not only for colonial civil governments but also for the present constitutional system… “ ~ Steven Samson: Christianity in Nineteenth Century American Law
Refuting the claim that George Washington was a Deist.
“Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us. I am sure Congress will open the Arms of love to them, and will look upon them as their own Children, and will have them educated accordingly. This is a great mark of your confidence and of your desire to preserve the friendship between the Two Nations to the end of time, and to become One people with your Brethren of the United States. My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it.” ~ John C. Fitzpatrick, editor : Writings of George Washington.. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779
- George Washington’s mention of Jesus Christ to the Delaware Chiefs has been skewed by secularists and other critics to appear that he was merely doing a point by point recount of what the Chiefs themselves petitioned, and not in any way giving a personal testimony of his own faith in Jesus Christ. Such an opinion can be easily dismissed. But even if this were the accurate interpretation of his words with the Chiefs, the fact that Washington attended a Church with the Nicene Creed as part of its recited liturgy, prayed privately according to the testimony of close contemporaries, and made positive allusions to a biblical faith (i.e., a God Who intervenes in the affairs of men) in a number of his public speeches and writings, say enough to demolish the misnomer ‘Washington the Deist.’
Deist: Someone who believes in a god that created the universe but has since remained indifferent to it, i.e., natural laws run the cosmos without Divine intervention.
Washington could be classified as an unorthodox free thinking Christian, or believer in God, in certain respects, but not even close to being a deist by reason of the term’s fundamental definition. And it should be clear that there is no such animal as a deist Christian, which some have attributed to him. That is like saying an atheist creationist.
Because a number of Founders were unorthodox in their own personal Christian beliefs, and disagreed with each other on various interpretations of biblical texts, etc., does not at all mean they despised basic Judeo-Christian ethics of faith and its inherited value system. It is right to say that a number of Founders were not stereotypical 21st century evangelical Christians. A few of the more iconic Fathers, like Jefferson, were far from being evangelical as we define the term today. But at the same time it is very wrong to quote -mine these pillars of U.S. history and make them appear hostile toward evangelical Christianity (as some do). They were never hostile toward any form of evangelical Christianity. The Founders were indignant toward any religious or non-religious group who sought to establish a judicial/legal hegemony over American citizens as it was in Europe and earlier forms of extreme puritanism; or for that matter, anything resembling latter day Communism, secular socialism, or progressive intolerance.
Neither were Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et.al., against Christian influence in the chambers of government or civic institutions. America’s Founders, with a leaning toward liberty and free thinking, clearly welcomed the inspiration of biblical guidance in their own lives, and were not opposed to its availability in all public domains.
* For a more detailed article on this particular focus (i.e., the Founder’s religious beliefs and true intent in forming a new democratic/republic)) see: The Heritage Foundation ~ Did America Have a Christian Founding? https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding
Wall Builders and the Myth Accusation
Polemical writers attacking David Barton and Wall Builders https://wallbuilders.com (apologists for America’s Judeo-Christian Heritage and the Founding Fathers who promoted that heritage) are smooth and well oiled. Mostly their polemics center on the hotly debated Separation issue. An issue that must be properly studied and understood in the context of historical, legal, and socio-religious constitutionality. However, much of the time these contentions digress into subtle, or open, attacks on America’s irrefutable Christian heritage. A heritage deeply rooted in scriptural guidance. A heritage, by virtue of an imperishable faith. A faith which has ancient ties to early Christianity. A heritage watered by the blood of patriots and martyrs. And a heritage that has been strongly influenced by a blossoming Reformation. America’s religious moorings are quite obviously then far from a shallow credo or the product of a passing spiritual fad. Whereas David Barton unveils abundant and undeniable documentation to back up his research on the Founding Fathers’ constitutional intent in this area, combining it with more research on the overwhelming religious sentiments of colonial America and future generations, opponents cite anemic sources from a scanty few fathers and philosophers who were agnostic intellectuals, deistic in their persuasion, or in some rare cases atheistic. In addition they use pseudo ‘myth’ tactics when characterizing Barton’s apologetics. These critics cherry pick, bypass, downplay, and skew historical realities in such an artful twist, whereby they construct a seemingly sound, yet very specious, ‘myth’ factor against Wall Builder’s. Most importantly they undermine, either deliberately or carelessly, Wall Builders’ main historical focus, which is not the Separation issue, but to primarily provide a host of educational resources, for all interested Americans, on the unmistakable and firm Judeo-Christian roots which have never ceased nurturing, strengthening, and guiding ‘We The People of the United States’. Consequently then, the root and fruit of America’s religious heritage – ipso facto – is Judeo-Christian. A fact that will naturally result in the earnest desire of a sizable portion of her religious population prefer seeing the governing powers and society at large mature predominantly along these lines. It is a reality set in stone. There is no myth about it!
Therefore, the proper function of this theoretical wall of separation and wall of unity (7) within the bounds of constitutionality – i.e., Government’s legal separation and prohibition from enforcing religious dogma on any American citizen; and the Church’s separation from government interference into her constitutional freedoms ; and the unity of Christian Americans by reason of their common heritage and historical inbred faith – is one of mutual support, not mutual exclusion. It is one of mutual understanding (or it was at one time) where the state is not shunning Christianity but shielding her freedoms and rights, so that the overall Christian (and other harmonious religious) population in turn will reciprocate not with meddling, but rather by inspiring our governing authorities toward a Godly and just rule. Regardless of occasional past church and state conflicts, and a Christian community needing correction from time to time, there has never been anything unconstitutional with this beneficial symbiotic relationship which has existed between the Judeo-Christian Faith and the government of The United States for over one hundred and seventy years ( i.e., up until a few Supreme Court rulings in the mid 20th century; which sadly fueled an erroneous social mind set toward secularization and roiled religious hostility among atheists, et.al. ). The free and independent status between these two entities was never meant to be interpreted as a condition of alienation. For the wise cooperation between the two has been (and must continue to be) the spiritual life, cleansing, healing, well being, and preservation of our nation. This supportive venture then is not to emanate from any ecclesiastical powers, but from the complete free will approval of individual Americans who are constitutionally united as One Nation Under God.
Apparently the persistent secular, or anti Judeo-Christian, activists – who are in the minority – rely on uninformed/uncaring Americans, including those who already have a predetermined bias against Christianity, in order to perpetuate a flawed interpretation of church and state separation (i.e., no religious symbols on public property, no public school prayer, no commencement prayers, no teaching of creation philosophy as an elective course in public schools, etc.). They also push the doctrine of ‘absolute secularization’ as the Founding Fathers original intent in the ‘establishment clause’ of the Constitution (i.e., Religion – Christianity and the bible – must remain a private matter and offer no guiding voice whatsoever in the affairs of state or public institutions). A thorough investigation of U.S. history (which Wall Builders have painstakingly undertaken) confidently confirms that such humanistic viewpoints are false extrapolations and misinterpretations of the Founders’ actual intent for this clause. Secularization is clearly a 20th century communist manifesto (see the constitution of the Soviet Union). It is a historical-bio more fitting to an 18th/19th century European Rationalism that brought with it a flood of religious antipathy, in the wake of a horrid Revolution, which did not bear the fruit of a George Washington type leader and a founding fathers’ democratic republic, but rather the person of Napoleon and a bloody tyrannical empire.
The proofs throughout history are abundantly clear for those who have eyes that see and ears that hear; no matter how much unbelievers mock or argue: To belittle the importance of Almighty God’s place – the giver of human freedom and rights – in all governmental undertakings, or deliberately stifle the practice of ‘wholesome Faith’ and ‘good Religion’ (8) in public expression, will – without fail – invite the gradual bondage of mankind’s worst elements into every aspect of national and civic life.
© Patrick Joseph Zuniga – 2009 *edited and updated 2021
Final Notes:
(7) This is my personal insight of Jefferson’s metaphor. When placed in context with his many expressions of faith in God, it would then naturally conclude with a caveat that this wall of separation should also be viewed as a unifying wall of faith, in the sense that he acknowledged, with other esteemed fathers, the success of American liberty so much depended upon, and ever will depend upon, God’s protection and blessing. Religious freedom in society and religion’s positive effects, at the same time keeping out religious usurpation and control within the halls of government at large, is what most founders envisioned in the practical outworking of the establishment clause. In my opinion, by reason of the many good things they had to say about wholesome religion, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison definitely called for a firm wall separating Church (religion) and state, yes, but one that would always include mutually benefiting portals of communication between the two entities.
(8) Descriptive adjectives like ‘wholesome and ‘good’ are imperative when referring to religion. Genuinely concerned U.S. citizens who fear the encroachment of religious abuse upon our freedoms have committed allies in the Christian heritage camp. During occasional periods of Puritan New England; under Henry the VIII’s Church of England; over the centuries of the middle Ages; and in many parts of the world today, corrupt prelates have manipulated and oppressed the masses for their own selfish and delusional gain. Here is where the ‘establishment clause’ must be fine tuned in its interpretation and understanding, and then wisely applied; here is where Thomas Jefferson’s ‘eternal vigilance’ statement must be consistently employed. Religious deception and abuse, of any flavoring, is anathema, and must be kept out of government and society. At the same time, ‘good and ‘true’ religion, is a blessing, and must be allowed to flourish and bear the fruit of well-being and peace in both government and society. Going to the right or left of this truth is where the danger lies. Walking this necessary pathway in wisdom and faith is the avenue of safety and prosperity for America.
Bibliography and sources:
The U.S. Constitution; picture of Constitution Convention, public domain; Christianity in Nineteenth Century American Law: Steven Samson; Richmond v. Moore, 107 Ill. 429, 1883 WL 10319 (Ill.), 47 Am. Rep. 445 (Ill. 1883); Is America A Christian Nation?: ~ Chuck Norris in WND – 09/17/07; Understanding the Separation of Church and State ~ Christian Answers.net; George Washington Writings, Library of America, New York (1997); The Light and the Glory: Peter Marshall; The Constitution of the Soviet Union ~ representatives of the people of the USSR; Religion and the Founding of the American Republic: contributors of the Library of Congress: Washington Resources: Library of The University of Virginia; Did America Have a Christian Founding? : Mark David Hall; Christian Ethics Today: Issue 3, pg.17; Wall Builders Ministries; The King James Bible
zenithlife 