The Day Congress Approved Religious Missionaries

Close

Like

Tara Ross

On or around this day in 1778, the Oneida Indians offer assistance to George Washington’s troops, then quartered for the winter at Valley Forge. One Oneida woman, in particular, really went above and beyond the call of duty!

The Oneidas were one of the few tribes to openly declare their support for Americans during the Revolution. The tribe was part of the Six Nations Confederacy. Most of those tribes sided with the British, but the Oneidas sided with the Patriots. In large part, their allegiance can be credited to the work of an American missionary, the Reverend Samuel Kirkland. He was good and kind to them, and they respected him. Kirkland’s efforts were important! Indeed, early in the war, Washington wrote to Congress, soliciting assistance for Kirkland’s missionary and peacekeeping efforts.

“[Reverend Kirkland] can need no particular Recommendation from me,” Washington wrote, “But as he now wishes to have the Affairs of his Mission & publick Employ put upon some suitable Footing, I cannot but intimate my Sense of the Importance of his Station, & the great Advantages which have & may result to the United Colonies from his Situation being made respectable. All Accounts agree that much of the favourable Disposition shewn by the Indians may be ascribed to his Labour & Influence.”

Congress was receptive to the idea and approved funds for Kirkland’s efforts to “promote the happiness of the Indians, and attach them to these colonies.”

The Oneidas were also doubtless influenced by other factors. For instance, an earlier boundary negotiation had not gone well for the Oneidas. Perhaps they were wondering if the British would respect their sovereignty. It’s not like the British had a great track record of respecting the American colonists, either!

The Oneidas heard that Washington’s army was having a tough time at Valley Forge. It was cold! They lacked sufficient clothing and food. Diseases wreaked havoc. Washington wrote of this time: “To see Men without Cloathes to cover their nakedness, without Blankets to lay on, without Shoes, by which their Marches might be traced by the Blood from their feet, and almost as often without Provisions as with; Marching through frost and Snow . . . is a mark of patience and obedience which in my opinion can scarce be parallel’d.”

The Oneidas decided to help. A group of tribe members, including a woman named Polly Cooper, set off toward Valley Forge. They brought as many as 600 baskets of corn with them. Once they arrived, Polly showed the Continentals how to cook the corn. The process of cooking white corn, making it edible for human consumption, was pretty different from the yellow corn that Americans normally ate. Polly endured the rest of the winter at Valley Forge with the American army, cooking for them and nursing sick soldiers.

According to oral legend, Polly would not accept payment for her services. However, the soldiers were so grateful that they gave her a black shawl. In some versions of the story, the soldiers themselves bought the shawl. In others, Martha Washington herself gave the shawl to Polly. The Oneidas still keep that shawl as a treasured artifact, to this day.

The Oneidas helped the American effort at other points during the war, too. Naturally, those are stories for another day. wink emoticon

Yes, obviously, the relationship between Americans and Indian tribes has had difficulties. But there were good moments, too. Shouldn’t we remember both the good and the bad, to get a balanced picture of our founding?

————-
If you enjoyed this post, please don’t forget to “like” and SHARE. Our schools and media don’t always teach our own history! Let’s do it ourselves.

Gentle reminder: History posts are copyright © 2013-2016 by Tara Ross. I appreciate it when you use the Facebook “share” feature instead of cutting/pasting.

Federalist Papers Number 65—Hamilton

Consider this about the Supreme and Impeachment

FOUNDERS LIBRARY: MAJOR WORKS

Friday, March 7, 1788

---

Powers of the Senate (Continued)

---

THE remaining powers which the plan of the convention allots to the Senate, in a distinct capacity, are comprised in their participation with the executive in the appointment to offices, and in their judicial character as a court for the trial of impeachments. As in the business of appointments the executive will be the principal agent, the provisions relating to it will most properly be discussed in the examination of that department. We will, therefore, conclude this head with a view of the judicial character of the Senate.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.

What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?

Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the representatives of the people, his accusers?

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives. A deficiency in the first, would be fatal to the accused; in the last, dangerous to the public tranquillity. The hazard in both these respects, could only be avoided, if at all, by rendering that tribunal more numerous than would consist with a reasonable attention to economy. The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding. This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security. There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law, and the party who is to receive or suffer it. The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.

These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments. There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion. It is this: The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender. After having been sentenced to a prepetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame, and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision? Those who know anything of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial. The loss of life and estate would often be virtually included in a sentence which, in its terms, imported nothing more than dismission from a present, and disqualification for a future, office. It may be said, that the intervention of a jury, in the second instance, would obviate the danger. But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of judges. They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of the court. Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt?

Would it have been an improvement of the plan, to have united the Supreme Court with the Senate, in the formation of the court of impeachments? This union would certainly have been attended with several advantages; but would they not have been overbalanced by the signal disadvantage, already stated, arising from the agency of the same judges in the double prosecution to which the offender would be liable? To a certain extent, the benefits of that union will be obtained from making the chief justice of the Supreme Court the president of the court of impeachments, as is proposed to be done in the plan of the convention; while the inconveniences of an entire incorporation of the former into the latter will be substantially avoided. This was perhaps the prudent mean. I forbear to remark upon the additional pretext for clamor against the judiciary, which so considerable an augmentation of its authority would have afforded.

Would it have been desirable to have composed the court for the trial of impeachments, of persons wholly distinct from the other departments of the government? There are weighty arguments, as well against, as in favor of, such a plan. To some minds it will not appear a trivial objection, that it could tend to increase the complexity of the political machine, and to add a new spring to the government, the utility of which would at best be questionable. But an objection which will not be thought by any unworthy of attention, is this: a court formed upon such a plan, would either be attended with a heavy expense, or might in practice be subject to a variety of casualties and inconveniences. It must either consist of permanent officers, stationary at the seat of government, and of course entitled to fixed and regular stipends, or of certain officers of the State governments to be called upon whenever an impeachment was actually depending. It will not be easy to imagine any third mode materially different, which could rationally be proposed. As the court, for reasons already given, ought to be numerous, the first scheme will be reprobated by every man who can compare the extent of the public wants with the means of supplying them. The second will be espoused with caution by those who will seriously consider the difficulty of collecting men dispersed over the whole Union; the injury to the innocent, from the procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought against them; the advantage to the guilty, from the opportunities which delay would afford to intrigue and corruption; and in some cases the detriment to the State, from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have exposed them to the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives. Though this latter supposition may seem harsh, and might not be likely often to be verified, yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.

But though one or the other of the substitutes which have been examined, or some other that might be devised, should be thought preferable to the plan in this respect, reported by the convention, it will not follow that the Constitution ought for this reason to be rejected. If mankind were to resolve to agree in no institution of government, until every part of it had been adjusted to the most exact standard of perfection, society would soon become a general scene of anarchy, and the world a desert. Where is the standard of perfection to be found? Who will undertake to unite the discordant opinions of a whole commuity, in the same judgment of it; and to prevail upon one conceited projector to renounce his infallible criterion for the fallible criterion of his more conceited neighbor? To answer the purpose of the adversaries of the Constitution, they ought to prove, not merely that particular provisions in it are not the best which might have been imagined, but that the plan upon the whole is bad and pernicious.

PUBLIUS

---

Return to Table of Contents.

---

Formatting for this online version of the Federalist Papers Copyright © 2014 Steve Farrell and The Moral Liberal.

Sam Houston

March 2 is the birthday of Sam Houston. Considered a Texas hero, he is also an American hero as well. In the years leading up to the Civil War, Houston was a U. S. Senator, and the most controversial issue of his day was slavery. In 1854, Congress introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Act topermit slavery not only in the Kansas-Nebraska area but also in parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota and South Dakota. In response, over 3,000 clergymen from New England (which was over three-fourths of New England’s clergy) submitted a petition to Congress opposing the Act and its extension of slavery. Numerous pro-slavery U. S. Senators denounced the actions of the ministers, including Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois who declared: It is evident that [the ministers] ought to be rebuked, and required to confine themselves to their vocation. . . It is an  attempt to establish a theocracy – to take charge of our politics and our legislation. It is an attempt to make the legislative power of this country subordinate to the church. It is not only to unite church and state but it is to put the state in subordination to the dictates of the church. (With this absurd rhetoric, Senator Douglas certainly could easily have worked with modern secularist groups such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, or the American Humanist Association, for these groups say today what Douglas said decades ago.) Many other Senators, however, took the opposite — the pro-Constitution –position. In fact, Northern Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was just about to stand and defend the ministers when Southern Senator Sam Houston arose and shouted, “Sumner! Don’t speak! Don’t speak! Leave them to me!” Sumner yielded; Houston took the floor and declared: …I certainly can see no more impropriety in ministers of the Gospel, in their vocation, memorializing [petitioning] Congress than politicians or other individuals. . . . Because they are ministers of the Gospel, they are not disfranchised of political rights and privileges and . . . they have a right to spread their opinions on the records of the nation. . . . The great Redeemer of the World enjoined duties upon mankind; and there is [also] the moral constitution from which we have derived all the excellent principles of our political Constitution – the great principles upon which our government, morally, socially, and religiously is founded. Then, sir, I do not think there is anything very derogatory to our institutions in the ministers of the Gospel expressing their opinions. They have a right to do it. No man can be a minister without first being a man. He has political rights; he has also the rights of a missionary of the Savior, and he is not disfranchised by his vocation. . . . He has a right to interpose his voice as one of its citizens against the adoption of any measure which he believes will injure the nation. . . . [Ministers] have the right to think it is morally wrong, politically wrong, civilly wrong, and socially wrong. . . . and if they denounce a measure in advance, it is what they have a right to do. Sam Houston stood boldly in favor of the free-speech rights of ministers to address any issue the government was also addressing. That constitutional right is just as available today as it was a century and a half ago, and ministers, churches, and people of faith should avail themselves of it. As we remember our historical heroes such as Sam Houston, we wanted to share with you a document found in WallBuilders extensive library directly related to to this incident. It shows several Senators ordering copies of Houston’s compelling speech so that they could distribute it far and wide.

The Bible of the American Revolution

The Bible of the American Revolution

BY PHYLISS SCHLAFLY

Did you know that Congress once printed Bibles? At the time of the American Revolution, the British government had strict laws about printing Bibles. Only a few printers were licensed to do so, and none of them was in the American colonies, so all Bibles had to be imported from England. The Revolutionary War naturally interrupted trade with England, and there was a severe shortage of Bibles in America.

In 1777, U.S. clergy petitioned the Continental Congress to have Bibles printed in America. In response, Congress passed a resolution to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, and other countries, but in the chaos of the war, they never arrived. So three years later, another resolution to print Bibles in America was introduced in Congress, and printer Robert Aitken petitioned Congress for permission to print them. Congress granted him permission and financial support to print Bibles. His Bibles included an endorsement and recommendation from Congress on the first page.

More American versions of the Bible were printed soon after. In the United States, printers had the freedom to print the Scriptures freely without government approval. That was a radically different situation from what they had been used to under British rule, and it was a great victory for religious freedom.

We now live in a country where prayer and Bible readings in public schools have been outlawed by the Supreme Court for over fifty years. We’re told it’s a violation of the Constitution to display the Ten Commandments in a county courthouse or to have a nativity scene at city hall. But interestingly, the Continental Congress did not consider for a moment whether their appropriation for printing the Bible was an affront to religious freedom. They knew it wasn’t. When we look at changes in America, we should be concerned about our loss of religious liberty.

---

The Moral Liberal recommends: Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade (Politics and Society in Twentieth-Century America)

A “Talk” to the Cherokee Nation August 29, 1796

American Minute with Bill Federer

In 1754, Colonel George Washington built Fort Necessity on Great Meadows, after a successful attack on the French in May.

While encamped at Great Meadows, he received a letter from his brother Lawrence’s father-in-law, Mr. William Fairfax:

“I will not doubt your having public prayers in the camp, especially when the Indian families are your guests, that they, seeing your plain manner of worship, may have their curiosity excited to be informed why we do not use the ceremonies of the French,

which being well explained to their understandings, will more and more dispose them to receive our baptism, and unite in strict bonds of cordial friendship.”

On May 12, 1779, General George Washington was visited at his Middle Brook military encampment by the Chiefs of the Delaware Indian tribe.

They had brought three youths to be trained in the American schools. Washington assured them:

“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….”

Washington continued:

“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…

And I pray God He may make your Nation wise and strong.”

After George Washington retired from being General of the Continental Army, he wrote from Mount Vernon to the President of the Continental Congress, February 8, 1785:

“Toward the latter part of the year 1783, I was honored with a letter from the Countess of Huntington, briefly reciting her benevolent intention of spreading Christianity among the Tribes of Indians inhabiting our Western Territory;

and expressing a desire of my advice and assistance to carry this charitable design into execution.

I wrote her Ladyship…that I would give every aid in my power, consistent with the ease and tranquility, to which I meant to devote the remainder of my life, to carry her plan into effect…

Her Ladyship has spoken so feelingly and sensibly, on the religious and benevolent purposes of the plan, that no language of which I am possessed, can add aught to enforce her observations.”

President Washington addressed Congress, November 6, 1792:

“Laws will expire during the present session. Among these, that which regulates trade…with the Indian tribes…

Your common deliberations…will, I trust, be productive…to our constituents…by conciliating more and more their ultimate suffrage…and confirm their attachment to that Constitution…upon which, under Divine Providence, materially depend…their happiness.”

On AUGUST 29, 1796, from the city of Philadelphia, President George Washington dictated a “Talk” to the Cherokee Nation:

“Beloved Cherokees: The wise men of the United States meet once a year, to consider what will be for the good of all their people…

I have thought that a meeting of your wise men once or twice a year would be alike useful to you…

I now send my best wishes to the Cherokees, and pray the Great Spirit to preserve them.”

---

The Moral Liberal contributing editor, William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s books here.

Charles Thomson

1729-1824

August 16th marks the 190th anniversary of the death of Charles Thomson. Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress and a strong Christian, was one of only two people who signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th (John Hancock was the other; the rest signed weeks later).

Thomson is also responsible for the Great Seal of the United States, which he prepared — and Congress approved — in 1782.

 

Thomson served fifteen years in the Continental Congress, and his political career came to a close when he notified George Washington that he had been unanimously selected the President of the United States.

But Thomson was not only a great patriot and supporter of the American cause, he was also a great supporter of the Word of God. In fact, his name is associated with some of America’s greatest Biblical works.

For example, his name, as Secretary of Congress, is found in the introduction to theAitken Bible, also known as “The Bible of the Revolution,” which was the first Bible printed in English in America. That Bible was printed by Robert Aitken, the official printer of the Continental Congress (Aitken described that Bible as “a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools”), and was reviewed and approved by a committee of the Continental Congress, with an official congressional endorsement published in the front of that Bible. (All of the original books pictured below that are associated with Charles Thomson are from our library at WallBuilders.)

Thomson was also responsible for the first American translation of the Greek Septuagint (the full Greek Bible) into English in 1808 – a task that consumed nearly two decades of his life.  Called Thomson’s Bible, it is a four volume-set that is considered one of the most scholarly of American Bible translations, and that translation is still available today.

Thomson also had an 8 volume set  in which every other page was blank, thus allowing scholars a place to write notes on Scriptures as they studied them.

In 1815, Thomson published his famous Synopsis of the Four Evangelists, in which he took all the passages from the four Gospels and arranged them chronologically, thus producing something like one super long Gospel, with all Jesus’ words and acts arranged sequentially. Today, we call such a work a synoptic Gospel.

                                                            

Sadly today, Charles Thomson has become a forgotten Founding Father, but his contributions, both politically and spiritually, permanently shaped the course of America and blessed American life.

Congress passed the Equal Access Act August 11, 1984

American Minute with Bill Federer

AUGUST 11, 1984, by an 88-11 Senate vote and a 337-77 House vote, Congress passed the Equal Access Act, stating:

“It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum,

to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meeting.”

Regarding this, President Reagan commented August 23, 1984 at Reunion Arena, Dallas, Texas:

“We even had to pass a special law in the Congress just a few weeks ago to allow student prayer groups the same access to school rooms after classes that a Young Marxist Society…would already enjoy.”

The Supreme Court upheld the Equal Access Act by a vote of 8-1 in Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, June 4, 1990:

“If a State refused to let religious groups use facilities open to others, then it would demonstrate not neutrality but hostility toward religion.

The Establishment Clause does not license government to treat religion and those who teach or practice it…as subversive of American ideals.”

Ronald Reagan stated in a radio address, February 25, 1984:

“Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart noted if religious exercises are held to be impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage.

Permission for such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion.

And a refusal to permit them is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”

U.S. District Court, Crockett v. Sorenson, W.D. Va,. 1983:

“The First Amendment was never intended to insulate our public institutions from any mention of God, the Bible or religion.

When such insulation occurs, another religion, such as secular humanism, is effectively established.”

This reaffirmed what George Washington wrote to the United Baptist Churches of Virginia, May 10, 1789:

“If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical Society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.”

Ronald Reagan, on the National Day of Prayer, May 6, 1982, commented:

“Well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away.

For the sake of religious tolerance, they’ve forbidden religious practice.”

On January 10, 1963, Democrat Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr., of Florida, read into the Congressional Record a list of Communist goals for America, (Vol 109, 88th Congress, 1st Session, Appendix, pp. A34-A35), which included:

“Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of ‘separation of church and state’…

Discredit American culture…Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and divorce…”

Rep. Herlong continued listing Communist goals:

“Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, healthy’…

Infiltrate churches and replace revealed religion with ‘social’ religion…

Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a ‘religious crutch’…

Control schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda.

Soften curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put party line in textbooks… Control student newspapers…”

Ronald Reagan told the Annual Convention of the National Religious Broadcasters, January 30, 1884:

“I was pleased last year to proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible. But, you know, a group called the ACLU severely criticized me for doing that.

Well, I wear their indictment like a badge of honor.”

---

The Moral Liberal contributing editor, William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s bookshere.

Republican Congressman Sends Bibles to His Fellow Legislators

BY MICHAEL GRYBOSKI , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER

August 6, 2014|3:20 pm

(PHOTO: FLIKR CREATIVE COMMONS)

The Gutenberg Bible, first printed book.

A Mississippi Congressman who belongs to the Republican House Whip leadership has sent copies of the Holy Bible to all members of the United States Congress.

Rep. Steven Palazzo of Mississippi sent the Good Book to his peers last week, along with a note including the official Congress letterhead.

“On a daily basis, we contemplate policy decisions that impact America’s future. Our staffs provide us with policy memos, statistics and recommendations that help us make informed decisions,” wrote Palazzo in the letter.

“However, I find that the best advice comes through meditating on God’s Word. Please find a copy of the Holy Bible to help guide you in your decision-making.”

The Reverend Rob Schenck, head of the Washington, DC – based group Faith and Action, told The Christian Post that he supported Palazzo’s Bible distribution.

“Rep. Palazzo is to be commended for sending Bibles to his members of Congress. For a Christian, sharing a Bible is one of the most meaningful things one can do for somebody you care about. So, it’s meaningful and generous,” said Schenck.

“Good for the Congressman. I’ll pray that his actions have a salutary effect on the thinking and actions of Congress as a whole. We need more of his kind of thing in Washington.”

Schenck also told CP that the Bibles were more likely to reach their intended audience because it was a peer like Palazzo sending them rather than an outside group.

“Bibles have been delivered to members by various groups and it’s always worth doing, but many times Bibles from the outside, so to speak, are intercepted by staff or diverted somewhere else,” said Schenck.

“When a Bible comes directly from a colleague, it’s far more likely it will land in the hands if it’s intended recipient.”

Palazzo’s gift went to all members of Congress, including those who do not consider themselves Christian, according to Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo.

“Palazzo’s letter was treated as a gesture of good will, including by non-Christian members of Congress who also received a copy of the Bible,”wrote Kapur.

“The first Muslim elected to Congress, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), wrote back with a thank-you note. His office and other offices wouldn’t discuss the letter on the record.”

Not everyone was supportive of the move. The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, spoke with concern about elected officials using the Bible as a pretext for public policy.

“When a politician calls for using the Bible as the basis for public policy, what he or she is really saying is, ‘Let’s use the Bible as I interpret it as the basis for public policy’,” said Lynn, according to TPM.

“Rather than look to the Bible or any other religious book to craft our nation’s public policy, we would do well to examine another source instead, one that was actually created to guide governance. It’s called the Constitution.”

Geoff Earle of the New York Post noted that Palazzo’s gift of a Bible to each member of Congress may be a timely act.

“Lawmakers will have plenty of time to study the Bible’s discourses on avarice, sloth, vanity and depravity. The letter went out Tuesday — right before the start of a month long congressional recess,” wrote Earle.

Henry Clay – a brief biography

 

Henry Clay (1777-1852)

 

American Minute with Bill Federer

 

“I would rather be right than President,” answered Henry Clay, when told his abolitionist position would cost him the election.

 

Clay was 3 times a candidate for President, once only 5,000 votes short.

 

The son of a Baptist minister, Henry Clay studied law under George Wythe, served in Congress over 40 years and was Speaker of the House 6 times.

 

Henry Clay stated in 1841:

 

“Patriotism, which, catching its inspiration from the immortal God…prompts to deeds of self-sacrifice, of valor, of devotion, and of death itself – that is public virtue, that is the noblest, the sublimest of all public virtues.”

 

Clay was part of the “Great Triumvirate,” with Daniel Webster and John Calhoun which led Congress during the early 1800′s.

 

He helped negotiate the treaty ending the War of 1812 and was key to John Quincy Adams being the 6th President instead of Andrew Jackson.

 

In 1824, Clay supported Greeks who wanted freedom from the Muslim Ottoman Empire, and he supported South Americans wanting freedom from Spain.

 

Abraham Lincoln described Henry Clay in a eulogy, July 6, 1852:

 

“When Greece rose against the Turks and struck for liberty, his name was mingled with the battle-cry of freedom.

 

When South America threw off the thraldom of Spain, his speeches were read at the head of her armies by Bolivar.

 

His name…will continue to be hallowed in two hemisphere… Clay was without an equal…He exorcised the demon which possessed the body politic…

 

Clay’s efforts in behalf of the South Americans, and…in behalf of the Greeks, in the times of their respective struggles for civil liberty are among the finest on record.”

 

In 1832, when an Asiatic Cholera epidemic ravaged New York, Henry Clay recommended a Day of: “Public humiliation, prayer and fasting to be observed by the people of the United States with religious solemnity.”

 

Henry Clay was second cousin’s of abolitionist Cassius Marcellus Clay, and in 1816, helped establish the American Colonization Society to aid free American blacks in founding Monrovia, Liberia, West Africa.

 

Clay addressed the Kentucky Colonization Society in Frankfort, 1829:

 

“Eighteen hundred years have rolled away since the Son of God, our blessed Redeemer, offered Himself on Mount Calvary for the salvation of our species…

 

When we shall, as soon we must, be translated from this into another form of existence, is the hope presumptuous that we shall behold the common Father of the whites and blacks, the great Ruler of the Universe, cast his all-seeing eye upon civilized and regenerated Africa, its cultivated fields, its coasts studded with numerous cities, adorned with towering temples dedicated to the pure religion of His Redeeming Son?”

 

Known as “The Great Compromiser,” Clay opposed the Mexican-American War, and struggled to maintain the Union between the North and the South by proposing “The Compromise of 1850.”

 

Henry Clay told the Senate, February 5, 1850:

 

“I hope it will not be out of place to do here, what again and again I have done in my private chamber, to implore of Him who holds the destinies of nations and individuals in His hands, to bestow upon our country His blessing, to calm the violence and rage of party, to still passion…

 

May I not ask of Him too, sir, to bestow on his humble servant…the blessing of his smiles, and of strength and ability to perform the work which now lies before him?…

 

I implore…Heaven…that if…the dissolution of this Union is to happen, I shall not survive to behold the sad and heart-rending spectacle.”

 

Nine year before the Civil War began, Henry Clay died from tuberculosis, JUNE 29, 1852.

 

The first to lie in state in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, a statue of Henry Clay was placed in the Capitol’s Statuary Hall by the State of Kentucky.

 

Fifteen counties across America were named for him.

 

In 1957, a Senate Committee headed by John F. Kennedy named Clay one of the 5 best Senators ever.

 

Rep. John C. Breckinridge recalled Henry Clay as having said:

 

“The vanity of the world, and its insufficiency to satisfy the soul of man, has been long a settled conviction of my mind.

 

Man’s inability to secure by his own merits the approbation of God, I feel to be true…

 

I trust in the atonement of the Saviour of mercy, as the ground of my acceptance and of my hope of salvation.”

 

Henry Clay warned the Senate, July 22, 1850:

 

“If there be a war…I will not assert what party would prevail…for you know, sir, what all history teaches…that few wars…have ever terminated in the accomplishment of the objects for which they were commenced…

 

Think alone of our God, our country, our consciences, and our glorious Union…without which we shall be torn into hostile fragments, and sooner or later become the victims of military despotism, or foreign domination…”

 

Clay continued:

 

“What will be the judgment of mankind…who are looking upon the progress of this scheme of self-government as being that which holds out the highest hopes…of ameliorating the condition of mankind…

 

Will not all the monarchs of the old world pronounce our glorious republic a disgraceful failure?…

 

It is possible that, for the chastisement of our sins and transgressions, the rod of Providence may be still applied to us, may be still suspended over us…

 

I pray to Almighty God that it may not lead to the most unhappy and disastrous consequences to our beloved country”

 

Bill FedererThe Moral Liberal contributing editor, William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s books here.