1. Whitehead, John W., The Second American Revolution, 1982. "Any law which contradicts biblical revelation is illegitimate" (p. 74). Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, believes in a "higher" law: "The higher law is clearly expressed in God's revelation as ultimately found in the Bible. . . . The higher law values of the Declaration [of Independence] are incorporated into the Constitution by its preamble. If we recognize that the Constitution presupposes the Declaration and the higher, fundamental law to which the Declaration witnessed, then we will understand the Constitution. ... If we see the Constitution as standing alone, and forget or deny that it presupposes the Declaration, we will misunderstand the Constitution" (p. 75). Whitehead cannot accept the words of the First Amendment as written by the First Congress and approved by the states. Therefore, says Whitehead, the religion clauses should be revised as follows: "The federal government shall make no law having anything to do with supporting a national denominational church, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion" (p. 98). Whitehead's revision of the words of history makes him a history revisionist.
  2. Cord, Robert L., Separation of Church and State, 1982. The only comment necessary to describe this book is written by the distinguished constitutional historian Leonard W. Levy. Levy describes Cord's book as "mostly fiction masquerading as scholarship" (Establishment Clause, p. 221). For example, on page 36 Cord wrote fiction when he stated that the intent of Thomas Jefferson's "Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty" was narrowly designed to disestablish the "Episcopal Church in Virginia." The fact is that Jefferson's bill for establishing religious freedom was introduced in 1779 in order to counter a bill sponsored in 1779 by James Henry (and in 1784 by Patrick Henry) which would broadly establish the "Christian Religion" as "the established Religion" of Virginia. It was, specifically, establishment of the "Christian Religion" which was rejected in Virginia when Jefferson's bill for religious freedom became law in 1786. Here is another example of Cord writing fiction: On page 46 Cord writes that "Madison apparently did not believe public prayer by a federally paid minister was an act or an appropriation establishing a national religion as indicated by his membership on the Congressional Committee which recommended the Chaplain system." What Cord does not mention is the fact that on July 10, 1822, Madison wrote: "It was not with my approbation [approval] that ... they appointed Chaplains, to be paid from the Nat[ional] Treasury" (Writings, 9:100). Yes, Cord is a fiction writer, not a reliable historian.
  3. Eidsmoe, John, Christianity and the Constitution, 1987. In May 1789 George Washington wrote: "No one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution" (Writings, 30:321). Eidsmoe asserts that "this statement summarizes Washington's view of the First Amendment" (p. 124). The First Amendment was not drafted until September 1789. Eidsmoe's apologist enthusiasm also led him to conveniently identify the "Daily Sacrifice" as originating from Washington (p. 130). The unsigned document is not in the Writings or Papers of Washington because its author has not been confirmed by real scholars.
  4. Hart, Benjamin, Faith and Freedom, 1988. Hart declares the Declaration of Independence as "America's founding document" (p. 13). As everyone—except Hart and Whitehead—knows, the Declaration was signed by representatives from colonies which were declaring themselves independent states. The founding document of the United States of America is its Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence or the Mayflower Compact. Hart quotes (without citation) Washington saying, "It is impossible to rightly govern ... without God and the Bible" (p. 13). Washington never said it. Hart quotes James Madison (without citation) saying, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization ... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God" (p. 18). Madison never said it.
  5. Limbaugh, Rush, The Way Things Ought to Be, 1993 (paper). Limbaugh misquotes the establishment clause and declares: "Only a lawyer could claim not to understand the plain meaning of those words. The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, ... but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion" (p. 281). If the meaning is plain, why add "a state"? And, will someone tell the Mormons (Reynolds, 1879) and Native Americans (Smith, 1990) Limbaugh has rescinded the Court's barriers against the practice of their religion? In See, I Told You So(1993), Limbaugh copied from Hart the bogus Madison quotation (p. 73).
  6. Barton, David. The Myth of Separation, 1992. At least twice Barton repeats the bogus Washington quote (pp. 113, 150). Barton's source is Halley's Bible Handbook. At least twice he repeats the bogus Madison quote (pp. 120, 155). Barton's source is a "Tractarian Society" publication.
  7. Evans, M. Stanton, The Theme Is Freedom, 1994. Journalist Evans' revision of the Establishment Clause from "religion" to "an official church" (p. 275) is unacceptable, unscholarly, and illustrative of a book which lacks significant "historical fact and relevant citation" (p. xvi).
  8. Dreisbach, Daniel L, Real Threat and Mere Shadow, Westchester, Il., Crossway Books, 1987. On page xiv, Dreisbach implies that President Thomas Jefferson's (1802) "wall of separation," upon which the Everson (1947) and McCollum (1948) courts stood when documenting the historical definition of the Establishment Clause, "was constructed to delineate jurisdictional lines of authority between the federal and state governments." This a lucid example of "history by omission" and "the intellectually dishonest practice of selectively recounting only those historical facts which could be read" to support a history revisionist's effort to misuse history by using only a part of the historical record and then finishing the sentence with words which do not exist in the document from which he quotes. Let it be clearly noted, for the record, that President Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, deliberately described the "wall of separation" as "between Church & State"—not "between the federal and state governments," as Dreisbach writes. The simple problem is that to Dreisbach "the meaning of the First Amendment is ambiguous" (p.22) —obviously. Now an example of how Dreisbach would reword the First Amendment: he says (p. 69) that to nonpreferentialists—such as he is—the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to "prohibit the establishment of a national (or federal) church and implicitly to restrict Congress from granting any religious sect or denomination a preferred legal status." Again, for the record, let it be clearly noted that the word following "establishment of" in the Establishment Clause is "religion"—not "national (or federal) church ... religious sect or denomination," as Driesbach prefers. The solution, then, is to understand the "voice of the framers,"in the terms in which the Establishment Clause is written, as well as in historical context. Everyone agrees that the Bill of Rights restricted the power of the federal government. The Establishment Clause restricted Congress in terms of an establishment of "religion"—just as it is written. For example, from history, in Virginia on October 25, 1779, James Henry.
  9. presented the conservative demands in his bill "concerning religion." This bill ... marks the great effort of the conservative party to re-establish ... a general assessment and a regulation of religion. ... The bill reads:

    The Christian Religion shall in all times coming be deemed and held to be the established Religion of this Commonwealth; and all Denominations of Christians demeaning themselves peaceable and faithfully, shall enjoy equal privileges, civil and Religious...

    Whenever free male Persons not under twenty one Years of Age, professing the Christian Religion, shall agree to unite themselves in a Society for the purpose of Religious Worship, they shall be constituted a Church, and esteemed and regarded in Law as of the established Religion of this Commonwealth…

    Every Society so formed ... shall entitle them to be incorporated and esteemed as a Church of the Established Religion of this Commonwealth.

    The above example is quoted from pages 58-59 of a history first published by the Virginia State Library in 1910 as written by H. J. Eckenrode in the book Separation of Church and State in Virginia, (reprinted in 1971 by Da Capo Press). It is a clear illustration that "in the minds of the framers," like James Madison, there was the idea of an "Established Religion" which was defined in terms of all Christian churches, not just one, single, official, national denomination or church. The James Henry idea of establishing Christianity as the state religion was rejected in Virginia, and Dreisbach is wrong when he writes (p. 74) that "the final draft [of the Establishment Clause] fulfilled Madison's objective to proscribe ... a federal church." James Madison never used the words "a federal church," and there is no mention of "Christianity" in the Constitution for the United States of America. That which is prohibited in the Establishment Clause is an establishment of "religion"—religion is what it says, religion is what it means, religion is the only word which is compatible with thereof in the free exercise clause, and it does not take a Rhodes scholar to understand it. President Madison understood it when in February 1811 he vetoed bills relating to an Episcopal and a Baptist church as violations of the Establishment Clause.