On 4-9-96 US Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia delivered an historic address at the invitation of the Mississippi College School of Law, a Baptist school. Though no printed texts are available and his remarks are not recorded, excerpts of his speech were reported by the mainline media the next day and continue to reverberate throughout our nation. Indeed, his speech generated a firestorm of protest among indignant members of the liberal press. Like Dan Quayle's controversial Murphy brown speech in 1992, Justice Scalia had the audacity to be politically incorrect in the public square. Scalia's address dealt with the ridicule of Christians in the United States and the disdain in which their cherished beliefs are held by the cultural elite. Perhaps his comments were motivated by cover stories in Time (Gospel Truth, 4-8-96), Newsweek(Rethinking the Resurrection, 4-8-96), and the US News and World Report(In Search of Jesus,4-8-96), each questioning the historic validity of Jesus' resurrection. Not surprisingly, those stories ran during or near Easter week, when we celebrate our risen Savior. Scalia's speech was reported in the following manner:

"Devout Christians are destined to be regarded as fools in modern society," Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia said Tuesday, offering a rare glimpse of his private views. "We are fools for Christ's sake," the conservative jurist said. "We must pray for courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world." Scalia said intellectuals through history have rejected miracles and the Easter story. "The wise do not investigate such silliness," he said sarcastically. "They do not believe [in the resurrection of the dead] Scalia said it's " irrational" to reject miracles. "One can be sophisticated and believe in God. Reason and intellect are not to be laid aside where matters of religion are concerned." (Justice Scalia Says Religion, Reason do mix," US Today 4-10-96)

"He (Scalia) took note...that the word "cretin", or fool, is derived from the french word for "Christian." "To be honest about it, that is the view of Christians taken by modern society," Mr Scalia told 650 persons..."Surely those who adhere to all or most of these traditional Christian beliefs are to be regarded as simpleminded." ('A Kick in the Pants for the Fool of Christ", Washington Times, 4-12-96)

"To many Americans," he added sarcastically, "everything from the Easter morning to the Ascension had to be made up by the groveling enthusiasts (the disciples) as part of their plan to get themselves martyred." ('Scalia's Religion Remarks: Just a Matter of Free Speech?", Washington Post, 4-15-96)

Only a few excerpts from Scalia's speech have been published to this date, but they were enough to bring down the roof. Prominent editorial writers, columnists, and cultural elites were appalled at his audacity. they came after the justice with a vengeance, just as he knew they would, and just as they regularly castigate another conservative justice, notably Clarence Thomas. Richard Cohen, reporter for the Washington Post, wrote, "I am less enamored of Scalia than some of my colleagues. I think this Supreme Court justice is a cheap shot artist...." He went on to talk about Scalia's "foolishness," and concluded by writing, "Scalia's remarks are jarring. Whatever his intentions, he showed himself to be a man who misjudges the nature and the motives of those who insist on a constitutional wall between church and state. It seems his mind is made up on such matters and anyone who thinks Scalia will give First amendment issues a fair and reasoned hearing is, it seems, proceeding in a way Scalia would appreciate: solely on faith." ("Justice Scalia and the Worldly Wise", Washington Post, 4-12-96)

Jamin Raskin, a professor of constitutional law at American University in Washington DC, said Scalia "stepped over the line of what is proper...we expect Supreme Court justices to be the most secular of our public servants. That is not to say that they can't have religious beliefs. But for good reasons, we are uncomfortable about them flaunting those beliefs." (Scalia's Religion Remarks: Just a matter of Free Speech?, the Washington Post, 4-15-96)

That just about says it all, doesn't it? We can hear the mantra of the cultural elites within Raskin's remark: Its OK to have weird spiritual notions...as long as they don't leak into the open where they may embarrass everybody. They must remain private, just like a case of hemorrhoids. The only person who is supposed to know is the pathetic guy who suffers from them. Elliot Mincberg, legal director for People for the American Way, also found Scalia's remarks to be "troubling" because they so closely resemble those used by such Christian political radicals like Pat Robertson and Patrick Buchanan. Heaven forbid that a public servant should even sound like a conservative Christian. Please note that Mincberg's comment reveals the very disdain which the justice was trying to describe. Then to the surprise of no one, Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, added his voice to the chorus. Lynn makes a living trying to censor conservative Christians who have the temerity to express their views in public. This is the man who testified on behalf of the ACLU during the Attorney General's Commission on graphy, and unashamedly defended the sale of in the open marketplace. If you are a conservative believer, Lynn believes you should check in your constitutional rights at the door. Everybody else, Lynn included, are entitled to THEIR freedom of speech. With reference to Justice Scalia's remarks, Lynn said "this undermines public confidence in his objectivity (regarding religious controversies)..." ("Faith: Who Judges Its Public Propriety?, US News and World Report, 4-22-96)

Liberal members of the clergy also ganged up on Scalia. The executive director of the Baptist Committee on Public Affairs in Washington DC., James Dunn scoffed at Scalia's claim that Christians are the subject of scorn and discriminations within the culture. He said:

"This is becoming a modern myth that religion is somehow persecuted in American life. It's a right wing litmus test. If you don't say religion is being beat up on, then you aren't pitifully correct. Everyone is competing to see who can whine the loudest if the American people were as anti-religious as everyone says, then a Supreme Court justice wouldn't have the right to run around saying things like that." (Scalia Makes the Case for Christianity: Justice Proclaims Belief in Miracles, Washington Post, 4-12-96)

During an appearance on CNN's television program "Crossfire", Dunn was asked if he believed in the miracles of which Scalia spoke of. His answer? "Yeah, I believe in miracles. I believe in the essential miracle of incarnation, and after that, all the rest are downhill from there." (Crossfire, CNN, 4-10-96) And so the rhetoric has flowed like hot lava. To the political pundits and Washington insiders, it was unthinkable and dangerous for a Supreme Court justice to speak so openly of his faith and the plight of Christians in this nation. Justice Scalia, they claim, has severely undermined the wall separating church and state. ("The Scalia Speech: Raw Meat for the Religious Right,",Baltimore Sun, 4-17-96)

And everyone knows that our founding fathers would have blushed at the thought of government officials admitting they are Christians. At least, that's what Barry Lynn, Ed O Farrell, and activists at PAW would have us believe...that our forefathers intentionally excluded God from every vestige of public life. But does that claim withstand the scrutiny of history? That is what this whole section of PPPP is about. Were the words of Justice Scalia so out of character from those of his predecessors? Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for people like Ed O'Farrell, Barry Lynn, and other historical revisionists, the inspirational writings and speeches of our founding fathers and other national heroes, and even the Supreme Court itself, have been well documented down through history. Following in this article are some more statements, that are well documented and verified, that support the fact that the United States was founded on biblical principles. Lets start with statements made by former Supreme Court justices, since many of Scalia's critics asserted that people in his position have no "right' to "go public" with their faith. As Raskin asserted, a justice should be "the most secular of our public servants. We'll see just how "secular' Scalia's predecessor were.

"Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty...of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christian rulers." 1816 (The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, p 393)

"This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there si a single voice making this affirmation...We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth...These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a little volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." 1892 (Church of the Holy Trinity vs the United States, 1430 US 457 or 465-471, as written by Justice David Brewer)

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." 1952 (Zorach vs Clauson, 343 US 306 at 313 as written by Justice William O Douglas)

"I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses...Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia...or to the Charter of New England...or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay...or to the Fundamental orders of Connecticut...the same objective is present...a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under the law, and the reservation of the powers to the people...I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country." 1954 (Breakfast At Washington, Time, 2-14-54")

Now lets turn our attention to what many of our president's have said about their beliefs down through the ages. We'll begin with, appropriately, with our first president, George Washington, writing a prayer addressed to "O most glorious God, in Jesus Christ." He concluded with the following: " ...Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in Thy holy word...Direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the way, the truth, and the life. Bless, O Lord, all the people of this land." 1752 (Washington's Papers, Herbert W Burk, 1907)

John Adams, Washington's VP and second president, wrote: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". 1798 (The works of John Adams, Second president of the United States)

Thomas Jefferson, our third president and one of the principle framers of the Constitution- a man who, revisionists like Ed O'Farrell tell us, wanted a "wall of separation" to protect the government from people of faith- wrote the words that now appear on his memorial in Washington DC: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?" 1781 (The Complete Jefferson, Query XVII)

John Quincy Adams said this: No book in the world deserves to be so unceasingly studied, and so profoundly meditated upon as the Bible." circa 1812 (Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and its Teachings)

Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, made this statement: "Sir, I am in the hands of a merciful God. I have full confidence in His goodness and mercy...The Bible is true...I have tried to conform to its spirit as near as possible. Upon that sacred volume I rest my hope for eternal salvation, through the merits and blood of our blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." 1845 (Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Democracy, vol III)

The Christian writings and speeches by Abraham Lincoln, our 16th president, would fill volumes. The following was made when Lincoln assumed leadership over a nation on the brink of war. "Unless the great God who assisted (President Washington) shall be with me and aid me, I must fail. But the same omniscient mind, and Almighty arm, that directed and protected him, shall guide and support me, I shall not fail...Let us pray that the God of our fathers may not forsake us now." 1861 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol IV)

"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven, we have been preserved these any years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all those blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us. It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness. 1863 (Church and State in the United States, vol III)

Teddy Roosevelt, our 26th president, wrote this: "In this actual world, a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at, or ignored their religious needs, is a community on the rapid down-grade." 1917 (Ladies Home Journal, Oct 1917)

And here are some words from Woodrow Wilson, our 28th president: "America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the Holy Scripture." 1911 (Voices From the Heart: Four Centuries of American Piety, 1987)

Silent Cal, Calvin Coolidge, our 30th president, said this about our founding fathers: "They were intent upon establishing a Christian commonwealth in accordance with the principles of self-government. they ere an inspired body of men. It has been said that God sifted the nations that He might send choice grain into the wilderness...Who can fail to see it in the hand of Destiny?(Ed can) Who can doubt that it has been guided by a Divine Providence? 1923 (The Price of Freedom: Speeches and Addresses as cited in the Annals of America, vol 14,1924)

Franklin Roosevelt prayed the following on a national radio hookup on D-Day, June 6, 1944, as our troops stormed the beaches of Normandy, France: Almighty God...with Thy blessing we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogance. Lead us to the saving of our country. Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen". 1944

Give em heck Harry Truman, our 33rd president and someone who wasn't known to be a deeply committed believer in Jesus Christ, nevertheless understood the spiritual heritage of America: If men and nations would but live by the precepts of the ancient prophets and the teachings of the Sermon on the mount, problems which now seem so difficult would soon disappear...That is a supreme opportunity for the church to continue to fulfill its mission on earth. The Protestant church, the Catholic church, and the Jewish synagogue-bound together in the American unity of brotherhood-must provide the shock forces to accomplish this moral and spiritual awakening. No other agency can do it. Unless it is done, we are headed for the disaster we would deserve. Oh, for an Isaiah or a St. Paul to reawaken a sick world to its moral responsibilities." 1946 (Church and State in the United States, vol III, 1950)

Gerald Ford, our 38th president, quoted a Dwight Eisenhower speech, "Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first-the most basic-expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be." 1974 (National Day of Prayer, 1974, Proclamation 4338, 12/5/74)

Ronald Reagan, our 40th and greatest American president, gave a speech in which he said the following: "The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom, and open mindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives." 1984 (New York Times, Remarks by President At Prayer Breakfast, 8/24/84)

Those were some of the expressions of faith offered by our chief executives through nearly 220 years of American history, not just from our founding fathers. The motto "In God We Trust" was adopted by Congress as recently as 1956(Spiritual Politics:Religion and America Since World War II,1989). Hundreds of others quotes exist in the record, including brilliant statements by military heroes, authors and patriots such as Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, and Robert E. Lee. I can't read their writings without marveling at the spiritual heritage that has been handed down through the ages. But these statements of faith also evoke a certain sadness over what is happening to our nation today. We are witnessing an unprecedented campaign to secularize our society and "demoralize" our institutions from the top down. The effort, now in its fourth decade, has been enormously successful. Most forms of prayer have been declared unconstitutional in our nation's schools, even that which is student initiated. The Ten Commandments have ben prohibited on school bulletin boards. Secular universities are blatantly hostile to Christian precepts, and the media screams "Foul"! whenever someone like Justice Scalia speaks openly of his beliefs. In this wonderful land of the free we have gagged and bound all of our public officials, our teachers, our elected representatives, and our judges. Since we have effectively censored these and their expressions of faith in public life, the predictable is happening: a generation of young people is growing up with very little understanding of the spiritual principles on which America was founded. And we wonder why so many of them can kill, steal, and engage in promiscuous sex with no pangs of conscience. We have taught them that right and wrong are arbitrary-subjective-changing. They learned their lessons well. Having turned their culture upside-down, the secularists appear now to have agreed upon three specific mechanisms to complete their task of immobilizing and silencing conservative Christians. You can find evidence of these strategies in your own communities and schools.

1. The first goal is to deny our Judeo-Christian roots and rewrite our historical record. Children in public schools, for example, have never heard the expressions of faith cited in this article. They celebrate the pilgrim's first Thanksgiving each November but are not told to whom those early settlers were thankful. God has been excised from that story- and every other account of devotion to or dependence on him.(Censorship:Evidence of Bias in our Children's Textbooks, 1986)

It's as though our ancestors were entirely in their beliefs. As the quotations in this article, and others on this site, have shown, nothing could be farther from the truth. Fortunately, those who would rid us of our spiritual heritage have an impossible task on their hands. To sanitize history, it would be necessary to expunge all official records, burn old textbooks, close the Library of Congress, destroy old diaries and letters, and sandblast half of the buildings in Washington DC. And still the evidence of our faith would exist. An image of Moses faces the Speaker of the House, our coins proclaim "In God We Trust", our Pledge of Allegiance declares that we are "one nation, under God"; our Declaration of Independence asserts that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable right"; the oath of office for the presidency ends with the phrase, "so help me God"; and on it goes. Given this vast volume of historical evidence, it is utterly foolish to deny that we have been, from the beginning, a people of faith whose government is built wholly on a Judeo-Christian foundation. Yet those of our people who do not study history can be duped into believing anything. Indeed, that is what is happening to adults who are too busy to care and to a younger generation absorbed with video games, tv, movies, rock music, and the Internet.(not me)

2. the second objective of the revisionists is to convince the American people that Christians, specifically those with conservative leanings, are in violation of the Constitution whenever they advocate their views beyond the doors of their sanctuaries. Liberal activist would have us believe our founding fathers were terrified at the prospect of Christians participating in the political process. This led them, we're told, to protect the government from religious meddling. But no such provision appears in the Constitution or any of the foundational documents. The principle of separation of church and state is found ONLY in one of Jefferson's letter, (A Letter to Nehemiah Dodge, as cited in, In God we Trust, 1958) and referred, not to the exclusion of religious people from government, but to the protection of religion from governmental interference.

Now Jefferson's personal comment in that private letter, which was never endorsed or ratified by Congress or the electorate, has been twisted in its meaning and given the weight of constitutional law. Now listen to the rhetoric of those who would suppress the Christian participation in government. It has become more oppressive and extreme each year. Rep Vic Fazio, D-CA, said at the National Press Club, as reported in "God as a Wedge Issue, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 6/24/94, "the Religious Right are demanding their rightful seat at the table, and that is what the American people fear the most." (Can you imagine the nerve of us demanding a place at the table of democracy?) Fazio, referring to evangelical Christians as "the fire breathing Christian Radical Right," said it wants "to carry views that are distinctly religious over into government and try to impose those as laws...These are the kind of words that trouble people who believe in the Constitution." (Charleston Gazette, 6/23/94)

(By the way, when libbies work for what they believe in, its not called "imposing their will" on the people, only when conservative Christians do it is it called that) Fazio got so alarmed at the RR's that he allegedly formed the "Radical Right Task Force" to focus on "how we can dissuade...churches from getting involved in partisan politics." (Secular Holy War, World, 8/27/94).

Maybe Vic would sleep better if he was reminded that the IRS already prevents churches from engaging in "partisan politics." So what is his "task force" really trying to do? BC spoke out against what he calls "the extreme conservative movement in America." (Shirk, Martha, and Jo Mannies, "Rightists: Clinton Attack Will Backfire: Democratic Leaders Welcome His Remarks." St Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/26/94).

He said he dislikes calling them "religious conservatives." which he calls a "misnomer". Instead, he used the term "radical right."(IBID) In 1994, BC represented the US at the 50th anniversary of the Normandy invasion. He said, "It occurred to me that those people did not die so the American people could indulge themselves in the luxury of cynicism."("Clinton, Limbaugh Swap Slaps on KMOX," St Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/25/94)

Now think about that for a minute. Who in government is qualified to evaluate our private attitudes and determine which of them is and is not appropriate? I submit that these brave soldiers DID give their lives to preserve the luxury of thinking and saying whatever seems right to us-even if our ideas appear unacceptable to those in power. Some people call that FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and it is gloriously protected in the Bill of Rights. Yes, it even includes that which we is deemed by some to be cynical. It's not just politicians who want to limit the participation in government of those with whom they disagree:

A. Educational seminars have been held at taxpayer expense all across the USofA to disseminate ways schools can combat the influence of conservative Christian parents.(Responding Democratically to religious Agendas, Right Wing Pressure Groups, and School Reform. Denver CO, May 3-5, 1993)

B.. Every year the American Library Association publishes a list that cites "censorship" episodes in the past 12 months. The vast majority of these examples represents concerns expressed by parents about what their own children are reading and seeing. This is considered "censorship."(American Library Association, "Banned Books Week", Sept 23-3-, 1995)

C. In 5/95, The American Bar Association conducted a seminar in San Francisco devoted to the topic, "Expanding Use of Tort Law against Religious." Workshops were also offered on "Liability of Clergy as Spiritual Counselors," "Liability of Religious Bodies and Affiliated Entities," and this one, which best illustrates the ABA's agenda, "Tort Law as an Ideological Weapon." (Children At Risk, Dobson and Bauer, Word Publishing)

D. Barry Lynn, alarmed at the audacity of conservative Christians, said about the threat we pose: "We mainstream Americans have been asleep at the switch, and we need to become better organized, phone radio talk shows to complain about intolerant views and incorrect information..." ("Religious Fundamentalism Carries Dangerous Seeds, Says Barry Lynn," Ethnic News watch, 11/10, 95)

E. Jim Wallace, of Sojourners, said "I want to say to the Religious Right: Stop talking about making this a Christian nation."(Martin, Clare,"Crossing Paths:Christian Alternative in Politics Explored," Denver Post, 5/2/95)

F. In the 5/20/96 edition of Christianity Today, senior editor Edward Dobson published an article entitled, taking politics Out of the Sanctuary." In it he offers the rhetoric heard commonly among pastors and theologians who seek to disengage the church from the culture in which it exists. Like others who have made this case, the author draws no distinction between political issues, such as the election of candidates to office, and the profound moral issues that are debated in the political arena. He categorically states, "We should keep the church out of partisan politics and political action." I wonder if he would consider the murder of 7 pound babies, 80% delivered, to be a partisan issue? Or how about doctor assisted suicide, voluntary and involuntary, to be partisan and political? I wonder if he would consider ANYTHING occurring in public policy to be of revelance to the church? Thank God when slavery was rampant in the 19th century, some pastors and their congregations had the courage to confron this, the most partisan and political issue in American history. Rev Charles Finney, the 19th century evangelsit, understood the vital role of the church in influencing public policy. He wrote in the early 1800's: "The time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics...God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the church will take right ground." (Finney, Charles G Revival Lectures, Lecture XV)

If I appear to be overeeactingto the efforts to censor people of faith, be assured that hundreds of others have also expressed concern about what is happening. A lead editorial in the Virginian-Pilot read, "The critics, Democrats and Republican alike, seem to be implying that religious conservatives have no right to participate in the political process. This is utterly in opposition to the American tradition of political and religious tolerance and open participation. It is cynical at best and bigotry at worst. Honorable people have an obligation to say so." (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 6/24/94)

The Wall Street Journal put it this way, "There is something, it must be said, wonderfiul in the spectable of all these defender of democracy and pluralism now busy alerting the nation to the menace of the 'Christian Right'. For the menace, in their descriptions, all comes down to the same remarkable charge: namely that Evangelicals and other Christians have committed the crime of getting into politics to m ake their views heard. In the strange view of the defenders of 'pluralism', getting into public politics is equal to 'extremeism.""(Those Troublesome Christians,"The Wall Street Journal, 6/30/94)

Don Feder, a syndicated columnist who happens to be Jewish, recently wrote a wonderfully supportive piece on this subject. he said, "The secularists worry about Christians-Christians clinging to their morality. Christians publically displaying their symbols, Christians objecting to unequal treatment by public institutions, Christians intruding in the political arena (as the founders did). As those issues that divide us most deeply (abortion, , public subsidies for smut masquyerading as art, school brainwashing) all have a spiritual dimension, Christian-bashing is bound to increase." (Feder, Don, "Soulless Waging War on Christians," Boston Herald, 4/8/96)

3. Speaking of Christian bashing, the third stratgy of the secularists is to embarrass, insult, shout down and mischaracterize conservative Christians, hoping to intimidate them into silence. the names "radical right', "far right", "exteeme right", and "Christian right" are aprt of their effort to marginalize and demoralize those with traditional views. (When was the last time you heard activists referred to as "Radical left"?) A classic example of this strategy occured after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Unbelivably, the media and some politicians immediately blamed the blast on people of faith-especially thoise who fight for the unborn child. Michael Lind, writing in The Washington Post made that forced connection between the bombers and pro-lifers. He wrote, "The story of Oklahoma City and the militias should not make us forget that the main form of political terrorism in the United States is perpetrated by right wing opponents of abortion." (Lind, Michael, "UnderstandingOklahoma; Scofflaw Conservatism: Between the Hyperbole, Ideas Have Consequences," The Washington Post, 4/30/95)

Reporter Bruce Morton wrote, "What do you suppose the odds are that when they finally know who did it, they will say ,'Well, I was following God's will?" (Chavez, Linda, "Laying Blame in all the Wrong Places," Denver Post, 5/2/95)

Eleanor Clift, the ultra-leftist reporter for Newsweek, said with charcteriostic venom, "[The bombers came from] a loose cabal of gun extremists, religious extremeists, and many of them act under the umbrella of religion, so it is going to raise some religious issues." (Chavez, op. cit)

Talk about arrogence and bias in the media! These and other "reporters" blamed Christians for blowing up 168 people, amny of them children, with no basis in fact. There has never been any scrap of evidence to link the bombing with the pro-life cause, with religious movements of any stripe, or even with political conservatives. As far as we know, it was the woirk of a couple of hate-filled murderers who acted alone and for reasons that have not yet been revealed. Imagine the outrage-the riots, the intervention by the Department of Justice-that would have occurred if the media had blamed the bombing on Jews, on african-Americans, on feminists, or on s! What a political explosion would have erupted! Only Christians as a group could have been tried and convicted by the liberasl press in the absence of remote evidence or even the suggestion of complicity. Such is the climate in America, 1996. (and now in 1997. With the bombing in Atlanta, the media was quick to point out it was atr a "family planning" clinic and was probably related to pro-life radicals. But now it may have been aimed at those who responded to the bombing- in other words a trap) This effort to demonize evangelicals should illustrate just how far those in the media will go to silence and paralyze Christians who dare to express their beliefs in public. Anyone who advocates a position that contrdicts what is politically correct invites censorship of the most intimidating form. Ask Justice Scalia about that. I thank God that our laws still protect those who speak for the unborn child and defend the principles of righteousness. Stephan carter, Yale professor and author of the book, The culture of Disbelief, said, "Religious people are as fully members of American society as anyone else, as are people who are not religious...If you want to disagree with them, disagree with them. If you want to argue against them, do that. But don't ever suggest that, because they are a religious people, they somehow have less right to be in the public square than other people do." (Crossfire, 4-10-96)

The Supreme Court made that point even more emphatically in the case of McDaniel vs Paty. This landmark ruling should be especially encouraging to Christians who have been duped into believing that they have no right to advocate their views. let me quote from that 1987 decision: "The Establishment Clause does not license to treat religion, and those who teach or practice it, simply by virtue of their status as such, as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique disabilities...In short, government may not as a goal promote "safe thinking" with respect to religion and fence out from political participation those, such as ministers, whom it regards as over-involved in religion. Religionists no less than members of any group enjoy the full measure of protection afforded speech, association, and political activity generally. The Establishment Clause, properly understood, is a shield against any attempt by government to inhibit religion...it may not be used as a sword to justify repression of religion or its adherents from any aspect of public life." (McDaniel vs Paty, 435 US 618 at 641.1978)

It couldn't have been said much more clearly. Nothing short of tyranny can take away our right to be heard, to campaign for what we believe, to participate in the political process, and to oppose that which we cvan see as wrong or inmoral. We will not be intimidated or censored. I urge you to continue working for the values to which you are committed, whether popular or not. Don't let anyone, Christian or , deny you your right to voice your opinions. Abraham Lincoln said America is a nation governed "of the people, by the people, and for the people"(Gettysburg Address)- and that includes people of faith. It also means every citizen has a responsibility to participate in the decisions that are made and to use his or her influence for that which is moral and right. When full term healthy babies can be partially delivered and then brutally murdered with scissors and a suction device, it is OUR rsponsibility to fight for their lives. When teenagers are given inmoral advice and condoms paid for with OUR tax dollars, WE are obligated to object. When "physician assisted suicide" is legalized by reformist judges accountable to no one, we must seek to overturn their decisions. And when courageous men like Justice Scalia speak openly about their Chriustian beliefs, we must defend their right to do so. The revisionists must not prevail in their efforts to make America a post Christian nation that abandons it preciuous heritage. With God's help they will not succeed! I will end this with the words of Chuck Colson, when he received the Templeton Prize in 1993. He said " "On this, at least, we must agree: the right...to state [our] faith woithout fear-is the first human right. Religious liberty is the essence of human dignity...It is a sad fact that religious oppression is often practiced by religious groups. Sad, and inexcusable. A believer may risk prison for his own religious beliefs, but he may never build prisons for those of other beliefs. It is our obligation, to bring back a renewed passion for religious liberty to every nation from which we came. It is our duty to create a cultural environment where conscience can flourish.".