Did the American Founders Want the Bible in Schools?

Tim Barton, son of self-styled historian David Barton, wants you to believe the founding fathers wanted the Bible taught in schools.

Tim Barton, son of self-styled historian David Barton, wants you to believe the founding fathers wanted the Bible taught in schools. Watch:

In the video, Barton focused on Benjamin Rush, a Philadelphia physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence. Barton said,

But what’s cool about him is when we became a nation, he wrote a series of essays to help guide and shape America, and what we thought and how we did it, and one of the essays he wrote was on education. It’s this essay right here and it was on the defense of the use of the Bible in schools. He’s arguing that we need the Bible in every school in America. Benjamin Rush believed that if we were going to make it as a nation, the way we had to do it was use the Bible in schools.

The caption for the video on Facebook is:

Who was the Father of Education in America? Here is the proof that our founders wanted the Bible in schools. Watch. Like. Share.

Is Rush’s letter proof the founders wanted the Bible in schools?
In 1791, Rush wrote a letter on education to Jeremiah Belknap which was republished by the American Tract Society in 1830. In the letter, Rush Benjamin_Rushdefended the use of the Bible in schools. However, Rush’s defense should raise a question. If the Bible was in such wide use, then why would Rush need to argue for its inclusion?
In fact, Rush said in his letter that the Bible in schools was out of fashion, so to speak.

To the arguments I have mentioned in favour of the use of the bible as a school book, I shall add a few reflexions.
The present fashionable practice of rejecting the bible from our schools, I suspect has originated with the deists. They discover great ingenuity in this new mode of attacking Christianity. If they proceed in it,.they will do more in half a century, in extirpating our religion, than Bolingbroke or Voltaire could have effected in a thousand years. I am not writing to this class of people. I despair of changing the opinions of any of them. I wish only to alter the opinions and conduct of those lukewarm, or superstitious Christians, who have been misted by the deists upon this subject. On the ground of the good old custom, of using the bible as a school book, it becomes us to entrench our religion. It is the last bulwark the deists have left it ; for they have rendered instruction in the principles of Christianity by the pulpit and the press, so unfashionable, that little good for many years seems to have been done by either of them. (emphasis added)

What? The Bible was rejected from schools during the 1790s? Eliminating the Bible was a fashionable practice?
Rush calls using the Bible in school a “good old custom” and blames another problem on their disuse:

The effects of the disuse of the bible, as a school book have appeared of late in the neglect and even contempt with which scripture names are treated by many people. It is because parents have not been early taught to know or respect the characters and exploits of the old and new testament worthies, that their names are exchanged for those of the modern kings of Europe, or of the principal characters in novels and romances.

Rush apparently viewed a lack of biblical naming to be a problem which would be addressed by returning Bibles to education. Since Rush complained that parents didn’t get Bible instruction in school, the use of the Bible in school must have dropped off long before the 1790s, at least according to Rush.
With his letter, Rush was going against the trend not setting the pace.

One Founder Doesn’t Mean All Founders

Another problem is that Barton generalizes from Rush to all founders. This, of course, is not appropriate method. At least one other founder spoke against using the Bible with young children — Thomas Jefferson. On that subject in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson wrote:

Instead therefore of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children, at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious enquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European and American history.

No doubt some founders were fine with the Bible as a text and other were not. The problem here is the generalization to the point of misinformation. There was no national policy on the subject and some schools required Bible training while others did not. By the 1880s, many schools had stopped using the Bible (see the Cincinnati Bible Wars) at all.
If Wallbuilders would like to feature another essay by Rush as an example for current practice, I have a suggestion below:
rush bloodletting
 

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Legislative Fine Tuning

Journal Federal Cons LogoJune 23, 1787 (click the link to read Madison’s notes)

Summary

The delegates debated Resolution 3 regarding the legislature. They deadlocked on giving members “adequate compensation” and decided to allow House members to remain eligible to hold other offices after their current term ended

Influences on the Delegates

Mason appealed to his experience in VA and Great Britain for his position:

Mr. MASON. The motion of my colleague is but a partial remedy for the evil. He appealed to him as a witness of the shameful partiality of the Legislature of Virginia to its own members. He enlarged on the abuses and corruption in the British Parliament connected with the appointment of its members. He could not suppose that a sufficient number of citizens could not be found who would be ready, without the inducement of eligibility to offices, to undertake the Legislative service. Genius and virtue, it may be said, ought to be encouraged. Genius, for aught he knew, might; but that virtue should be encouraged by such a species of venality, was an idea that at least had the merit of being new.

Delegate Jenifer from MD spoke up to use his state as a positive example of exclusivity of office.

Mr. JENIFER remarked, that in Maryland the Senators, chosen for five years, could hold no other office; and that this circumstance gained them the greatest confidence of the people.

By July 4, I hope to have a tally of influences. I can tell you that Britain and the experience of the states were the greatest influences on the delegates.
 

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Minimum Age of 25 Required to Serve in the House of Representatives

June 22, 1787 (click link for Madison’s notes)

Summary

Today in Convention was all about the legislature. The delegates affirmed 25 as the minimum age for a representative. On the negative, the delegates defeated a motion to allow the House to set pay for members and a motion to take their pay from the National Treasury.

Influences on the Delegates

On the matter of the minimum age for members, the delegates debated mostly on their own experience. However, Jame Wilson pointed to two young men who made important contributions as a reason not to have a minimum age for service.

Mr. WILSON was against abridging the rights of election in any shape. It was the same thing whether this were done by disqualifying the objects of choice, or the persons choosing. The motion tended to damp the efforts of genius and of laudable ambition. There was no more reason for incapacitating youth than age, where the requisite qualifications were found. Many instances might be mentioned of signal services, rendered in high stations, to the public, before the age of twenty-five. The present Mr. Pitt and Lord Bolingbroke were striking instances.

Notice no one referred to the Bible when  in fact there is Scripture about not laying hands on a novice.
On the matter of holding more than one office, SC’s Pierce Butler looked to Great Britain as a negative model.

Mr. GORHAM moved to strike out the last member of the third Resolution, concerning ineligibility of members of the first branch to office during the term of their membership, and for one year after. He considered it unnecessary and injurious. It was true, abuses had been displayed in Great Britain; but no one could say how far they might have contributed to preserve the due influence of the Government, nor what might have ensued in case the contrary theory had been tried.
Mr. BUTLER opposed it. This precaution against intrigue was necessary. He appealed to the example of Great Britain; where men get into Parliament that they might get offices for themselves or their friends. This was the source of the corruption that ruined their government.

Mason agreed:

Colonel MASON was for shutting the door at all events against corruption. He enlarged on the venality and abuses, in this particular, in Great Britain; and alluded to the multiplicity of foreign embassies by Congress. The disqualification he regarded as a corner-stone in the fabric.

Hamilton agreed with Gorham that holding more than one office was the cause of corruption. He favored striking the ineligibility clause.

Colonel HAMILTON. There are inconveniences on both sides. We must take man as we find him; and if we expect him to serve the public, must interest his passions in doing so. A reliance on pure patriotism had been the source of many of our errors. He thought the remark of Mr. GORHAM a just one. It was impossible to say what would be the effect in Great Britain of such a reform as had been urged. It was known that one of the ablest politicians (Mr. Hume) had pronounced all that influence on the side of the Crown, which went under the name of corruption, an essential part of the weight which maintained the equilibrium of the Constitution.
On Mr. GORHAM’S motion for striking out “ineligibility,” it was lost by an equal division of the votes, — Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, aye — 4; Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, no — 4; New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, divided.

For the time being, the delegates deadlocked on the matter.
 

The Problem with the Mercury One/Wallbuilders’ Internship Program

Monday, Glenn Beck devoted some time on his broadcast to graduates of Mercury One’s internship program. The program went from June 5-16 and featured history lessons taught by David Barton.  The segment of the broadcast gave time to the participants to debrief about what they learned. Watch (the embed feature no longer works so try this link):

The comments from students provide a window into the problems with the internship. It appears that these students have a lot to unlearn. Worse, they don’t seem to know it.
For instance at 1:24 into the segment, the second student who spoke, Sonja, said

Mr. Barton showed us the Quran that was actually printed in 1803, I believe, by Jefferson after the Barbary wars, and the thought, the idea that the leaders of the country would not only say, hey, this would be a good idea to learn but they encouraged promoted that to learn about people who were different, to learn, not that they were terrible people, not slandering them, but saying this is who they are, this is what they are about. That is a completely different approach to knowledge and truth than we have today.

My point is not to fault Sonja for her fact problems but to fault her teachers for providing a completely misleading narrative (which Barton has usedGlenn Beck Interns before). Sonja has been misled on two important points.

Jefferson did not print a Quran in 1803 or any other year.

The first version of the Quran printed in America was published in 1806. You can peruse a copy here; there is no mention of Jefferson or the government. The translation from a 1647 French version was originally conducted in 1649 and then reprinted by Henry Brewer for Springfield, MA publisher Isaiah Thomas in 1806 (source). Brewer and Thomas may have capitalized on the interest in Islam during Jefferson’s terms as president since we were at war with several Islamic nations. However, Jefferson had nothing to do with the printing. (Source, source)

The leaders of the U.S. didn’t print a Quran, so they couldn’t have encouraged the public in the manner described.

There was no concerted effort by the government to educate the public in the manner described. While the publisher may have hoped to discourage Islam, I can find no evidence that the publisher and the government acted on such a motive. (Source, source)

Beck Doubles Down on the False Narrative

After Sonja spoke, Glenn Beck compounded the error by suggesting Congress printed the Quran without comment for a purpose. Beck said:

There’s something specific about that struck me that was unusual. It wasn’t Congress or anybody around Jefferson that said, ‘hey, we are going to print these excerpts.’ They printed the entire thing, without comment in it. They just said, ‘you need to read this whole thing.’ That is not what we do now.

First, the government didn’t print the Quran. Second, the printers of the 1806 Quran did include comment which was quite judgmental of Islam, calling the contents of the book “absurdities.”
I challenge Barton or Beck to provide a primary source supporting the claim that Congress or Jefferson had anything to do with the 1806 edition of the Quran. I will apologize and remove this post if they can do that.
Beck titled his segment, Mercury One Arms New Generation of Leaders With Truth-Detecting Tools. Unfortunately, if today’s broadcast is any indication, these students have been disarmed. They won’t be able to be effective because they are now confidently misinformed. Because of the video, we know who is responsible.
I also invite any of the students to contact me about their experience.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Congress Will Be Two Houses with the First House Elected by Citizens

June 21, 1787

Summary

The delegates decided to make the legislature two houses with the first house elected by the people for a two year term.

Influences on the Delegates

Appeal to other nations is implied in this oration by Madison.

Mr. MADISON was of opinion, — in the first place, that there was less danger of encroachment from the General Government than from the State Governments; and in the second place, that the mischiefs from encroachments would be less fatal if made by the former, than if made by the latter.
1. All the examples of other confederacies prove the greater tendency, in such systems, to anarchy than to tyranny; to a disobedience of the members than usurpations of the Federal head. Our own experience had fully illustrated this tendency.

Why did they consider annual elections?

Mr. DICKINSON. The idea of annual elections was borrowed from the ancient usage of England, a country much less extensive than ours. He supposed biennial would be inconvenient. He preferred triennial; and in order to prevent the inconvenience of an entire change of the whole number at the same moment, suggested a rotation, by an annual election of one-third.

Delegate Wilson felt the people preferred annual elections.

Mr. WILSON, being for making the first branch an effectual representation of the people at large, preferred an annual election of it. This frequency was most familiar and pleasing to the people. It would not be more inconvenient to them than triennial elections, as the people in all the States have annual meetings with which the election of the national Representatives might be made to coincide. He did not conceive that it would be necessary for the National Legislature to sit constantly, perhaps not half, perhaps not one-fourth of the year.

Hamilton preferred three years and noted that the British had longer terms:

Colonel HAMILTON urged the necessity of three years. There ought to be neither too much nor too little dependence on the popular sentiments. The checks in the other branches of the Government would be but feeble, and would need every auxiliary principle that could be interwoven. The British House of Commons were elected septennially, yet the democratic spirit of the Constitution had not ceased. Frequency of elections tended to make the people listless to them; and to facilitate the success of little cabals. This evil was complained of in all the States. In Virginia it had been lately found necessary to force the attendance and voting of the people by severe regulations.

Eventually, the delegates decided on a two year term and a two house legislature.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – The Legislature Will Not Be One House

June 20, 1787

Summary

The delegates debated the number of houses for the legislative function. The delegates voted down a motion for a unicameral legislature.

Influences on the Constitution

England formed an easy illustration for James Wilson on the subject of representation.

The point of representation could receive no elucidation from the case of England. The corruption of the boroughs did not proceed from their comparative smallness; but from the actual fewness of the inhabitants, some of them not having more than one or two. A great inequality existed in the counties of England. Yet the like complaint of peculiar corruption in the small ones had not been made. It had been said that Congress represent the State prejudices, — will not any other body whether chosen by the Legislatures or people of the States, also represent their prejudices?

Col. Mason also referred to Britain:

He thought with his colleague (Mr. RANDOLPH,) that there were, besides, certain crises, in which all the ordinary cautions yielded to public necessity. He gave as an example, the eventual treaty with Great Britain, in forming which the Commissioners of the United States had boldly disregarded the improvident shackles of Congress; had given to their country an honorable and happy peace, and, instead of being censured for the transgression of their powers, had raised to themselves a monument more durable than brass. The impracticability of gaining the public concurrence, he thought, was still more groundless.

As an influence, Mason appealed to what “the people” would accept:

Is it to be thought that the people of America, so watchful over their interests, so jealous of their liberties, will give up their all, will surrender both the sword and the purse, to the same body, — and that, too, not chosen immediately by themselves? They never will. They never ought. Will they trust such a body with the regulation of their trade, with the regulation of their taxes, with all the other great powers which are in contemplation? Will they give unbounded confidence to a secret Journal, — to the intrigues, to the factions, which in the nature of things appertain to such an assembly? If any man doubts the existence of these characters of Congress, let him consult their Journals for the years ’78, ’79, and ’80. It will be said that, if the people are averse to parting with power, why is it hoped that they will part with it to a national Legislature? The proper answer is, that in this case they do not part with power: they only transfer it from one set of immediate representatives to another set. Much has been said of the unsettled state of the mind of the people. He believed the mind of the people of America, as elsewhere, was unsettled as to some points, but settled as to others. In two points he was sure it was well settled, — first, in an attachment to republican government; secondly, in an attachment to more than one branch in the Legislature. Their constitutions accord so generally in both these circumstances, that they seem almost to have been preconcerted. This must either have been a miracle, or have resulted from the genius of the people. The only exceptions to the establishment of two branches in the Legislature are the State of Pennsylvania, and Congress; and the latter the only single one not chosen by the people themselves. What has been the consequence? The people have been constantly averse to giving that body further powers.

James Wilson, like Madison and Hamilton, appealed to past and current confederacies as well as the experience of the states.

Mr. WILSON urged the necessity of two branches; observed, that if a proper model was not to be found in other confederacies, it was not to be wondered at. The number of them was small and the duration of some at least short. The Amphictyonic and Achæan were formed in the infancy of political science; and appear, by their history and fate, to have contained radical defects. The Swiss and Belgic confederacies were held together, not by any vital principle of energy, but by the incumbent pressure of formidable neighboring nations. The German owed its continuance to the influence of the House of Austria. He appealed to our own experience for the defects of our confederacy. He had been six years, of the twelve since the commencement of the Revolution, a member of Congress, and had felt all its weaknesses. He appealed to the recollection of others, whether, on many important occasions, the public interest had not been obstructed by the small members of the Union.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here.  In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)
To follow on social media, click the following links:
Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter

Michael Peroutka Somehow Missed the Racism in the League of the South

Michael Peroutka, a former board member of white supremacist group League of the South and current member of the Anne Arundel County Council, said Monday night that he can’t recall racism among his former League colleagues. This is not the first time he has claimed this. In yesterday’s Capital Gazette (video), Peroutka is quoted at a county council meeting as saying:

I believed the group to be integrated and non-discriminatory with regard to race, and my recollection of topics that were discussed in my presence concerned objections to overreaching and intrusive policies and programs of the federal government; they did not focus on race…

I don’t know whether or not the League had regular board meetings when Peroutka pledged his resources to the League, but I do know the racist content was clear and undeniable.
I pointed it out to him frequently. The white supremacist aim of the League was the cause of a protest against Peroutka and the National Religious Broadcasters organization. NRB provided air time for Peroutka’s Institute on the Constitution despite knowing that Peroutka was a board member of the League. Let’s review.
The following links provide all the evidence anyone could want that the League was a white supremacist group when Peroutka was involved. Let’s begin by recalling that Peroutka has been attending and speaking at the League of the South conferences since 2004 when he received the organizations endorsement for Peroutka’s presidential campaign with the Constitution Party.
When Michael Peroutka joined the board of the League of the South in 2012, he supported the aims of the League which is to form a white homeland in the South. In his speech, he referred to secession and being in sync with League goals.

We have a basic Constitution course, now again I don’t disagree with Dr. Hill at all, that this regime is beyond reform. I think that’s an obvious fact and I agree with him. However, I do agree that when you secede, or however the destruction and the rubble of this regime takes place and how it plays out, you’re going to need to take a biblical worldview and apply it to civil law and government. That’s what you’re still going to need to do. Whether we’re going to have to have this foundational information in the hearts and minds of the people, or else liberty won’t survive the secession either. You see what I’m saying? So this view, I saying that because I don’t want the League of the South, for one minute to think that I am about reforming the current regime, and that studying the Constitution is about reforming the regime. I like many of you, and like Patrick Henry, probably have come to the conclusion that we smelled a rat, smelled a rat from the beginning. However, we believe that it is essential to take a biblical view of law and government and then make those applications so we publish actually three courses of instruction.

Furthermore, League president Michael Hill made it quite clear that the League is a pro-white separatist organization. Consider the following links.
League of the South President Michael Hill Defines Southerners as White – When Peroutka was on the board, Michael Hill defined Southern people as white.
Michael Peroutka Should Not Be Surprised at White Separatism in the League of the South – In this 2014 post, I provide video of a speech by Michael Hill opposing biracial marriage and extolling the superiority of whites at the same League of the South conference where Michael Peroutka spoke and led the crowd in singing Dixie – what Peroutka said at the time was the “national anthem.”
League of the South President: Relish Being a White Supremacist – In this 2014 post, Hill is quoted celebrating his white supremacist views. He cites several people (e.g., Robert Dabney) who Peroutka also approvingly cited on his website for years.
Michael Peroutka Says the Institute on the Constitution Led Him to the League of the South – In this post, I provide 2004 video where Michael Peroutka tells an informal audience that his study of the Constitution led him to affiliation with the League of the South.
League of the South President: Southerners are Whites – While Peroutka was a member, League president Michael Hill was clear about his white supremacist views.
Rules of Engagement to Help White Southerners Survive – Michael Hill suggested several rules to help white Southerners survive.
Peroutka articulated agreement with the League’s goals and the League’s president didn’t hide their aims. Peroutka’s current support for anti-hate statements is nice but it would ring more sincerely if he gave a more credible story about his years as a League of the South leader.

The Elephant's Debt is Back

HBC logoThe Elephant’s Debt is back.
I surmise that this news is not welcome in Elgin, IL at the HQ of the Harvest Bible Chapel empire led by James MacDonald. Read the first two paragraphs of TED’s executive summary:

Executive Summary

The Elephant’s Debt is a website dedicated to exposing some of the underlying reasons why many people have both privately and publicly questioned the character of Pastor James MacDonald and his lack of qualifications for being an elder and pastor at Harvest Bible Chapel of Rolling Meadows, Illinois.
By the close of 2010, Harvest’s balance sheet revealed that the church, while under the pastoral leadership of James MacDonald, had amassed approximately $65 million of debt, and in the midst of addressing the issues raised by this website, HBC Elders informed the congregation that the debt had been as high as $70 million.  While this number in and of itself is shocking, what makes it worse is that some elders and much of the congregation had no knowledge of the extent of the debt.  The rapid expansion of MacDonald’s ministry, for reasons of ego as much as concern for the Kingdom, was the cause for the sudden and surprising accumulation of debt.  The point in raising the surprisingly accumulation of debt is not to question the current financial stability of the institution, but it is put forth as an example of the underlying character issues of MacDonald that many people are now expressing publicly.

So what brought the folks at TED back? Read this post about the “resignation” (forced removal?) of James MacDonald as president of the mission arm of HBC – Harvest Bible Fellowship.  I had this news out first but TED is the leader when it comes to Harvest Bible Chapel so check out the analysis of the current situation.
MacDonald was once a member of Mark Driscoll’s Board of Advisors and Accountability as well as a member of Donald Trump’s evangelical advisory board. To his credit, he left Trump’s board when it became clear the board wasn’t getting anywhere. He left Driscoll’s board when the heat got hot at Mars Hill Church.
Stay tuned…
 
To follow me on social media, click the following links:
Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – The New Jersey Plan Defeated

Journal Federal Cons LogoJune 19, 1787

Summary

After Madison’s critique of the New Jersey plan, the delegates rejected it.

Influences on the Constitution

As was true in past debates, the Bible did not come up once. Instead, in his oration opposing the New Jersey plan, Madison showed his vast knowledge of past and current governments. To follow my past practice, I will excerpt mentions of negative and positive models suggested by the delegates. Madison opined:

If we recur to the examples of other confederacies, we shall find in all of them the same tendency of the parts to encroach on the authority of the whole. He then reviewed the Amphictyonic and Achæan confederacies, among the ancients, and the Helvetic, Germanic, and Belgic, among the moderns; tracing their analogy to the United States in the constitution and extent of their federal authorities; in the tendency of the particular members to usurp on these authorities, and to bring confusion and ruin on the whole.

Then Madison appealed to problems with the states:

He instanced acts of Virginia and Maryland, which gave a preference to their own citizens in cases where the citizens of other States are entitled to equality of privileges by the Articles of Confederation. He considered the emissions of paper-money, and other kindred measures, as also aggressions. The States, relatively to one another, being each of them either debtor or creditor, the creditor States must suffer unjustly from every emission by the debtor States. We have seen retaliating acts on the subject, which threatened danger, not to the harmony only, but the tranquillity of the Union. The plan of Mr. PATTERSON, not giving even a negative on the acts of the States, left them as much at liberty as ever to execute their unrighteous projects against each other.
4. Will it secure the internal tranquillity of the States themselves? The insurrections in Massachusetts admonished all the States of the danger to which they were exposed. Yet the plan of Mr. PATTERSON contained no provisions for supplying the defect of the Confederation on this point. According to the republican theory, indeed, right and power being both vested in the majority, are held to be synonymous. According to fact and experience, a minority may, in an appeal to force, be an overmatch for the majority; — in the first place, if the minority happen to include all such as possess the skill and habits of military life, with such as possess the great pecuniary resources, one-third may conquer the remaining two-thirds; in the second place one third of those who participate in the choice of rulers, may be rendered a majority by the accession of those whose poverty disqualifies them from a suffrage, and who, for obvious reasons, must be more ready to join the standard of sedition than that of established government; and, in the third place, where slavery exists, the republican theory becomes still more fallacious.

Madison then referred again to the confederacies of history:

As lessons which claimed particular attention, he cited the intrigues practised among the Amphictyonic confederates, first by the Kings of Persia, and afterwards, fatally, by Philip of Macedon; among the Achæans, first by Macedon, and afterwards, no less fatally, by Rome; among the Swiss, by Austria, France and the lesser neighbouring powers; among the members of the Germanic body, by France, England, Spain and Russia; and in the Belgic republic, by all the great neighbouring powers. The plan of Mr. PATTERSON, not giving to the general councils any negative on the will of the particular States, left the door open for the like pernicious machinations among ourselves.

Finally, Madison referred to more current European experience:

It had been found impossible for the power of one of the most absolute princes in Europe (the King of France,) directed by the wisdom of one of the most enlightened and patriotic ministers (Mr. Neckar) that any age has produced, to equalize, in some points only, the different usages and regulations of the different provinces.

Speaking in response to Madison’s oration, James Wilson said:

Mr. WILSON observed that, by a national Government, he did not mean one that would swallow up the State Governments, as seemed to be wished by some gentlemen. He was tenacious of the idea of preserving the latter. He thought, contrary to the opinion of Colonel HAMILTON, that they might not only subsist, but subsist on friendly terms with the former. They were absolutely necessary for certain purposes, which the former could not reach. All large governments must be subdivided into lesser jurisdictions. As examples he mentioned Persia, Rome, and particularly the divisions and subdivisions of England by Alfred.

Although a religious man, Wilson did not appeal to the tribes of Israel for his model. Those wanting to stretch for a Christian influence might remind us that Alfred was a Christian king. However, one can’t tell from Madison’s notes what Wilson said about Alfred. Assuming Wilson came to his views due to his religion would be quite a leap.
Hamilton then countered Wilson with his own opinion of state governments – he didn’t care much for them.

Colonel HAMILTON coincided with the proposition as it stood in the Report. He had not been understood yesterday. By an abolition of the States, he meant that no boundary could be drawn between the National and State Legislatures; that the former must therefore have indefinite authority. If it were limited at all, the rivalship of the States would gradually subvert it. Even as corporations, the extent of some of them, as Virginia, Massachusetts, &c., would be formidable. As States, he thought they ought to be abolished. But he admitted the necessity of leaving in them subordinate jurisdictions. The examples of Persia and the Roman Empire, cited by Mr. WILSON, were, he thought, in favor of his doctrine, the great powers delegated to the Satraps and Proconsuls having frequently produced revolts and schemes of independence.

Eventually, the Constitution became the law of the land and ever since the states have lost more and more autonomy. Rather than this being against “the founders” wishes, we need to step back and see which founders wanted a very strong national government and which ones wanted a looser confederation. Reading through Madison’s notes, it has become clear that some delegates used Rome, Greece and the European experience as support for a strong national government and some used the same models as arguments against that strong government. At this point in Convention, no delegate grounded arguments in Christianity or the Bible.
 

Listener Supported K-LOVE Accepts Paid Advertising

KLOVE CarOne of the most frequent slogans you hear when you listen to Christian music giant K-LOVE radio is that the station is “listener supported.” When the fund drives are going on, listeners are bombarded with the message that the station wouldn’t be on the air without listener donations. As I have noted in the past, K-LOVE is sitting on millions in cash and investments and pay the executive staff extremely well, so they don’t really need all those “EZ Gifts” to remain on the air. In addition, K-LOVE is accepting paid ads for services.
I recently heard an ad for Medi-Share and learned from the health care group that Medi-Share paid K-LOVE for the ads. According to Michael Gardner, communications director with Medi-Share, “Christian Care Ministry receives media placements on K-Love because we support their programming through paid underwriting.” I also heard one from Pure Flix, a Christian comedy and entertainment group.* As far as I know, K-LOVE stations are licensed as non-commercial stations.
This might come as a surprise after hearing K-LOVE’s on-air personalities criticize other networks which use ads to underwrite programming.  In the past, K-LOVE has even boasted of being “commercial free” (see also here). Judging from online comments, listeners think the station is supposed to be commercial free (see for examples here, here, here, and here).
Also, K-LOVE recruits artists to make the pitch. Watch:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj3VUyKpxTU[/youtube]
According to the K-LOVE website, avoiding commercials is a selling point.

The K-LOVE Difference is…

Most Radio stations play an average of 19 Commercials an hour. Not at K-LOVE.
This means we can play more songs every hour than most radio stations.

No doubt they play fewer commercials per hour. However, they do air commercials and they air spots from Bible teachers such as Luis Palau, Proverbs 31 Ministries, etc. I wonder if those ministries pay to play as well.
 
*This post is not meant to detract from either Christian Care Ministry or Pure Flix. Both groups may be fine organizations. My interest in this post is to inform donors who might be trying to decide to give to K-LOVE or allow their child to register for Little League or go to summer camp. Go with the child.
To follow me on social media, click the following links:
Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter