Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Adams Rebukes Americans United

December 22, 2011 by  

Americans United for Separation of Church and State likes to use costly litigation and intentional disinformation to cow school districts into abandoning the recognition of religious holidays that for 200 years were staples of American classrooms.

One example is the organization’s recent complaint about the inclusion of the song, “Silent Night” in a Christmas program at G.W. Trenholm School in Alabama.

Americans United, similar organizations and activist court rulings that attack schools, city halls and courthouses around the country for Christian-themed displays or Christmas pageants are completely misinterpreting both the 1st Amendment and the Founders’ intentions.

As John Adams wrote in his “Thoughts on Government, Applicable to the Present State of the American Colonies”:

It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

Those opposing (or ruling against) public prayers, religious songs and Christian displays by local schools and local and State government are ignoring the fact that 1st Amendment bars Congress from establishing a religion and prohibiting the free exercise of religion. And the 10th Amendment reserves to the States and to the people the right to decide how they exercise their 1st Amendment rights — and anything else not enumerated in the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution gives activist judges authority to prohibit religious activity, and nowhere in the Constitution is anyone guaranteed the freedom from religion.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Adams Rebukes Americans United”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Michael

    Ooopsie. Michele Bachmann denounces Medicaid whilst her husband takes $137,000 from Medicaid. Between this take, the $260,000 in farm subsidies, the government job, the $24,000 government grants to “train” their clinic employees, and the foster children state payments, one wonders exactly what Michele Bachmann means by “small government” and standing on our own two feet.

    • Norman F.

      Michael, just exactly what does your post have to do with the subject under discussion?

    • Greenman

      I agree with Norman. What are you talking about and why?

    • s c

      Ooops, we have yet another braindead utopian sending in remarks that have nothing to do with an article’s topic. Ooops, does that mean that certain people can’t read or understand English? Ooops, my middle digits are making it hard for me to type this. Ooops, m, you’ve been outed as a closet utopian.

    • http://naver samurai

      Way too much kool aid. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • JimH

    In 18th century England the king determined what the state religion would be. Even in earlier centuries.( the reason the pilgrims came to the new world) When the founding fathers refered to a seperation of church and state(not in the Constitution)they meant that the state would not have an official church, but that we would be free to worship in any church.
    In England the Bishops were influential in the kings decisions. The founding fathers didn’t want church leaders to influence state government.
    I don’t think they would find singing Silent Night in school or wishing someone Merry Christmas a threat.
    Americans(I use the name loosly) United for seperation of church and state and the courts could definatly find something better to do with their time than nit picking about a school kid singing Silent Night.

    • Brian

      It is a myth that they came due to opposition to a state religion. The fact is the earliest Colonists did indeed have official religions and persecuted those that didn’t fall in line. The religious freedom they sought was to break away from the Church of England and practice and make official their brand of religion.

      • Greenman

        Well, Brian, if they came to break away from the Church of England, then one of the reasons they came was for freedom of religion, so that wasn’t a myth. You are right about these religion being intolerant of other faiths which is perhaps the first amendment was created so all faiths can be free to worship as they please in this nation.

        • Robert Smith

          Greenman posted: “You are right about these religion being intolerant of other faiths which is perhaps the first amendment was created so all faiths can be free to worship as they please in this nation.”

          Or no religion.

          Remember, the Constitution says there will be no religious test for candidates.


          • Robert Smith

            Thus it is Unconstitutional when religious organizations decry and smear any candidate’s religious position.


          • Steve

            But why is it that the “Atheist Religion” is more important than Christianity? Why is it that it’s all right for an antheist to pi$$ and moan about a simple holiday greeting, a Nativity Scene, a graduation prayer or a holiday song? Why can’t atheists simply walk past a Nativity Scene, or humm a few bars of “I’m Too Sexy” during a prayer invocation, or when someone says “Merry Christmas”, simply say, “Hey, it’s good to see you too?”

            No, when an atheist sees something they don’t like, they have to get the courts involved, protest and make a general nuisance of themselves.

            I agree with CanCan, if religion offends you that bad, then you shouldn’t be partaking of the holiday at all. Get off your lazy butt and go to work on December 25th if it’s a regular work day. Don’t complain that you’re not getting time and a half for working a holiday. Keep the atheist kids in school.

            But lay off preaching to the Christians, we aren’t going to listen to you anyway. We believe that it’s called CHRISTmas for a reason and we aren’t going away.

            Or go pick on your Muslim buddies…..

          • Rachelle

            1) The Constitution is a restriction on what government can do, not people or organizations.
            2) Our Founding Fathers repeatedly said that our Constitution was meant only for a moral and religious people, because when a people do not exercise moral self-control, governments always step in to control the people…which is where we are at today.

          • Vigilant

            RS and Greenman, I’m afraid your understanding of the Constitution is flawed in assuming that it is a legal prescription for everything a state does. It’s a common error, and people of all political persuasions make it.

            Properly understood, the Constitution is silent on religious tests for office-holding at any other level than the Federal Government. In several states, religious tests for office existed well into the 18th century. It was only when STATE constitutions were amended that the proscription disappeared.

            Moreover, “it is [NOT] Unconstitutional when religious organizations decry and smear any candidate’s religious position.” Short of slander, the same amendment that covers freedom of religion also covers freedom of speech.

            Mr. Livingston is 100% correct in his assertion that the states may do as they wish when it comes to arranging their political affairs. Unlikely as it may be, the people of a state could vote to restrict religious freedoms if they so chose, and amend their state constitutions to do so. NOTHING in the Constitution forbids it.

          • Vigilant

            Correct that: 19th, not 18th century.

          • DaveH

            Robert says “Remember, the Constitution says there will be no religious test for candidates”.
            Okay, Robert, where does it say that?

          • Joe H.

            Surely you didn’t catch Mr. Robert Smith in a LIE?!?!?!? Not Mr. Smith that hatches Acorns??? Nah, couldn’t be!! He must have ABORTED his train of thought!!!

      • JimH

        Brian, The pilgrams came here to escape religios persecution. No one said they wanted others to be free to worship in their own way.
        The later colonists concidered them selves British subjects, and it wasn’t until they overthrew the British and became independent,the idea of freedom to worship came along. With that, the idea that there wasn’t to be a state church and influence by the church higherarchy involved in government.
        It means we are free to worship or not as we see fit.
        The first amnendment doesn’t forbid religion in a public place, it allows the freedom of it.
        So, Brian what part of my statement is a myth?

    • Lost in Paradise

      This is all part of prepping the kids to be socialists. Do not expose them to christian values. Expose them to sunshine everywhere, where everyone is accepted no matter your moral chacter or actions.

      • Karolyn

        “moral character or actions” as in homosexuality? Everyone should be accepted for who and what they are, no matter what their sexual orientation, religion, race, gender, psychological makeup, etc. Why should anyone be not accepted for who they are? What good does it do not to accept them?

        • DaveH

          That would be nice, Karolyn, but people also have the Freedom of Association. Nobody has a right to force those on us who we do not choose to associate with. That includes gays.

          • Karolyn

            Well, duh, nobody HAS to interact with anybody they don’t want to.

          • DaveH

            Then Duh, Karolyn, why do you advocate the Force of Government as the solution?

        • Joe H.

          Please show me where he used that phrase??? He said NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH, about the gays, lesbians or those oriented PEOPLE!!! It’s not nice to put words in other peoples mouths, let alone whole trains of thought!!!

    • T-Texas

      Tell them to pack sand in their rears and do like we are doing in Athens,TX.We are keeping our nativity scene and dare them to come do anything about it.Atheist should remember that if they don.t like something do as we do don’t look or listen.I detest rap music but I don’t try to get a law passed to make it illegal.The bible say to pluck out your eye if it offends you but nothing about making others to do the same.

    • john

      It’s really a pleasure to see that there is someone that really knows the meaning of separation of church and state .Our fore fathers had god in every thing they did That’s why you had blue laws and pray in schools and in God we trust. They had God plastered all over. Our fore fathers would read the bible and pray in congress.and we became the greatest country in the world .And now were going down the tube because were pushing god out of the picture .Now we have all kinds of perversions like abortion, same sex marriage and ect .When God gets angry enough .He punishes nations by given them over to their enemies .You can find that all through the bible, as time goes on. We will be having more and more problems .We the people need to put god fearing men back in office ,Who will set the standards our fore father set if we don’t do this some day soon ,there might be a Muslim or Chinese flag flying over the Nations Capital

  • Ed Mack

    When school boards listen to the ACLU and all these other jackass orginizations whose opinion is against the majority of citizens within that area, they should be thrown out of office, period. The ONLY time not to be is if and when the opinion is blatantly unlawful. I’m sick and tired of wasting all this money and time in our judicial system on anti-American idiots

    • Michael

      Rather than carp and whine to one another, I recommend we encourage our elected ‘representatives’ to impeach statist judges. The Supremes should be the first to go – they have legislated from the bench for over a century.

      • DaveH

        First we have to elect non-statist representatives.

  • Brian

    It is a myth that Christmas was a big deal in early America. In fact, there were many times that Congress met in regular session on December 25. Other government offices were also open on that date. Christmas became the big deal it is when someone realized it could be a big money maker. Christians who truly understand their religion understand that Easter is the important holy day that celebrates the one thing that separates Christians from other religions… the resurection.

    • Karolyn

      Stores started promoting Christmas shopping in 1820, and started having special Christmas sections in the paper in 1840; so it’s been around a long time. It wasn’t til 1881 that Thomas Nast’s depiction of Santa Claus became the norm.

    • Vigilant

      Brian says, “Christians who truly understand their religion understand that Easter is the important holy day that celebrates the one thing that separates Christians from other religions… the resurection.”

      Not true. Re:

      “While Christian beliefs are presumably much more widely known, especially in the Western world, some adherents to the major non-Christian religions also make claims that some of their historical rabbis, prophets, gurus or ‘messiahs’ rose from the dead.

      Judging from the relevant religious literature, it appears that such non-Christian claims are often ignored, perhaps because there is little awareness of them. Even if the existence of such beliefs is recognized, almost never is there any in-depth answer to the question of whether such claims could possibly be grounded in supernatural events of history.”

      You were saying…..?

  • Miki, Chesapeake VA

    Finally your article in terms that any 2nd grade child can understand. How many times have we heard – “oh we must separate church and state” – and from that flippant ill-advised phrase the conclusion is that the state can separate U.S. citizens from the church. Proves that few read the Constitution of the United States.

  • cawmun cents

    To be politically correct,or not to be politically correct.
    That is the question.

    But the answer is quite truthfully,there is no such thing as politically correct.
    Because politics in general are a means by which to argue sides of an issue,there can never be a determined correctness in political discourse.It has and will be determined by those in power at any given time.
    Many of those in power right now,have the notion that any religion is bad.They think that religious folk want to take away their rights.
    But then the conditions for arguing rights become problematic and it all boils down to who is in power again.
    The Constitution does not make provision for any local ordinances,prohibiting cities and states from making their own laws regarding religion.
    That being said,neither does it prohibit gun ownership,and the free exercise of religious freedoms.Nor the right to express ones opine,both in public and in print.
    I do not see where the Constitution prohibits tar and feathering either,though I suppose in retrospect it would be seen as an archaic way of dealing with political correctness in an offhand manner.
    To think that a large group of citizens could gather and then run a corrupt and or mal-feasant politician out of town by tarring and feathering them would be seen as crass by the media and its political associates.
    They might even cause the police in the local area to attempt to arrest the citizens who were engaged in that particular activity.
    But then a large group of armed citizens might indeed have the upper hand if they were inclined to come from many different directions rather than just a few.
    Marching against a barricade on a street is one thing.
    But the police cannot effectivelly barricade every street and alleyway,building and sewer.
    Therefore the politician can be sought and obtained by those who wish to rid themselves of the influence of said politician.Keepm in mind that it must be done without harming said politician any further than the tarring,feathering,and the running out of town.One must never seek to rob them of life and or property.
    These things of which I speak are of course all in fun,not to be taken literally,for I do not advocate such activity.
    I am merely pointing out that they can be done by the industrious among us.But that would require agreement between substantial groups of citizenry,not to get out of hand and force the powers that be to advance the military option to cause martial law.
    We already live in a police state of a sort.
    There is no merit in trying the patience of those in power unless you wish to change the order of things.
    But we all know that we are far too comfortable with the current situation to ever accomplish that kind of agreement,right?

    • Lost in Paradise

      I believe you are correct, but also marshal law is coming, and we need to be ready for combat if we are to shut it down.

    • Karolyn

      Political correctness should just be respecting another person’s right to be who they are without prejudice, bigotry and hate being heaped on him. It is basically a matter of respecting each other and our rights.

      • s c

        k, pc is to be avoided 24/7. Political correctness is a form of MIND CONTROL, and it is used by shady politicians, warped manipulators, closet Nazis and all manner of people who can’t admit that they hate freedom. Apparently, you ‘grew up,’ so to speak, in a community where pc is tolerated.
        It’s sad that some people are so easy to manipulate. You owe it to yourself to do some
        serious reading/research and learn why and how you are programming yourself. You might consider doing a formal term paper on your own time, and then have a critical instructor grade it for you. You might be surprised to learn the difference between who you are now and who you can be.

        • Karolyn

          sc – I was raised in a racist, bigoted household and heard derogatory terms used for different races, ethnicities and religions; yet I grew up a tolerant person. I am not as PC as you might think. I remember years ago when a volunteer where I worked was all up in arms about a politician who was called on the carpet for using the term “Polack” in reference to someone who was Polish. Her husband was Polish and it disturbed him. I told her I didn’t mind being called a Polack. I know who and what I am and really don’t care what you call me. We always used that term growing up in a large Polish-American family. My point is that we should all have respect for each other, and that far too many take themselves far too seriously.

    • Joe H.

      CC & karolyn,
      Instead of politically correct, I think I would rather be constitutionally correct!!! I truely believe it is of more worth!!!

  • CanCan

    So let me see if I can get this straight: We have a so-called “separation of church & state” (gag, choke), which basically kicks Christianity out of schools, government, and even public places. And yet Congress and Obama are taking the week of Christmas off for the Christmas holiday? Excuse me, but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And well, unless Congress and the president are Christians, not a one of them should be allowed to take ANY time off for a holiday representing a religion they love to hate and vilify. The government can have New Year’s off, but if the Feds want to be that way, their butts should not be allowed to take time off for a Christian holiday. Keep the kid’s butts in school on Decembre 25th, as well, as we do not want to offend any other religion by giving any of them time off for a Christian holiday they night not even believe or agree with. After all, it is “separation of church & state”, you see.

  • Karolyn

    Many people just take themselves too seriously. Everybody needs to just “live and let live.” Unfortunately, there are extremists on all sides.

    • http://na Jim

      All wars are really ugly where thousands of people die. But a religeous war is even worse, lets hope it never comes to that. Christians against non-Christians would be as bad as it possibly could get.

  • http://na Jim

    This topic always kills me. I grew up in a religeous family and went to a religeous school. But I was also raised to work hard and obey societies rules. What part of religion do these idiots get so pissed off about. As a child you don’t even know what the words of any of the prayers or songs in this case mean. When I was a teenager my parents allowed me to decide for myself to go to church or the religious school when I could intelligently decide. I chose public school and thought it was a good move because it allowed me to interact with more less religious kids. It prepared me for society. But the foundation and values of most religions is really what our country needs more now then ever. I don’t want to say there is a scewed agenda here but these groups/schools need to get off of this stuff quick.

  • Lost in Paradise

    More and more of our christian holidays will be attacked in the short term, and even eliminated. We may even come to a time when it is illegal to warship.

    However, it will be ok for the Muslims to spread the filth of Islam. In fact we are already seeing this in the U.S..

  • Karolyn

    In our little county a middle school had a program by a Christian rapper on a school day. Children were not compelled to attend and had to have permission slips signed by parents. The ones who chose not to attend went to the library to read or play video games. Well, one student and his father have instituted suit via the ACLU against the school system. This boy has been harrassed and ostracized because he did not attend the concert. When he told a teacher he was an atheist, she responded somethig like “I wouldn’t want to talk to proudly about that.” What a jerk! At any rate, I believe that this concert should not have been held during regular school hours. However, I do believe that filing suit is going too far. I do sympathize with the boy because he lives in the Bible Belt and is not Christian; however, I don’t like what his father is teaching him.

    • Joe H.

      you let the teacher off too easy. She should have had the intestinal fortitude to talk to the FATHER, not the kid!!!

  • americanfreedom70

    Again this is another issue allowed to propogate because people have stoped teaching the real meaning of the constitution to children from an early age. In a democratic society (not to be confused with a republic country) since when do we cowtoe to the minority? This is an issue to be resolved on a very localized level through district refferendums, not judicial courts. STOP wasting our time and money!

  • s c

    Americans United for Separation of Church and State, eh? Don’t certain people in this country get tired of trying to pass themselves off as people who know the difference between limited government and a power-swilling, 40 ton pig on steroids?
    It sounds like an offshoot of Al Capp’s Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything [aka SWINE] back in the ’60s. I’d say SUCK [Socialists United for Complete Kontrol] sounds a lot more fitting.

  • Russell

    There has been a lot of debate about the separation of church and state, but missing from the debate is civilization.

    But what is civilization? According to Webster, 1. Civilizing or being civilized 2. The total culture of a people, period etc. 3. The peoples considered to have reached a high social development. Civility; 1.politeness 2. Courtesy 3. A civil or polite act.

    Are we really civilized? If you said yes you haven’t read the newspaper or listened to the radio or watched TV for a while.

    In order to solve any problem, the cause of the problem must be found. I have chosen to start with our ancestors before they became civilized.

    If we look at today’s wild animals, we find that anything goes. They are selfish, greedy, deceitful, and anything else that promotes their survival. They also use violence to establish a “pecking order or their attempt to become the alpha male. Is human behavior any different?

    Today’s humans have a great imagination. Look at all the stories that have been written such as Harry Potter, Wizard of Oz, Star Trek, and many, many more. Did our ancestors possess that trait?

    When and how did civilization begin?

    Some form of communication had to be in place so as to transmit the belief of one generation to the next. Just how did the beliefs get started? Thunder and lighting can be pretty menacing, and not understanding nature, assumed that a spirit had caused it and that it was because of their action that displeased the spirit. As time went on more and more phenomenons were seen as caused by spirits which modified their actions. Because of their beliefs, “a crude form of religion” civilization was started..

    By the time recorded history was started religion was well established. And each nation had their own religion. With the same ideology the people had no problem with celebrating religious holidays. There was no one to complain that it was held on government property.

    When Christianity first appeared there was little tolerance for the new religion. As a matter of fact there was little tolerance for any thing new. Up to this time, religion was government sponsored and would continued until our constitution. Our founding fathers took the government out of religion while allowing religion in government. “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    Even today, religions are keeping civil in civilization that is most religions. After all, what we believe in guides our lives. Civilization hasn’t been around long enough that we can eliminate intensive training to subdue our animal instincts.

    Multi-culture and diversity are fine if we develop a thick skin. Our country is a republic were the majority rule with protection of the minority. Sometimes the minority rule through the miss reading of the constitution. When the minority wants the majority to stop a pageantry etc. and the only reason is that it taxes their sensitivity. Then harmony is put on the back burner.

  • Alex Frazier

    We have freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Everyone has the right to practice their religion freely. No one has the right to stop them from doing so to pamper their tender sensibilities. If someone doesn’t like a Christmas song, that’s just too bad.

    • Joe H.

      Suprisingly, I find myself in complete agreement with you!!! Merry CHRISTmas!!!

      • Alex Frazier

        Why would that be something to be surprised at? Unless you’re a liberal, I don’t expect that we will disagree on too many things, unless you are wont to let your passion interfere with your reason.

  • John Burleson

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” GOT IT, IDIOT? If not, start chanting the phrase following the comma. Then get a life.

    John Burleson, fearing no scum

    • Alex Frazier

      Who are you talking to John? The insult is in outer space without a target.

  • Buck

    And just what does historical fact mean to ignorant heathens ?

  • LBJ

    Yes, the atheists are all about reducing exposure of children to Christian culture. I once had to interact with members of a hard line Soviet party in another country. They started their endless discussions with us young Americans in an isolated camp about the need to overcome our capitalist inhibitions. What are capitalist inhibitions? According to them, sexual morality.Who advocates for sexual morality par excellence? Christianity.So if you want to fight Obama,who is a Communist through and through, we must pray and put on the whole armor of God and work like the devil does.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.