Dr. Manning Interviews Marvin Stewart. Recorded on 30 June 2011. For More Info Go To: http://atlahmedianetwork.org or http://atlah.org

Marvin Stewart speaks about being heckled at Columbia University.

The Negro Project
Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Plan for Black Americans
By Tanya L. Green
May 10, 2001

“… I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.”
—Deuteronomy 30:19 (NKJV)

On the crisp, sunny, fall Columbus Day in 1999, organizers of the “Say So” march approached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. The marchers, who were predominantly black pastors and lay persons, concluded their three-day protest at the site of two monumental cases: the school desegregation Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade (1973). The significance of each case—equal rights for all Americans in the former, and abortion “rights” in the latter—converged in the declaration of Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, the march’s sponsor and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization.

“’Civil rights’ doesn’t mean anything without a right to life!” declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans—black and white—are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).¹

The aim of the program was to restrict—many believe exterminate—the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s crème de la crème—those prominent, well educated and well-to-do—into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: “We have become victims of genocide by our own hands,” cried Hunter at the “Say So” march.

Malthusian Eugenics

Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purity,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th-century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race.² He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people.³ His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:

All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.⁴

Malthus’ disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated—or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.⁵

Critics of Malthusianism said the group “produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless.” Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them.⁶

Despite the falsehoods of Malthus’ overpopulation claims, Sanger nonetheless immersed herself in Malthusian eugenics. Grant wrote she argued for birth control using the “scientifically verified” threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation as its background. Sanger’s publication, The Birth Control Review (founded in 1917) regularly published pro-eugenic articles from eugenicists, such as Ernst Rudin.⁷ Although Sanger ceased editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the ABCL continued to use it as a platform for eugenic ideas.

Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. Grant reported that “virtually all of the organization’s board members were eugenicists.” Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening of birth control clinics to the publishing of “revolutionary” literature. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of services “almost without exception.” And Planned Parenthood’s international work was originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society. The two organizations were intertwined for years.⁸

The ABCL became a legal entity on April 22, 1922, in New York. Before that, Sanger illegally operated a birth control clinic in October 1916, in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York, which eventually closed. The clinic serviced the poor immigrants who heavily populated the area—those deemed “unfit” to reproduce.⁹

Sanger’s early writings clearly reflected Malthus’ influence. She writes:

Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.¹⁰

In another passage, she decries the burden of “human waste” on society:

It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].¹¹

She concluded,

The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression.¹²

The Review printed an excerpt of an address Sanger gave in 1926. In it she said:

It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit.¹³

Sanger said a “bonus” would be “wise and profitable” and “the salvation of American civilization.”¹⁴ She presented her ideas to Mr. C. Harold Smith (of the New York Evening World) on “the welfare committee” in New York City. She said, “people must be helped to help themselves.” Any plan or program that would make them “dependent upon doles and charities” is “paternalistic” and would not be “of any permanent value.” She included an essay (what she called a “program of public welfare,”) entitled “We Must Breed a Race of Thoroughbreds.”¹⁵

In it she argued that birth control clinics, or bureaus, should be established “in which men and women will be taught the science of parenthood and the science of breeding.” For this was the way “to breed out of the race the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defect, poverty, lawlessness, crime … since these classes would be decreasing in number instead of breeding like weeds [emphasis added].”¹⁶

Her program called for women to receive birth control advice in various situations, including where:

• the woman or man had a “transmissible” disease such as insanity, feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, syphilis, etc.;
• the children already born were “subnormal or feeble-minded”;
• the father’s wages were “inadequate … to provide for more children.”

Sanger said “such a plan would … reduce the birthrate among the diseased, the sickly, the poverty stricken and anti-social classes, elements unable to provide for themselves, and the burden of which we are all forced to carry.”¹⁷

Sanger had openly embraced Malthusian eugenics, and it shaped her actions in the ensuing years.

The Harlem Clinic

In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL’s perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this “experimental clinic,” which officially opened on November 21, 1930. Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business.¹⁸ In addition to being thought of as “inferior” and disproportionately represented in the underclass, according to the clinic’s own files used to justify its “work,” blacks in Harlem:

• were segregated in an over-populated area (224,760 of 330,000 of greater New York’s black population lived in Harlem during the late 1920s and 1930s);
• comprised 12 percent of New York City’s population, but accounted for 18.4 percent of New York City’s unemployment;
• had an infant mortality rate of 101 per 1000 births, compared to 56 among whites;
• had a death rate from tuberculosis—237 per 100,000—that was highest in central Harlem, out of all of New York City.¹⁹

Although the clinic served whites as well as blacks, it “was established for the benefit of the colored people.” Sanger wrote this in a letter to Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois,²⁰ one of the day’s most influential blacks. A sociologist and author, he helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909 to improve the living conditions of black Americans.

That blacks endured extreme prejudice and discrimination, which contributed greatly to their plight, seemed to further justify restricting their numbers. Many believed the solution lay in reducing reproduction. Sanger suggested the answer to poverty and degradation lay in smaller numbers of blacks. She convinced black civic groups in Harlem of the “benefits” of birth control, under the cloak of “better health” (i.e., reduction of maternal and infant death; child spacing) and “family planning.” So with their cooperation, and the endorsement of The Amsterdam News (a prominent black newspaper), Sanger established the Harlem branch of the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau.²¹ The ABCL told the community birth control was the answer to their predicament.

Sanger shrewdly used the influence of prominent blacks to reach the masses with this message. She invited DuBois and a host of Harlem’s leading blacks, including physicians, social workers, ministers and journalists, to form an advisory council to help direct the clinic “so that our work in birth control will be a constructive force in the community.”²² She knew the importance of having black professionals on the advisory board and in the clinic; she knew blacks would instinctively suspect whites of wanting to decrease their numbers. She would later use this knowledge to implement the Negro Project.

Sanger convinced the community so well that Harlem’s largest black church, the Abyssinian Baptist Church, held a mass meeting featuring Sanger as the speaker.²³ But that event received criticism. At least one “very prominent minister of a denomination other than Baptist” spoke out against Sanger. Dr. Adam Clayton Powell Sr., pastor of Abyssinian Baptist, “received adverse criticism” from the (unnamed) minister who was “surprised that he’d allow that awful woman in his church.”²⁴

Grace Congregational Church hosted a debate on birth control. Proponents argued birth control was necessary to regulate births in proportion to the family’s income; spacing births would help mothers recover physically and fathers financially; physically strong and mentally sound babies would result; and incidences of communicable diseases would decrease.

Opponents contended that as a minority group blacks needed to increase rather than decrease and that they needed an equal distribution of wealth to improve their status. In the end, the debate judges decided the proponents were more persuasive: Birth control would improve the status of blacks.²⁵ Still, there were others who equated birth control with abortion and therefore considered it immoral.

Eventually, the Urban League took control of the clinic,²⁶ an indication the black community had become ensnared in Sanger’s labyrinth.

Birth Control as a Solution

The Harlem clinic and ensuing birth control debate opened dialogue among blacks about how best to improve their disadvantageous position. Some viewed birth control as a viable solution: High reproduction, they believed, meant prolonged poverty and degradation. Desperate for change, others began to accept the “rationale” of birth control. A few embraced eugenics. The June 1932 edition of The Birth Control Review, called “The Negro Number,” featured a series of articles written by blacks on the “virtues” of birth control.

The editorial posed this question: “Shall they go in for quantity or quality in children? Shall they bring children into the world to enrich the undertakers, the physicians and furnish work for social workers and jailers, or shall they produce children who are going to be an asset to the group and American society?” The answer: “Most [blacks], especially women, would choose quality … if they only knew how.”²⁷

DuBois, in his article “Black Folk and Birth Control,” noted the “inevitable clash of ideals between those Negroes who were striving to improve their economic position and those whose religious faith made the limitation of children a sin.”²⁸ He criticized the “mass of ignorant Negroes” who bred “carelessly and disastrously so that the increase among [them] … is from that part of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.”²⁹

DuBois called for a “more liberal attitude” among black churches. He said they were open to “intelligent propaganda of any sort, and the American Birth Control League and other agencies ought to get their speakers before church congregations and their arguments in the Negro newspapers [emphasis added].”³⁰

Charles S. Johnson, Fisk University’s first black president, wrote “eugenic discrimination” was necessary for blacks.³¹ He said the high maternal and infant mortality rates, along with diseases like tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria and venereal infection, made it difficult for large families to adequately sustain themselves.

Further, “the status of Negroes as marginal workers, their confinement to the lowest paid branches of industry, the necessity for the labors of mothers, as well as children, to balance meager budgets, are factors [that] emphasize the need for lessening the burden not only for themselves, but of society, which must provide the supplementary support in the form of relief.”³² Johnson later served on the National Advisory Council to the BCFA, becoming integral to the Negro Project.

Writer Walter A. Terpenning described bringing a black child into a hostile world as “pathetic.” In his article “God’s Chillun,” he wrote:

The birth of a colored child, even to parents who can give it adequate support, is pathetic in view of the unchristian and undemocratic treatment likely to be accorded it at the hands of a predominantly white community, and the denial of choice in propagation to this unfortunate class is nothing less than barbarous [emphasis added].³³

Terpenning considered birth control for blacks as “the more humane provision” and “more eugenic” than among whites. He felt birth control information should have first been disseminated among blacks rather than the white upper crust.³⁴ He failed to look at the problematic attitudes and behavior of society and how they suppressed blacks. He offered no solutions to the injustice and vile racism that blacks endured.

Sadly, DuBois’ words of black churches being “open to intelligent propaganda” proved prophetic. Black pastors invited Sanger to speak to their congregations. Black publications, like The Afro-American and The Chicago Defender, featured her writings. Rather than attacking the root causes of maternal and infant deaths, diseases, poverty, unemployment and a host of other social ills—not the least of which was racism—Sanger pushed birth control. To many, it was better for blacks not to be born rather than endure such a harsh existence.

Against this setting, Sanger charmed the black community’s most distinguished leaders into accepting her plan, which was designed to their own detriment. She peddled her wares wrapped in pretty packages labeled “better health” and “family planning.” No one could deny the benefits of better health, being financially ready to raise children, or spacing one’s children. However, the solution to the real issues affecting blacks did not lay in reducing their numbers. It lay in attacking the forces in society that hindered their progress. Most importantly, one had to discern Sanger’s motive behind her push for birth control in the community. It was not an altruistic one.

Web of Deceit

Prior to 1939, Sanger’s “outreach to the black community was largely limited to her Harlem clinic and speaking at black churches.”³⁵ Her vision for “the reproductive practices of black Americans” expanded after the January 1939 merger of the Clinical Research Bureau and the American Birth Control League to form the Birth Control Federation of America. She selected Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing company Procter and Gamble, to be the BCFA regional director of the South.

Gamble wrote a memorandum in November 1939 entitled “Suggestions for the Negro Project,” in which he recognized that “black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot.” He suggested black leaders be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge.³⁶ Yet Sanger’s reply reflects Gamble’s ambivalence about having blacks in authoritative positions:

I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience … that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and … knowledge, which … will have far-reaching results among the colored people.³⁷

Another project director lamented:

I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with … a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under white supervision.³⁸

Sanger knew blacks were a religious people—and how useful ministers would be to her project. She wrote in the same letter:

The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members [emphasis added].³⁹

Sanger’s cohorts within the BCFA sought to attract black leadership. They succeeded. The list of black leaders who made up BCFA’s National Advisory Council reads like a “who’s who” among black Americans. To name a few:⁴⁰

• Claude A. Barnett, director, Associated Negro Press, Chicago
• Michael J. Bent, M.D., Meharry Medical School, Nashville
• Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune, president, National Council of Negro Women, Washington, D.C., special advisor to President Roosevelt on minority groups, and founder of Bethune-Cookman College, Daytona Beach
• Dr. Dorothy Boulding Ferebee, cum laude graduate of Tufts, president of Alpha Kappa Alpha (the nation’s oldest black sorority), Washington, D.C.
• Charles S. Johnson, president, Fisk University, Nashville
• Eugene Kinckle Jones, executive secretary, National Urban League, New York
• Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., pastor, Abyssinian Baptist Church, New York
• Bishop David H. Sims, pastor, African Methodist Episcopal Church, Philadelphia
• Arthur Spingarn, president, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Even with this impressive list, Sanger ran into resistance when she tried to present a birth control exhibit at the 1940 American Negro Exposition, a fair that traces the progress blacks have made since the Emancipation Proclamation, in Chicago. After inviting the BCFA to display its exhibit, the Exposition’s board later cancelled, citing “last minute changes in floor space.”⁴¹

Sanger did not buy this and issued a statement urging public protest. “This has come as a complete surprise,” said Sanger, “since the Federation undertook preparation of the exhibit upon an express invitation from a member of the Exposition board.”⁴² She said the cancellation resulted from “concerted action on the part of representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.” She even accused the church of threatening officials with the withholding of promised federal and state funds needed to hold the Exposition.⁴³

Her statement mentioned BCFA prepared the exhibit in consultation with its National (Negro) Advisory Council, and it illustrated “the need for birth control as a public health measure.”⁴⁴ She said the objective was to demonstrate how birth control would “improve the welfare of the Negro population,” noting the maternal death rate among black mothers was nearly 50 percent higher, and the child death rate was more than one-third greater than the white community.⁴⁵

At Sanger’s urging, protesters of the cancellation sent letters to Attorney Wendall E. Green, vice chairman of the Afra-Merican Emancipation Exposition Commission (sponsor of the Exposition), requesting he investigate. Green denied there was any threat or pressure to withhold funds needed to finance the Exposition. Further, he said the Exposition commission (of Illinois) “unanimously passed a resolution,” which read in part: “That in the promotion, conduct and accomplishment of the objectives (of the Exposition) there must be an abiding spirit to create goodwill toward all people.”⁴⁶ He added that since the funds for the Exposition “came from citizens of all races and creeds, any exhibit in conflict with the known convictions of any religious group contravenes the spirit of the resolution,”⁴⁷ which seemed to support Catholic opposition. The commission upheld the ban on the exhibit.

“Better Health for 13,000,000”

The propaganda of the Negro Project was that birth control meant better health. So on this premise, the BCFA designed two southern Negro Project “demonstration programs” to show “how medically-supervised birth control integrated into existing public health services could improve the general welfare of Negroes, and to initiate a nationwide educational program.”⁴⁸

The BCFA opened the first clinic at the Bethlehem Center in urban Nashville, Tennessee (where blacks constituted only 25 percent of the population), on February 13, 1940. They extended the work to the Social Services Center of Fisk University (a historically black college) on July 23, 1940. This location was especially significant because of its proximity to Meharry Medical School, which trained more than 50 percent of black physicians in the United States.⁴⁹

An analysis of the income of the Nashville group revealed that “no family, regardless of size, had an income over $15 a week. The service obviously reached the income group for which it was designed,”⁵⁰ indicating the project’s target. The report claimed to have brought “to light serious diseases and making possible their treatment, … [and] that 55 percent [354 of the 638] of the patients prescribed birth control methods used it consistently and successfully.”⁵¹ However, the report presented “no definite figures … to demonstrate the extent of community improvement.”⁵²

The BCFA opened the second clinic on May 1, 1940, in rural Berkeley County, South Carolina, under the supervision of Dr. Robert E. Seibels, chairman of the Committee on Maternal Welfare of the South Carolina Medical Association.⁵³ BCFA chose this site in part “because leaders in the state were particularly receptive to the experiment. South Carolina had been the second state to make child spacing a part of its state public health program after a survey of the state’s maternal deaths showed that 25 percent occurred among mothers known to be physically unfit for pregnancy.”⁵⁴ Again, the message went out: Birth control—not better prenatal care—reduced maternal and infant mortality.

Although Berkeley County’s population was 70 percent black, the clinic received criticism that members of this group were “overwhelmingly in the majority.”⁵⁵ Seibels assured Claude Barnett that this was not the case. “We have … simply given our help to those who were willing to receive it, and these usually are Negroes,” he said.⁵⁶

While religious convictions significantly influenced the Nashville patients’ view of birth control, people in Berkeley County had “no religious prejudice against birth control. But the attitude that treatment of any disease was ‘against nature’ was in the air.”⁵⁷ Comparing the results of the two sites, “it is seen that the immediate receptivity to the demonstration was at the outset higher in the rural area.”⁵⁸ However, “the final total success was lower [in the rural area].” However, in Berkeley, “stark poverty was even more in evidence, and bad roads, bad weather and ignorance proved powerful counter forces [to the contraceptive programs].” After 18 months, the Berkeley program closed.⁵⁹

The report indicated that, contrary to expectations, the lives of black patients serviced by the clinics did not improve dramatically from birth control. Two beliefs stood in the way: Some blacks likened birth control to abortion and others regarded it as “inherently immoral.”⁶⁰ However, “when thrown against the total pictures of the awareness on the part of Negro leaders of the improved conditions, … and their opportunities to even better conditions under Planned Parenthood, … the obstacles to the program are greatly outweighed,” said Dr. Dorothy Ferebee.⁶¹

A hint of eugenic flavor seasoned Ferebee’s speech: “The future program [of Planned Parenthood] should center around more education in the field through the work of a professional Negro worker, because those of us who believe that the benefits of Planned Parenthood as a vital key to the elimination of human waste must reach the entire population [emphasis added].”⁶² She peppered her speech with the importance of “Negro professionals, fully integrated into the staff, … who could interpret the program and objectives to [other blacks] in the normal course of day-to-day contacts; could break down fallacious attitudes and beliefs and elements of distrust; could inspire the confidence of the group; and would not be suspect of the intent to eliminate the race [emphasis added].”⁶³

Sanger even managed to lure the prominent—but hesitant—black minister J. T. Braun, editor in chief of the National Baptist Convention’s Sunday School Publishing Board in Nashville, Tennessee, into her deceptive web. Braun confessed to Sanger that “the very idea of such a thing [birth control] has always held the greatest hatred and contempt in my mind. … I am hesitant to give my full endorsement of this idea, until you send me, perhaps, some more convincing literature on the subject.”⁶⁴ Sanger happily complied. She sent Braun the Federal Council of Churches’ Marriage and Home Committee pamphlet praised by Bishop Sims (another member of the National Advisory Council), assuring him that: “There are some people who believe that birth control is an attempt to dictate to families how many children to have. Nothing could be further from the truth.”⁶⁵

Sanger’s assistants gave Braun more pro-birth control literature and a copy of her autobiography, which he gave to his wife to read. Sanger’s message of preventing maternal and infant mortality stirred Braun’s wife. Now convinced of this need, Braun permitted a group of women to use his chapel for a birth-control talk.⁶⁶ “[I was] moved by the number of prominent [black] Christians backing the proposition,” Braun wrote in a letter to Sanger.⁶⁷ “At first glance I had a horrible shock to the proposition because it seemed to me to be allied to abortion, but after thought and prayer, I have concluded that especially among many women, it is necessary both to save the lives of mothers and children [emphasis added].”⁶⁸

By 1949, Sanger had hoodwinked black America’s best and brightest into believing birth control’s “life-saving benefits.” In a monumental feat, she bewitched virtually an entire network of black social, professional and academic organizations⁶⁹ into endorsing Planned Parenthood’s eugenic program.⁷⁰

Sanger’s successful duplicity does not in any way suggest blacks were gullible. They certainly wanted to decrease maternal and infant mortality and improve the community’s overall health. They wholly accepted her message because it seemed to promise prosperity and social acceptance. Sanger used their vulnerabilities and their ignorance (of her deliberately hidden agenda) to her advantage. Aside from birth control, she offered no other medical or social solutions to their adversity. Surely, blacks would not have been such willing accomplices had they perceived her true intentions. Considering the role eugenics played in the early birth control movement—and Sanger’s embracing of that ideology—the notion of birth control as seemingly the only solution to the problems that plagued blacks should have been much more closely scrutinized.

“Scientific Racism”

Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths to repudiate the organization’s eugenic origins.⁷¹ It adamantly denies Sanger was a eugenicist or racist, despite evidence to the contrary. Because Sanger stopped editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the organization tries to disassociate her from the eugenic and racist-oriented articles published after that date. However, a summary of an address Sanger gave in 1932, which appeared in the Review that year, revealed her continuing bent toward eugenics.

In “A Plan for Peace,” Sanger suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a “Parliament of Population.” One of the main objectives of the “Population Congress” would be “to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.” This would be accomplished by applying a “stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation [in addition to tightening immigration laws] to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”⁷²

It’s reasonable to conclude that as the leader of Planned Parenthood—even after 1929—Sanger would not allow publication of ideas she didn’t support.

Sanger’s defenders argue she only wanted to educate blacks about birth control’s “health benefits.” However, she counted the very people she wanted to “educate” among the “unfit,” whose numbers needed to be restricted.

Grant presents other arguments Sanger’s supporters use to refute her racist roots:⁷³

• blacks, Jews, Hispanics and other minorities are well represented in the “upper echelons” of Planned Parenthood Federation of America;
• the former, high-profile president of the organization, Faye Wattleton, is a black woman;
• “aggressive” minority hiring practices have been standard procedure for more than two decades;
• the “vast majority of the nation’s ethnic leadership solidly and actively supports the work” of the organization.

These justifications also fail because of what Grant calls “scientific racism.” This form of racism is based on genes, rather than skin color or language. “The issue is not ‘color of skin’ or ‘dialect of tongue,’” Grant writes, “but ‘quality of genes [emphasis added].’”⁷⁴ Therefore, “as long as blacks, Jews and Hispanics demonstrate ‘a good quality gene pool’—as long as they ‘act white and think white‘—then they are esteemed equally with Aryans. As long as they are, as Margaret Sanger said, ‘the best of their race,’ then they can be [counted] as valuable citizens [emphasis added].” By the same token, “individual whites” who show “dysgenic traits” must also have their fertility “curbed right along with the other ‘inferiors and undesirables.’”⁷⁵

In short, writes Grant, “Scientific racism is an equal opportunity discriminator [emphasis added]. Anyone with a ‘defective gene pool’ is suspect. And anyone who shows promise may be admitted to the ranks of the elite.”⁷⁶

The eugenic undertone is hard to miss. As Grant rightly comments, “The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood was self-consciously organized, in part, to promote and enforce White Supremacy. … It has been from its inception implicitly and explicitly racist.”⁷⁷

“There is no way to escape the implications,” argues William L. Davis, a black financial analyst Grant quotes. “When an organization has a history of racism, when its literature is openly racist, when its goals are self-consciously racial, and when its programs invariably revolve around race, it doesn’t take an expert to realize that the organization is indeed racist.”⁷⁸

Sanger’s Legacy

It is impossible to sever Planned Parenthood’s past from its present. Its legacy of lies and propaganda continues to infiltrate the black community. The poison is even more venomous because, in addition to birth control, Planned Parenthood touts abortion as a solution to the economic and social problems that plague the community. In its wake is the loss of more than 12 million lives within the black community alone. Planned Parenthood’s own records reflect this. For example, a 1992 report revealed that 23.2 percent of women who obtained abortions at its affiliates were black⁷⁹—although blacks represent no more than 13 percent of the total population. In 1996, Planned Parenthood’s research arm reported: “Blacks, who make up 14 percent of all childbearing women, have 31 percent of all abortions and whites, who account for 81 percent of women of childbearing age, have 61 percent.”⁸⁰

“Abortion is the number-one killer of blacks in America,” says Rev. Hunter of LEARN. “We’re losing our people at the rate of 1,452 a day. That’s just pure genocide. There’s no other word for it. [Sanger’s] influence and the whole mindset that Planned Parenthood has brought into the black community … say it’s okay to destroy your people. We bought into the lie; we bought into the propaganda.”⁸¹

Some blacks have even made abortion “rights” synonymous with civil rights.

“We’re destroying the destiny and purpose of others who should be here,” Hunter laments. “Who knows the musicians we’ve lost? Who knows the great leaders the black community has really lost? Who knows what great minds of economic power people have lost? What great teachers?” He recites an old African proverb: “No one knows whose womb holds the chief.”⁸²

Hunter has personally observed the vestiges of Planned Parenthood’s eugenic past in the black community today. “When I travel around the country … I can only think of one abortion clinic [I’ve seen] in a predominantly white neighborhood. The majority of clinics are in black neighborhoods.”⁸³

Hunter noted the controversy that occurred two years ago in Louisiana involving school-based health clinics. The racist undertone could not have been more evident. In the Baton Rouge district, officials were debating placing clinics in the high schools. Black state representative Sharon Weston Broome initially supported the idea. She later expressed concern about clinics providing contraceptives and abortion counseling. “Clinics should promote abstinence,” she said.⁸⁴ Upon learning officials wanted to put the clinics in black schools only, Hunter urged her to suggest they be placed in white schools as well. At Broome’s suggestion, however, proposals for the school clinics were “dropped immediately,” reported Hunter.

Grant observed the same game plan 20 years ago. “During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods,” he writes.⁸⁵ “Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools,” he adds. “None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.”⁸⁶

In 1987, a group of black ministers, parents and educators filed suit against the Chicago Board of Education. They charged the city’s school-based clinics with not only violating the state’s fornication laws, but also with discrimination against blacks. The clinics were a “calculated, pernicious effort to destroy the very fabric of family life [between] black parents and their children,” the suit alleged.⁸⁷

One of the parents in the group was “shocked” when her daughter came home from school with Planned Parenthood material. “I never realized how racist those people were until I read the [information my daughter received] at the school clinic,” she said. “[They are worse than] the Klan … because they’re so slick and sophisticated. Their bigotry is all dolled up with statistics and surveys, but just beneath the surface it’s as ugly as apartheid.”⁸⁸

A more recent account uncovered a Planned Parenthood affiliate giving condoms to residents of a poor black neighborhood in Akron, Ohio.⁸⁹ The residents received a “promotional bag” containing, among other things: literature on sexually transmitted disease prevention, gynecology exams and contraception, a condom-case key chain containing a bright-green condom, and a coupon. The coupon was redeemable at three Ohio county clinics for a dozen condoms and a $5 McDonald’s gift certificate. All the items were printed with Planned Parenthood phone numbers.

The affiliate might say they’re targeting high-pregnancy areas, but their response presumes destructive behavior on the part of the targeted group. Planned Parenthood has always been reluctant to promote, or encourage, abstinence as the only safeguard against teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, calling it “unrealistic.”

Rev. Richard Welch, president of Human Life International in Front Royal, Virginia, “blasted” the affiliate for targeting low-income, minority neighborhoods with the bags. He said the incident revealed “the racism inherent in promoting abortion and contraception in primarily minority neighborhoods.”⁹⁰

He then criticized Planned Parenthood: “Having sprung from the racist dreams of a woman determined to apply abortion and contraception to eugenics and ethnic cleansing, Planned Parenthood remains true to the same strategy today.”⁹¹

Untangling the Deceptive Web

Black leaders have been silent about Margaret Sanger’s evil machination against their community far too long. They’ve been silent about abortion’s devastating effects in their community—despite their pro-life inclination. “The majority of [blacks] are more pro-life than anything else,” said Hunter.⁹² “Blacks were never taught to destroy their children; even in slavery they tried to hold onto their children.”

“Blacks are not quiet about the issue because they do not care, but rather because the truth has been kept from them. The issue is … to educate our people,” said former Planned Parenthood board member LaVerne Tolbert.⁹³

Today, a growing number of black pro-lifers are untangling the deceptive web spun by Sanger. They are using truth to shed light on the lies. The “Say So” march is just one example of their burgeoning pro-life activism. As the marchers laid 1,452 roses at the courthouse steps—to commemorate the number of black babies aborted daily—spokesman Damon Owens said, “This calls national attention to the problem [of abortion]. This is an opportunity for blacks to speak to other blacks. This doesn’t solve all of our problems. But we will not solve our other problems with abortion.”

Black pro-lifers are also linking arms with their white pro-life brethren. Black Americans for Life (BAL) is an outreach group of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), a Washington, D.C.-based grassroots organization. NRLC encourages networking between black and white pro-lifers. “Our goal is to bring people together—from all races, colors, and religions—to work on pro-life issues,” said NRLC Director of Outreach Ernest Ohlhoff.⁹⁴ “Black Americans for Life is not a parallel group; we want to help African-Americans integrate communicational and functionally into the pro-life movement.”

Mrs. Beverly LaHaye, founder and chairman of Concerned Women for America, echoes the sentiment. “Our mission is to protect the right to life of all members of the human race. CWA welcomes like-minded women and men, from all walks of life, to join us in this fight.”

Concerned Women for America has a long history of fighting Planned Parenthood’s evil agenda. The Negro Project is an obscure angle, but one that must come to light. Margaret Sanger sold black Americans an illusion. Now with the veil of deception removed, they can “choose life … that [their] descendants may live.”

End Notes

1. The BCFA members voted unanimously at a special January 29, 1942, meeting to change the organization’s name to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. By then, BCFA had 34 state league affiliates. The state leagues followed suit in changing their name and bylaws. Particularly, the New York State Federation for Planned Parenthood’s old bylaws stipulated that the object was: “To develop and organize on sound eugenic, social and medical principles, interest in and knowledge of birth control throughout the State of New York as permitted by law [emphasis added].” The new bylaws replaced “birth control” with “planned parenthood.” “Eugenics” was dropped in 1943 because of its unpopular association with the German government’s race-improving eugenics theories. Robert G. Marshall and Charles A. Donovan, Blessed are the Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991), 24-25.
2. For more information on population control you may call 800-458-8797.
3. George Grant, Killer Angel (Franklin, Tennessee: Ars Vitae Press, 1995), 50.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., 51-52.
6. Grant, rev., Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, 2nd ed. (Franklin, Tennessee: Adroit Press, 1992), 56.
7. Ibid., 95-96. Rudin worked as Adolf Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization and founded the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene.
8. Ibid., 95.
9. Marshall and Donovan, 8.

10.  Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano’s, 1922), 108.

11.  Ibid., 116-117.

12.  Ibid., 123.

13.  Margaret Sanger, “The Function of Sterilization,” The Birth Control Review, October 1926, 299. Sanger delivered the address before the Institute of Euthenics at Vassar College on August 5, 1926. Sanger’s address sounds eerily familiar to the 1999 controversial Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity (CRACK) program. The program offered to pay drug-addicted women $200 cash if they underwent sterilization or had long-term chemical birth control (which may actually cause abortion in the very early stages of pregnancy) inserted into their bodies. The billboard ads were placed in inner cities. See CWA’s January/February 2000 publication of Family Voice.

14.  Ibid.

15.  Letter to Smith, which included her essay, 7 May 1929, Margaret Sanger Collection, Library of Congress (MSCLC).

16.  Ibid.

17.  Ibid.

18.  Letter from Nathan W. Levin, comptroller for the Julius Rosenwald Fund, responding to Sanger’s request for funds, which opens with, “I am pleased to enclose our check in the amount of $2,500, representing the balance of our appropriation to the Harlem Birth Control Clinic for 1930.” 5 January 1931, MSCLC.

19.  The Harlem Clinic 1929 file, MSCLC.

20.  Letter from Sanger to Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois, 11 November 1930, New York, MSCLC. DuBois served as director of research for the NAACP and as the editor of its publication, The Crisis, until 1934.

21.  Ibid.

22.  Letter from Sanger to Dr. Peter Marshall Murray, asking for his sponsorship of the clinic, 2 December 1930, MSCLC.

23.  Flier, 7 December 1932, MSCLC.

24.  BCCRB memo, 3 February 1933, MSCLC. Both Powell and his son, Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., were part of the black elite. The younger Powell established himself as an effective civil rights leader during the Depression years when he fought discrimination against black workers. He succeeded his father as pastor in 1936. He served on the National Advisory Council to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA) during the implementation of the Negro Project. He later served as an U.S. representative from 1945 until 1969.

25.  Letter from Elizabeth G. Lautermilch, R.N., to Sanger, which included two (undated) newspaper clippings from leading black papers, 19 November 1932, MSCLC.

26.  Letter from Sanger to Margaret Ensign, 17 April 1933, MSCLC.

27.  George S. Schuyler, “Quantity or Quality,” The Birth Control Review, June 1932, 166.

28.  DuBois, 166.

29.  Ibid.

30.  Ibid., 167.

31.  Charles S. Johnson, “A Question of Negro Health,” The Birth Control Review, June 1932, 167-169.

32.  Ibid., 168.

33.  Walter A. Terpenning, “God’s Chillun,” The Birth Control Review, June 1932, 172.

34.  Ibid.

35.  Marshall and Donovan, 17.

36.  Ibid.

37.  Letter from Sanger to Gamble, 10 December 1939, MSCLC.

38.  Grant, 97.

39.  Sanger to Gamble, 10 December 1939.

40.  BCFA Division of Negro Service, stationery, 1940, MSCLC.

41.  BCFA stationery, July 1940, MSCLC.

42.  BCFA statement, 8 July 1940, MSCLC.

43.  Ibid.

44.  Ibid., 2.

45.  Ibid., 3.

46.  Letter from Green to Mrs. J. B. Vandever (same form letter sent to other protestors), 17 July 1940, Chicago, MSCLC.

47.  Ibid.

48.  Dorothy Boulding Ferebee, M.D., “Negro Project” report, BCFA Annual Meeting, 29 January 1942, 1, MSCLC.

49.  Ibid., 3.

50.  Charles S. Johnson, “Better Health for 13,000,000” report on Negro Project demonstration programs, 16 April 1943, 8, MSCLC.

51.  Ibid., 10.

52.  Ibid., 13.

53.  Ferebee, 5.

54.  Johnson, 15.

55.  Letter from Seibels to Claude Barnett, 11 July 1940, 2, MSCLC.

56.  Ibid.

57.  Johnson, 14.

58.  Ibid., 18.

59.  Ibid., 18-19.

60.  Ferebee, “Planned Parenthood as a Public Health For the Negro Race,” BCFA Annual Meeting, 29 January 1942, 3, MSCLC.

61.  Ibid., 5.

62.  Ibid.

63.  Ibid., 4-5. Ferebee was not the only black woman Planned Parenthood used to sing its praises. Faye Wattleton, also attractive, articulate and well educated, served as president from 1978 until 1992. She currently serves as president for the Center for Gender Equality in New York City.

64.  Letter from J. T. Braun to Sanger, 8 December 1941, MSCLC.

65.  Letter from Sanger to Braun, 22 December 1941, MSCLC.

66.  Marshall and Donovan, 21.

67.  Ibid.

68.  Marshall and Donovan’s quote from the 18 May 1943 letter from Braun to Sanger, 21.

69.  The list included: the NAACP, National Urban League, National Medical Association, National Association of Colored Nurses, Negro Newspapers Publishers Association and the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) memo to “State Legislatures and Local Committees from Field Service Department, Subject: Directory of National Negro Organizations with which the PPFA Has Developed Working Relationships,” 18 March 1949, MSCLC.

70.  The National Council of Negro Women became the first national women’s organization to appoint a permanent national committee on Family Planning on October 18, 1941. Division of Negro Service, Birth Control Federation of America newsletter, Christmas 1941, 3, MSCLC.

71.  Planned Parenthood, “Margaret Sanger,” October 2000. PPFA claims it has the “respect” of black leaders, like the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who compared the civil rights movement to the birth control movement. Dr. King was among the first recipients of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Margaret Sanger Award in 1966, the year of her death.

72.  Margaret Sanger, “A Plan for Peace,” The Birth Control Review, April 1932, 107. Sanger gave this address before the New History Society on January 17, 1932, in New York City.

73.  Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, 102.

74.  Ibid.

75.  Ibid., 103.

76.  Ibid.

77.  Ibid., 96.

78.  Ibid., 102.

79.  Planned Parenthood Federation of America 1992 Service Report, “Characteristics of Abortion Patients,” 12.

80.  “Who Has Abortions? Survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute contradicts popular notions about the kinds of women who receive abortions, ” U.S. News and World Report, 19 August 1996, 8. The Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) December 2000 report shows that while the number of abortions dropped more than 30,000 from 1996 to 1997, a record 36 percent—up from 32 percent in 1990—of all abortions were performed on black women, even though blacks comprised just 12 percent of the population. The report notes that abortion rates are higher in urban areas “where access to abortion is easier” (“Abortions Decline,” USA Today, 11 January 2001, 14A).

81.  Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, interview by author, Washington, D.C., 14 November 2000.

82.  Ibid.

83.  Ibid.

84.  Sharon Weston Broome, interview by author, Washington, D.C., 16 November 2000.

85.  Grand Illusions, 98.

86.  Ibid. The latest figures show 63 percent of school-based clinics are located in urban areas. Source: National Survey of School-Based Health Centers, 1997-98, Making the Grade, Washington, D.C.: George Washington University. We have more information on school-based clinics.

87.  Ibid.

88.  Ibid.

89.  Lisa Ing, “Condom Giveaway Based On Profiling, Pro-Lifers Contend,” The Washington Times, 31 July 2000, A2.

90.  Ibid.

91.  Ibid.

92.  “African-Americans for Life: Black Baptist pastor speaks at Catholic Interparish Council,” Gulf Coast Christian Newspaper, February 1996.

93.  Michele Jackson, “Should Pro-Life Black Americans Work Separately or Join NRLC?” National Right to Life Committee News, March 1998. NRLC has 50 state affiliates and nearly 3,000 chapters. It encourages action at the state and local levels.

94.  Ernest Ohlhoff, interview by author, Washington, D.C., 6 April 2001.

SEPTEMBER 2005

OATH AND OBLIGATION

By Marvin L. Stewart

 Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

Defines:

OATH, n.

A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.

This article is being written as a result of a plethora of events that has occurred in this Nation since I was called into the ministry in 1996. The ministry that I was called into is unlike the traditional ministry which consist of a Pastor; Minister; Reverend; or Priest as under shepherd and the congregation in attendance. I was called to educate the Body of Christ of their civic responsibilities in this Constitutional Republic regarding the various covenants that are in place in this Nation. Christians have an obligation in seeing that these covenants are fulfilled, I was called to speak unto those in the legislative; judicial; and executive branch of government in this Nation and remind them of their ministerial duties in guaranteeing a Republican Form of Government that is mandated by Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution which states “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them from invasion”.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines a REPUB’LICAN, n.

One who favors or prefers a republican form of government. It is that form of government that I’m teaching about and encouraging Christians to support. It is the form of government that recognizes that God is sovereign authority over this Nation which is representative in all fifty States Constitutions. This is explicitly expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which is the foundation of our U.S. Constitution, which states the following:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

As I sit here this 4th of July 2005, preparing this article, in addition to celebrating this Nations 229^th birthday, reflecting on all that has made this Nation great which are the principles of Christianity. There are various elements in this Nation which are seeking to undermine the foundation of this Nation by divesting this Nation of all vestiges of God, by dividing that insoluble bond of the principles of civil government and the principles of Christianity. Jefferson’s words engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., say it well,

“God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed their only sure basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that those liberties are the gift of God?”

As I reflect on all of the immoral legislation that has been forced upon the citizenry of this Nation or attempted to be forced upon them against their will such as Assembly Bill 19 which sought to gender neutralize the California Family Codes 300 et seq. 302, when the People of the State of California voted for Proposition 22 that marriage is the union of a man an woman by 62%. When Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco openly violated the law and the will of the people by issuing bogus marriage licenses, where the Los Angeles City Council openly and against the will of the citizens voted on a resolution supporting the actions of Mayor Newsome and voted against the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment or why various laws are not enforced such as Title 8 § 1373 which reads:

Sec. 1373. Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service

-STATUTE-

(a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

 (b) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:

(1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

(c) Obligation to respond to inquiries The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

 In summation this statue prohibits local and state officials from prohibiting those agencies charged with enforcing local and state laws in conjunction with federal laws from allowing the State of California from becoming a sanctuary state whereby subsidizing illegal aliens at taxpayers expense. It is the aforementioned issues of which I have spoken of that have given rise to me writing this article entitled “Oath.”

 On April 23, 2005, as a member of the Minuteman Project[www.minutemanproject.com] I volunteered to stand an eight hour watch from 2pm until 10pm, near the Mexican border at Ft. Huachuca southwest of Sierra Vista, Arizona, a conduit for illegal aliens and drug runners. It was during this tour of duty that certain facts were revealed unto me that is indicative of past events and present events.

Although I supported President G.W. Bush for re-election and the Republican Party, it was evident that there was a lack of resolve to enforce the current immigration laws for fear of being persecuted as racist. And the Democratic Party who continually promotes a socialist agenda; in addition the Democratic Party wants to relinquish the sovereignty of this Nation and usher in the One World Government, which is evident in the Democratic controlled State of California which is known world wide as a sanctuary state. It is also evident in the State of California how elected, appointed officials, teachers and other positions of trust take an oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution of California and violate the very oath that they swore to uphold which states the following:

 “The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.” Article 1, Section 26, California Constitution. Review of the “Oath of Office,” as promised by law enforcement personnel, legislators, and other elected officials, shows clear direction and guidance to those persons as a condition to accepting their office.

 Article 20, Section 3 of the California Constitution reads: “Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”

 “And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows: (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) and that during such time as I hold the office of (name of office) I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

 This Oath seems foreign to our current body of government. Judging from their actions, one could accurately conclude our elected government officials either do not know about the obligation that is attached to taking the oath, or that they choose to ignore it.

So what remedy do the people have against public officials who violate their Oath of Office? Violation of an Oath or promise is certainly perjury, and perjury is punishable by imprisonment.

The Constitution for the United States, article VI, clause 3, reads (emphasis added):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

United States Code Annotated, Const. (1999), art. VI, cl. 3. 28 U.S.C.A. (1999), § 453 reads:

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I,__________ ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _____________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

 The Taking of the Oath is a Religious Act

If I may expound upon the composition of an oath in conjunction with what does the Holy Bible have to say about one taking or giving an Oath. The Bible upholds the sacredness of an oath: “Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy hill?…He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not” (Ps. 15: 1, 4). Upon examination of the Holy Bible from the Book of Genesis 14:22 to Hebrew 7:28, oath is spoken of in 123 verses, which lead me to conclude that taking an Oath is a Religious Act. In examining what an Oath is the following is revealed:

 OATH – A declaration made according to law, before a competent tribunal or officer, to tell the truth; or it is the act of one who, when lawfully required to tell the truth, takes God to witness that what he says is true. It is a religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or in other words to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it. It is proper to distinguish two things in oaths;

1. The invocation by which the God of truth, who knows all things, is taken to witness.

2. The imprecation by which he is asked as a just and all-powerful being, to punish perjury. In the Holy Bible there are 123 verses that reference oath below are some of those verses for review:

 Genesis 14:22

But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and have taken an oath.

Ecclesiastes 8:2

[Obey the King] Obey the king’s command, I say, because you took an oath before God.

Isaiah 65:16

Whoever invokes a blessing in the land will do so by the God of truth; he who takes an oath in the land will swear by the God of truth. For the past troubles will be forgotten and hidden from my eyes.

Ezekiel 16:59

‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will deal with you as you deserve, because you have despised my oath by breaking the covenant.

Matthew 5:33

[Oaths] “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’

Hebrews 7:22

Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

 The man who is known to all Americans as “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen,” gave us much sound advice on how to keep our independence and freedom. George Washington’s advice is part of our American heritage that should be known to all our citizens.

When George Washington took the oath as first President of the United States on April 30, 1789, he added this four-word prayer of his own: “So help me God.” These words are still used in official oaths by Americans talking public office, in courts of justice, and in other legal proceedings. Washington’s words show that he was a man who believed in asking God’s help in every part of our private and public lives. During the terrible times of the Revolutionary War, Washington repeatedly counseled his troops to put their faith and trust in God. Here is one of his messages:

 “The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, freeman or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own …. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army…. Let us therefore rely on the goodness of the cause and the aid of the Supreme Being, in whose hands victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions.”

 In his first Inaugural Address as President of the United States, Washington reverently acknowledged our country’s dependence on Almighty God:

“It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe – who presides in the council of nations – and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States, a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes.”

 After serving as our President during probably the most important two terms in our history, Washington advised us again that religion and morality are necessary for good government.

 “Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in the courts of justice?” –George Washington [Taken from Washington’s Farewell Address of 1796].

 “The greater part of evidence will always consist of the testimony of witnesses – this testimony is given under those solemn obligations which an appeal to the God of truth impose; and if oaths should cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights would become insecure” – -John Jay [Taken from John Jay’s charge to the grand jury of the circuit court for the district of Vermont on June 25, 1772, at 284].

 We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams, Address to the Military, October 11, 1798

In examining the various forms of oath we find the following:

 Oaths are taken in various forms; the most usual is upon the Gospel by taking the book in the hand; the words commonly used are, “You do swear that,” etc. “so help you God,” and then kissing the book. The origin of this oath may be traced to the Roman law, and the kissing the book is said to be an imitation of the priest’s kissing the ritual as a sign of reverence, before he reads it to the people. Rees, Cycl.

Another form is by the witness or party promising holding up his right hand while the officer repeats to him,” You do swear by Almighty God, the searcher of hearts, that,” etc., “And this as you shall answer to God at the great day.”

 In another form of attestation commonly called an affirmation, the officer repeats, “You do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that,” etc.

The oath, however, may be varied in any other form, in order to conform to the religious opinions of the person who takes it. Oaths may conveniently be divided into promissory, assertory, judicial and extra judicial.

 Among promissory oaths may be classed all those taken by public officers on entering into office, to support the constitution of the United States, and to perform the duties of the office. Custom-house oaths and others required by law, not in judicial proceedings, nor from officers entering into office, may be classed among the assertory oaths, when the party merely asserts the fact to be true.

 Judicial oaths, or those administered in judicial proceedings. Extra-judicial oaths are those taken without authority of law, which, though binding in foro conscientiae, do not render the persons who take them liable to the punishment of perjury, when false.

Oaths are also divided into various kinds with reference to the purpose for which they are applied; as oath of allegiance, oath of calumny, oath ad litem, decisory oath, oath of supremacy, and the like The Act of Congress of 1789, regulates the time and manner of administering certain oaths as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the oath or affirmation required by the sixth article of the constitution of the United States, shall be administered in the form following, to wit, “I, A B, do solemnly swear or affirm, (as the case may be,) that I will support the constitution of the United States.” The said oath or affirmation shall be administered within three days after the passing of this act, by any one member of the senate, to the president of the senate, and by him to all the members, and to the secretary; and by the speaker of the house of representatives, to all the members who have not taken a similar oath, by virtue of a particular resolution of the said house, and to the clerk: and in case of the absence of any member from the service of either house, at the time prescribed for taking the said oath or affirmation, the same shall be administered to such member when he shall appear to take his seat.

 That at the first session of congress after every general election of representatives, the oath or affirmation aforesaid shall be administered by any one member of the House of Representatives to the speaker; and by him to all the members present, and to the clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the members who shall afterwards appear, previous to taking their seats. The president of the senate for the time being, shall also administer the said oath or affirmation to each senator who shall hereafter be elected, previous to his taking his seat; and in any future case of a president of the senate, who shall not have taken the said oath or affirmation, the same shall be administered to him by any one of the members of the Senate.

 That the members of the several state legislatures, at the next session of the said legislatures respectively, and all executive and judicial officers of the several states, who have been heretofore chosen or appointed, or, who shall be chosen or appointed before the first day of August next, and who shall then be in office, shall, within one month thereafter, take the same oath or affirmation, except where they shall have taken it before which may be administered by any person authorized by the law of the state, in which such office shall be holden, to administer oaths. And the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers of the several states, who shall be chosen or appointed after the said first day of August, shall, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, take the foregoing oath or affirmation, which shall be administered by the person or persons, who, by the law of the state, shall be authorized to administer the oath of office; and the person or persons so administering the oath hereby required to be taken, shall cause a record or certificate thereof to be made, in the same manner as by the law of the state he or they shall be directed to record or certify the oath of office.

 That all officers appointed or hereafter to be appointed, under the authority of the United States, shall, before they act in their respective offices, take the same oath or affirmation, which shall be administered by the person or persons who shall be authorized by law to administer to such officers their respective oaths of office; and such officers shall incur the same penalties in case of failure, as shall be imposed by law in case of failure in taking their respective oaths of office.

That the secretary of the Senate, and the clerk of the House of Representatives, for the time being, shall, at the time of taking the oath or affirmation aforesaid, each take an oath or affirmation in the words following, to wit; “I, A B, secretary of the Senate, or clerk of the House of Representatives (as the case may be) of the United States of America, do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will truly and faithfully discharge the duties of my said office to the best of my knowledge and abilities.”

 There are several kinds of oaths, some of which are enumerated by law.

 Oath of calumny. This term is used in the civil law. It is an oath which a plaintiff was obliged to take that he was not actuated by a spirit of chicanery in commencing his action, but that he had bona fide a good cause of action. This oath is somewhat similar to our affidavit of a cause of action. No instance is known in which the oath of calumny has been adopted in practice in the admiralty courts of the United States.

 Decisory oath. By this term in the civil law is understood an oath which one of the parties defers or refers back to the other for the decision of the cause. It may be deferred in any kind of civil contest whatever, in questions of possession or of claim; in personal actions and in real. The plaintiff may defer the oath to the defendant, whenever he conceives he has not sufficient proof of the fact which is the foundation of his claim; and in like manner, the defendant may defer it to the plaintiff when he has not sufficient proof of his defence. The person to whom the oath is deferred ought either to take it or refer it back, and if he will not do either the cause should be decided against him. The Decisory oath has been practically adopted in the district court of the United States, for the district of Massachusetts, and admiralty causes have been determined in that court by the oath Decisory; but the cases in which this oath has been adopted, have been where the tender has been accepted; and no case is known to have occurred there in which the oath has been refused and tendered back to the adversary.

 A judicial oath is a solemn declaration made in some form warranted by law, before a court of justice or some officer authorized to administer it, by which the person who takes it promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in relation to his knowledge of the matter then under examination, and appeals to God for his sincerity. In the civil law, a judicial oath is that which is given in judgment by one party to another.

Oath in litem, in the civil law, is an oath which was deferred to the complainant as to the value of the thing in dispute on failure of other proof, particularly when there was a fraud on the part of the defendant, and be suppressed proof in his possession. In general the oath of the party cannot, by the common law, be received to establish his claim, but to this there are exceptions. The oath in litem is admitted in two classes of cases: 1. Where it has been already proved, that the party against whom it is offered has been guilty of some fraud or other tortious or unwarrantable act of intermeddling with the complainant’s goods, and no other evidence can be had of the amount of damages. As, for example, where a trunk of goods was delivered to a shipmaster at one port to be carried to another, and, on the passage, he broke the trunk open and rifled it of its contents; in an action by the owners of the goods against the shipmaster, the facts above mentioned having been proved aliunde, the plaintiff was held a competent witness to testify as to the contents of the trunk. The oath in litem is also admitted on the ground of public policy, where it is deemed essential to the purposes of justice but this oath is admitted only on the ground of necessity. An example may be mentioned of a case where a statute can receive no execution unless the party interested is admitted as a witness.

 A promissory oath is an oath taken by authority of law by which the party declares that he will fulfill certain duties therein mentioned, as the oath which an alien takes on becoming naturalized, that he will support the Constitution of the United States: the oath which a judge takes that he will perform the duties of his office. The breach of this does not involve the party in the legal crime or punishment of perjury. A suppletory oath in the civil and ecclesiastical law, is an oath required by the judge from either party in a cause, upon half proof already made, which being joined to half proof, supplies the evidence required to enable the judge to pass upon the subject.

 A purgatory oath is one by which one destroys the presumptions which were against him, for he is then said to purge himself when he removes the suspicions which were against him; as when a man is in contempt for not attending court as a witness, he may purge himself of the contempt by swearing to a fact which is an ample excuse.

 Boy Scout Oath, Law, Motto, and Slogan

Scout Oath (or Promise)

On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

 Scout Law

TRUSTWORTHY

A Scout tells the truth. He keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on him.

 LOYAL

A Scout is true to his family, Scout leaders, friends, school, and nation.

 HELPFUL

A Scout is concerned about other people. He does things willingly for others without pay or reward.

 FRIENDLY

A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own.

 COURTEOUS

A Scout is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows good manners make it easier for people to get along together.

 KIND

A Scout understands there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does not hurt or kill harmless things without reason.

 OBEDIENT

A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.

 CHEERFUL

A Scout looks for the bright side of things. He cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy.

 THRIFTY

A Scout works to pay his way and to help others. He saves for unforeseen needs. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property.

 BRAVE

A Scout can face danger even if he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at or threaten him.

 CLEAN

A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean.

 REVERENT

A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

 Scout Motto

Be Prepared

 Scout Slogan

Do a Good Turn daily.

 Outside of the Christian Church in America the Boy Scouts of America is the only organization that has been persecuted for its’ religious and moral stance. The

Boys Scout has refuse to capitulate to the demands of the Homosexual community and other ungodly persons or organizations that wish to have them violate the Scouts Oath and Scout Laws, whether by economic pressure or judicial rulings by activists judges. Unlike the Church where some mainline denominations have capitulated to those demands which are in violation of the laws of nature and Natures God. For no weapon form against the Boy Scouts of America shall prosper.

 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Matthew 18:6

 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ATTORNEY OATH OF OFFICE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS

CODE

6067. Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to the best of his knowledge and ability. A certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.

6068. It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:

(a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.

(b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.

(c) To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a person charged with a public offense.

(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her, those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.

(e) (1) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.

 In referencing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) other wise known as the Anti Christian Liberation Union founded by Rodger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920, as a socialist communist organization in which Rodger Baldwin in his 1938 Manifesto stated that in order to defeat the United States of America, first remove all reference of God and redefine the family which has been the accomplished objective since that period of time. To validate this charge the

ACLU in their Mission Statement states the following:

 Your First Amendment rights freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

 No where in the Constitution is there mention of Separation of Church and State? Unless you are reading the constitution of the now defunct Soviet Union which reads:

 Article 52 [Religion] [Emphasis added] (1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. (2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

 This is a classic example of a false statement of fact and law. As is evident of their continuing purporting in the advancement of the Gay and Lesbian agenda which is contrary to the Laws of Nature and Natures’ God. Their criminal and dangerous agenda to undermine this Nations stability all to the advancement of a socialist government, which has been the ACLUs’ agenda since the 1920’s. This is an Organization that has aided and abetted the enemy in the war on terrorism, illegal immigration and by advocating the continual violation of the Laws of Nature and Natures God. But yet the attorneys of the ACLU who have taken the Attorney Oath of Office in California have all violated their oath and are now subject to the law for penalty of perjury.

 The Hippocratic Oath

(Modern Version)

I swear in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation.

 To reckon all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart knowledge of the art of medicine to others.

I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.

 I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.

 With purity, holiness and beneficence I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.

 Whatever in connection with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

While I continue to keep this Oath un-violated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse by my lot. It is quite apparent that since 1973 until the present day, that a large number of Medical Doctors have not honored their obligation as presented by the Hippocratic Oath, when Fifty million unborn children’s lives have been terminated through both abortion and partial birth abortion procedures.

“Therefore the LORD shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is a hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.” Isaiah 9:17

Finally every person who is elected, appointed, or hired in a position of public trust has an obligation of fulfilling their Oath of Office

 Webster’s 1828 Dictionary Defines:

OBLIGA’TION, n. [L. obligatio.]

1. The binding power of a vow, promise, oath or contract, or of law, civil, political or moral, independent of a promise; that which constitutes legal or moral duty, and which renders a person liable to coercion and punishment for neglecting it. The laws and commands of God impose on us an obligation to love him supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves. Every citizen is under an obligation to obey the laws of the state.

Moral obligation binds men without promise or contract.

 2. The binding force of civility, kindness or gratitude, when the performance of a duty cannot be enforced by law. Favors conferred impose on men an obligation to make suitable returns.

 3. Any act by which a person becomes bound to do something to or for another, or to forbear something.

 4. In law, a bond with a condition annexed and a penalty for non-fulfillment. After briefly examining the components of a oath, the different kinds of oath and the obligation that is attached with those who take an oath, one can draw a conclusion particularly in the state of California that oath seems foreign to our current body of government. Judging from their actions, one could accurately conclude our elected government officials either do not know about the obligation that is attached to taking the oath, or that they choose to ignore it.

 So what remedy do the people have against public officials who violate their Oath of Office? Violation of an Oath or promise is certainly perjury, and perjury is punishable by imprisonment.

 It is quite apparent that they rejected the Declaration of Independence which discloses what the United States Constitution is about. James Madison the architect of the United States Constitution; Sir William Blackstone commentaries on the various categories of law; and Martin Luther King jr., in a letter from jail in Birmingham, makes the following statements.

 “The transcendent law of nature and of nature’s God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed” –James Madison [Taken from The Federalist No. 43, at 295]

“This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; … upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these”

William Blackstone [Taken from Volume I of The Commentaries of the Law of England, “Of the Rights of Persons,” at 41 (1765)]

 “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” –Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from

Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

 The words of former Chief Justice Robert Moore, of the Alabama Supreme Court continues to reverberate in my spirit about his obligation to fulfill his Oath of Office, every elected, appointed or hired person in a position of trust that are required to take an oath of office should demonstrate that same fervent spirit that has been exemplified by

Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama. It is quite simple if we do it Gods’ way.

 “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” Pro. 14:32

When the righteous rule the nation rejoice when the wicked rule the nation groans.” Pro. 29:2

 “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Gal 5:1

March,  2004

A CHRISTIAN’S CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS  CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC .

By Marvin L. Stewart 

Many Americans today, including many Christians, have fallen into believing that Christians should not be involved in civil government – that there should be some sort of a compartmentalization – that faith should be kept in one arena, real life in another, and the two should never meet. The Bible does not teach that; and our Founding Fathers and early ministers did not believe that.

Yet many critics today try to invoke what Jesus said in Matthew 22 as proof that Christians should not be involved; but this is a complete mischaracterization of that passage. Matthew 22:21 says that we are to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” But does this mean that God’s people are not to be involved with “Caesar”? Why did Jesus make this statement? He was asked whether it was right to pay taxes. In response, Jesus picked up a coin, asked whose inscription was on it, and when they said, “Caesar’s,” Jesus replied, “Then render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” That is, render your due to the government, and render your due to God – you have responsibilities in both areas. He clearly was not saying to avoid the governmental arena. Beyond the passage in Matthew 22, there are many other Biblical passages where God endorses the involvement of His people in the civil arena – an institution that He Himself created and ordained.

For example, in Romans 13:4-6, on three separate occasions, the Scripture declares that those who are in civil government are “ministers of God.” (Perhaps this is why so many ministers were involved in the civil arena during the Founding Era – they believed and obeyed the Bible.)

Hebrews 11 is the “Faith Hall of Fame” where the great heroes of our faith are held up to us as examples; in fact, Hebrews 12 declares that it is these heroes who are cheering us on. Yet, notice that the heroes of our faith listed in Hebrews 11:22-34 were involved in civil government. Why would God hold them up to us as examples to emulate if He thought it was wrong for His people to be involved in the civil arena?

In I Timothy 2: 1-2, we are told to pray “first of all” for all people- for our leaders and those in, authority. Notice: God tells us to pray for our civil leaders “first of all” – before we pray for ourse1ves, our families, or our churches. There is nothing else in the Bible that God tells us to pray for “first of all.” This must mean that God considers civil government important.

Recall the parable of the minas in Luke 19. The Master calls His servants together and gives them all a mina – a trust – a stewardship. The Master departs and then later returns to take account of their stewardship. One had taken the mina and turned it into ten; another had turned his into five; and another had taken his trust and not used it at all. The one who refused to get involved with what the Master had entrusted him was the one who got in trouble; but notice the reward for the other two. To the first, the Master said, “Well done good and faithful servant; I will make you a ruler over ten cities”; to the second he said, “Well done, I will make you a ruler over five cities.” Notice the reward of the Master for their faithful stewardship: he places them into civil government! Today, most Christians don’t think of being in civil government as a reward from the Master; maybe it is time to rethink our beliefs about civil government based on what the Bible says.

Despite the rich heritage of Christian faith and expression in America and the strong foundation that it has provided for our country, things have begun to change dramatically. Hundreds of years of religious freedoms have been erased by courts in only a few short decades. While there have been scores of horrible rulings, perhaps none is any more egregious than the ruling in a case that went to the U. S. Supreme Court: Jane Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School District.

Santa Fe is a small rural town outside of Houston, Texas; it has a long tradition of prayer at graduations and prayer at athletic events such as football games. Yet a handful of students in that school were offended by the practice; they did not want anyone else praying. So they went to a federal judge and asked him to force everyone else to stop praying.

The judge ruled that he would allow prayer to continue at graduations and athletic events – but only if students prayed the right words when they prayed. He warned:

The Court will allow that prayer to be a typical non-denominational prayer, which can refer to God or the Almighty or that sort of thing. The prayer must not refer to . . . Jesus. . . or anyone else. And make no mistake, the Court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this Court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of Court. . . . Anybody who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this Court gets through with it.

Died as a child? If you pray the wrong words in a prayer, you are going to wish that you “had died as a child when this court gets through” with you?

This ‘ruling obviously angers most citizens, and the common response is, “What’s wrong with this judge? Can’t he read the Constitution? The Constitution says nothing about “separation of church and State”; that phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution; it was a policy enacted by the Supreme Court in 1947 in its efforts to compartmentalize faith and segregate it from public life. The Constitution specifically guarantees Americans the ‘free exercise of religion’! Can’t this judge read the Constitution?”

Sentiments like this reflect a basic misunderstanding. Most citizens believe that the Constitution governs America, but it does not. In fact, while the Founding Fathers were framing the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention, there was a discussion over what the impact of the Constitution would be in limiting the misconduct of public officials. The discussion was best summed up by delegate John Francis Mercer, who declared:

 It is a great mistake to suppose that the paper we are to propose will govern the United States.

In other words, it is a major error to believe that the Constitution governs America. He continued:

It is the men whom it will bring into the government and interest [they have] in maintaining it that are to, govern them. The paper will only mark out the mode and the form. Men are the substance and must do the business.

In short, the Constitution gives citizens the power to elect leaders; but if the wrong kinds of leaders are elected, the Constitution will be absolutely worthless in their hands – as it was in the hands of the judge in Santa Fe, Texas, and so many other judges and elected officials.

This same lesson had been taught in the Scriptures long before it Was applied in America: was there any nation in the history of the world that had better civi1laws than Israel? Certainly not, for God Almighty had given their laws. Yet, how good were their God- inspired, God-given laws when they had rulers such as Ahab and Jezebel, or Manasseh, or Jeroboam, or Rehoboam, or other wicked leaders? Despite the fact that their laws were from God Himself, those superb laws were completely disregarded under corrupt and deficient leaders.

The Founders understood this, and one of the most frequently quoted Bible principle invoked by the Founders is the one set forth in Proverbs 29:2:

When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.

The key to good government is not how good our documents are or how good our laws are; rather it is how good our leaders are. In America, whether the righteous rule, or whether the wicked rule depends totally upon the will of the voters: we have our choice.

In recent years, Christian voters have not taken their voting stewardship seriously. In elections from 1992-2000, Christian voter turn- out fell by forty percent. There are sixty million evangelicals in America, but in the most recent presidential election, only fifteen million voted. In fact, twenty-four million of those sixty million evangelicals were not even registered to vote!

To have been given the power to determine the quality of our government and its leaders, and then not to use that power, is reminiscent of the servant who received a trust from the Master and decided not to do anything with it – not to get involved. None of the servants asked for the trust that they received from the Master; but the Master gave it to them anyway; and they became responsible to the Master for what they did with that trust – despite the fact they had not asked for it. Similarly, we did not ask to be born in America; we did not ask to be given a government of which we are the stewards; nevertheless, the Master has given it to us; and He will call us to account for our stewardship of this important trust.

If our culture is moving the wrong way in America, it is because of Christian non-involvement. James A. Garfield, the 20th President of the United States, pointed this out a century ago.

President Garfield was a minister of the Gospel. In a handwritten letter, he recounts personally preaching the Gospel nineteen times in a revival, with thirty-four people coming to Christ and thirty-one being baptized. Of course, this type of activity and background is not usually associated with our Presidents in the minds of most Americans today, but several of our Presidents were involved in Christian ministry.

Notice what President Garfield reminded Americans a century ago:

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation. . , it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

 It is safe to say that we who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation today have done little to control its political forces. Consequently, our national policies do not accurately reflect the values of the nation at large.

For example, 78 percent of the nation supports prayer in schools; 74 percent of the nation wants the Ten Commandments back in the classroom; 68 percent wants creation taught in public schools; 66 percent opposes partial-birth abortions; and there are similarly high numbers in numerous other areas involving faith and values. Yet despite the overwhelming support among the people on these issues, our public policies do not reflect these high numbers. In fact, the support on these issues is not nearly as high in Congress or in the courts as it is in the public. Why? Because Americans who embrace these values simply are not voting, and therefore are not electing to office leaders who embrace those same values. Members in the Body of Christ must come of the knowledge of the Biblical mandate of shaping our culture, by seasoning this tasteless society. 

Salt and Light

 To begin with, we Christians should be more courageous, more outspoken in condemning evil. Condemnation is negative, to be sure, but the action of salt is negative. Sometimes standards slip and slide in a community for want of a clear Christian protest. Denunciation and Proclamation go hand in hand when the gospel is truly preached…too often evangelical Christians have interpreted their social responsibility in terms only of help the casualties of a sick society, and have done nothing to change the structures, which cause casualties. Just as doctors are concerned not only with the treatment of patients but also with preventative medicine and public health, so we should concern ourselves with what might be called preventative social medicine and a higher standards of moral hygiene. To try to improve society is not worldliness but love. To wash your hands of society is not love but worldliness.

 Today’s society is decaying, and the darkness of secular life grows. In circumstances like these, the witness of Christians should be noticeable, and it is quite natural at times that it will be controversial. If it is not—if Christians are coasting along in perfect contentment with the state of things or blissfully ignorant of current events—then Christ’s powerful metaphors of salt and light mean nothing to them. They miss the full scope of what it means to be a Christian. This is particularly true in an era like our own, when the preserving chemistry of salt and the illumination of divine light are so desperately needed.

 Endnotes

“The Role of Pastors & Christians In Civil Government” (2003) p. 32. , by David Barton.

Jane Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School District, Civil Action No. G-95-176 (U.S.D.C., S.D. TX. 1995),

court transcription of verbal ruling by federal judge Samuel Kent, pp. 3-4.

Madison, Papers (1840), Vol. p. 1324, on August 14, 1787, by John Francis Mercer.

Madison, Papers (1840), Vol. p. 1324, on August 14, 1787, by John Francis Mercer.