tothesource: Why did you write a book about Washington at this time?

Paul Johnson: My publisher found that young people don't know George Washington. This is tragic. The main reason is that all the books on Washington are too long. They asked me if I thought I could write a book on Washington under 40,000 words. I said, to use one of your American expressions, it's a cinch! So it's just out now. It's a short book and it's dedicated to my American granddaughter.

tts: What's her name?

PJ: Roxanna.

tts: Would America be America without Washington?

PJ: No! For quite a lot of reasons. One of the most important things Washington did, in my view, was to prevent the Revolutionary War from degenerating into guerrilla warfare. An army must behave like an army. For America to be legitimated it must have a legitimate army. When the British wanted to contact him he insisted that they address him as General Washington. He miraculously kept his army together for eight years with only three victories. Washington believed that sooner or later the British would tire, which they did, at Yorktown. As a result deep bitterness between the two enemies never took place. That is why that after the war Britain and America eventually came together as friends.

Second point! Washington was not so much interested in the taxation without representation issue. Instead, Washington knew the American interior. He was a surveyor and had spent a great deal of time in the interior. He knew its limitless riches. Riches all the way to the Pacific! He wanted America to pursue what was later called "Manifest Destiny". George III confined settlements to the east of the Allegheny Mountains. George III regarded the Indians as much his subjects as his colonists. Washington wanted the colonists move west to be unfettered.

Third point! Washington was primarily a farmer. He was interested in large acreage farming and believed large farms could be farmed more efficiently than smaller ones. He was aware, of course, of the Industrial Revolution taking place in Britain at that time and he wanted to bring large scale thinking to America and do the same here. He thought slave labor was hopelessly inefficient. He wanted the American farmers to switch to wheat farming because it needed fewer laborers.

tts: What kind of man was Washington?

PJ: Though he was modest, he knew a lot. Curiously enough, he had no desire whatever to siege political power. Not like Napoleon. After the war, when George III asked the American born President of his Royal Academy what Washington would do now that the war was over, he said, "He will go back to his farm. If he does do that he will be the greatest man in the world." And, of course, he did just that. Congress had to summon him to take part in the Constitution.

Washington was a very formal man. That was his nature. He loved England and thought that English gentlemen were wonderful and he modeled himself on their mannerisms. He did not like shaking hands.

tts: There is much debate today regarding Washington's religious beliefs. Can you help clear this up?

Washington was certainly a Christian. He supported the local church for many reasons, one being his duty as a large land owner. I don't think that Washington had strong religious feelings. Often he would refer to Providence instead of God and never referred to Jesus Christ that I am aware of. He believed that the Christian religion was the best method of social stability in existence. He did not want it specifically put in the Constitution. In some ways the most important religious aspect in his life was Free Masonry. His marriage was conducted according to Masonic Ritual and so was his funeral.

I think Washington thought Christianity was essential to American well-being and he would have been horrified by the attacks on Christianity in the name of the Constitution that are made today. He firmly believed that without Christians, you would have to have more policemen and more military to stabilize American society. There was no doubt in Washington's mind that Christianity was essential to American self-governance and good citizenship.

The never ending controversy: 20 lawsuits are working their way through the courts

The Supreme Court banned the teaching of the religious based theory of creationism in public schools in 1987, ruling that it violated the constitutional mandate of keeping church and state separate.

Lawyer Richard Thompson says that students should know there is a debate about the origins of life and that they should be exposed to the theory of intelligent design.

"It is good education to allow students to know that there is a controversy surrounding biological evolution," added Mr. Thompson.

Advocates on both sides of the case believe it is likely that the issue will one day wind up being argued before the Supreme Court.

Seattle-based Discovery Institute, an organization that backs intelligent design, opposes the mandatory teaching of Intelligent Design theory. They do, however, advocate teaching the actual scientific controversies surrounding Darwinism, using legitimate, published critiques from the scientific community. tothesource would add that the atheistic claims implicit in Darwinism and often implied in school textbooks should be removed. If Theism has no place in the classroom, then neither should Atheism. Only the sound biological facts of Darwin's theory should be taught.

Johnson's book, Modern Times, is one of the most influential books on modernity ever written.

Paul Johnson, the English journalist and historian, sees the history of modern times as in great part the history of how the vacuum formed by the decline of religion has been filled. ''Nietzsche rightly perceived,'' Mr. Johnson writes, ''that the most likely candidate would be what he called the 'Will to Power' ''; and it is precisely the Will to Power that, since the end of World War I, has made this such an unsettled and bloody century.

Educators find Bible is an essential text to a good education

“The Bible Literacy Report,” released in April 2005, showed that knowledge of the Bible is an important aspect in the study of literature, art, music, and history. However, a Gallup poll of 1,002 teenagers released around the same time showed electives on the Bible were available to only about 8 percent of high school students.

The report “revealed a huge disconnect between what teachers and scholars say is needed in American education and what students are actually offered,” said Stetson.

“It is completely legal to provide a course on the Bible,” he continued. However, many public school teachers avoid including courses on religion in their schools because of legal fears.

The Bible Literacy Project hopes that the recent publications and the new textbook will help in bringing the Bible back into schools.

“Our new textbook was created to make school boards, educators and people of faith feel confident and comfortable,” said Stetson.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.