The Story of U.S.

Protestant Reformation

1607-Founding of Jamestown and Charter of the Virginia (London) Company

1620-Plymouth Rock and the Mayflower Compact

1676-Bacon’s Rebellion; King Philip’s War; and Declaration of the People of Virginia and Bacon’s Manifesto

1765-Stamp Act Crisis; Stamp Act passed by Parliament; formation of Stamp Act Congress and Committees of Correspondence

1776-Declaration of Independence

1777-Articles of Confederation


1789-Bill of Rights

In the Beginning there was a boatful of people who were in search of a better way of life and a new way of government. Some were adventurers out to make money. Others were in search of freedom to practice their religion. In the year 1607 this boat full of people arrived at a place that they named Jamestown after their King. They ran into American Indians and learned things from them. Ships returned to England for provisions for the colony. The settlers and colonists attempted to coexist. This didn’t end up working. And then the colonists killed them.

Thirteen years later in a new location up north another boat full of people came over. They landed at the wrong place; they went off course and did not reach Virginia. Instead they landed at Cape Cod.  The settlers had to make rules to govern themselves so there wasn’t craziness. The settlers devised the Mayflower Compact to keep order in the colony. The Separatists were trying to run the colony under very strict religious rules. Adventurers did not care about religion. Many settlers didn’t survive the first winter. The Indians in the area helped them plant food so that they could survive the next winter. In November a feast was had by all. Part of the settlers were Separatists (Puritans) and part of them were adventurers.

Colonies started up in Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, East and West Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, etc.

Governor Andros was sent to rule over the Dominion of New England, which did away with charters in New England. There was a Glorious Revolution in England in 1688. Connecticut refused to hand over its charter and hid it in an oak tree. Some witches in Massachusetts were killed.

George I became King of England. He was a German dude, and he became king because he was related to the Stuart royal family.

Colonists influence by the Enlightenment felt they were not truly free under the British government. Little by little England started to intervene and the  settlers started to feel constricted.

Expansion from the British and the French brought conflict which involved local Indian tribes. Some Indians fought with the British, some with the French, so it was called the French and Indian War. Colonists fought on the side of the British and helped the British defeat the French with militias. Britain obtained a large debt as a result of the war and passed the cost along to the colonists in the form of the Stamp Act.

There was a massacre of Bostonians. Five people were killed by British soldiers. Some British soldiers got black eyes.  The Bostonians had a Tea Party after the Massacre. The British were upset they were not invited. More taxation was placed on the colonists without representation in Parliament!

A few good men got together in Philadephia and signed a piece of paper. This piece of paper declared independence from Britain. As a result, British troops arrived in the colonies. Eventually they sent the idiot, General Burgoyne, who completely failed his mission. It allowed the Continental Army to regroup, which changed the tide of war and led to Victory in Yorktown, Virginia!

And everyone was free and equal except blacks, minorities and women.

And they lived happily ever after.

Religion, Science, and Economics in the Contemporary World.

Matt Banever suggested we take a look at this discussion with an astrophysicist, Neil Degrasse Tyson, who advocates for the need to continue space exploration. Isaac Kramnick, in The Portable Enlightenment Reader  wrote, “If religion was the principle villain of the Enlightenment, science was its hero.”

Fareed Zakaria GPS: Neil Degrasse Tyson makes case for space

Dr. Tyson uses an economic argument to advocate for the necessity of scientific exploration and discovery. The philosophes of the Enlightenment needed no such justification, but they didn’t reject the economic motive either. Rene Descartes, the great mathematician wrote,

“I knew that the languages which one learns there are necessary to understand the works of the ancients; and that the delicacy of fiction enlivens the mind; that famous deeds of history ennoble it and, if read with understanding, aid in maturing one’s judgment; that the reading of all the great books is like conversing with the best people of earlier times; it is even studied conversation in which the authors show us only the best of their thoughts; that eloquence has incomparable powers and beauties; that poetry has enchanting delicacy and sweetness; that mathematics has very subtle processes which can serve as much to satisfy the inquiring mind as to aid all the arts and diminish man’s labor; that treatises on morals contain very useful teachings and exhortations to virtue; that theology teaches us how to go to heaven; that philosophy teaches us to talk with appearance of truth about things, and to make ourselves admired by the less learned; that law, medicine, and the other sciences bring honors and wealth to those who pursue them; and finally, that it is desirable to have examined all of them, even to the most superstitious and false in order to recognize their real worth and avoid being deceived thereby”
René Descartes, Discours de la Methode pour Bien Conduire sa Raison & Chercher la Verité dans les Sciences plus La Dioptrique et Les Meteores qui Sont des Essais de Cete Methode


Was religion the enemy of science during the Enlightenment? Descartes also provides us with his own observations:

“Before examining this more carefully and investigating its consequences, I want to dwell for a moment in the contemplation of God, to ponder His attributes in me, to see, admire, and adore the beauty of His boundless light, insofar as my clouded insight allows. Believing that the supreme happiness of the other life consists wholly of the contemplation of divine greatness, I now find that through less perfect contemplation of the same sort I can gain the greatest joy available in this life.”
René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy


Thomas Jay Oord offered a long and thoughtful commentary on the current relationship between American evangelical Christians and science. You can read it in its entirety on his blog. But Oord admits, “I’m optimistic about the future of the Evangelical theology and science dialogue. But I’m not naïve to think that the dialogue will flow with ease into every Evangelical nook and cranny. Plenty of warfare has occurred and will occur.”

Will America revert to a position that science cannot be reconciled to Christianity?

Four Big Myths of the Book of Revelation by John Blake

March 31st, 2012

4 big myths of Book of Revelation

By John Blake, CNN

(CNN) – The anti-Christ. The Battle of Armageddon. The dreaded Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

You don’t have to be a student of religion to recognize references from the Book of Revelation. The last book in the Bible has fascinated readers for centuries. People who don’t even follow religion are nonetheless familiar with figures and images from Revelation.

And why not? No other New Testament book reads like Revelation. The book virtually drips with blood and reeks of sulfur. At the center of this final battle between good and evil is an action-hero-like Jesus, who is in no mood to turn the other cheek.

Elaine Pagels, one of the world’s leading biblical scholars, first read Revelation as a teenager. She read it again in writing her latest book, Revelations: Visions, Prophecy & Politics in the Book of Revelation.

Pagels’ book is built around a simple question: What does Revelation mean? Her answers may disturb people who see the book as a prophecy about the end of the world.

But people have clashed over the meaning of Revelation ever since it was virtually forced into the New Testament canon over the protests of some early church leaders, Pagels says.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

“There were always debates about it,” she says. “Some people said a heretic wrote it. Some said a disciple. There were always people who loved and championed it.”

The debate persists. Pagels adds to it by challenging some of the common assumptions about Revelation.

Here are what she says are four big myths about Revelation::

1. It’s about the end of the world

Anyone who has read the popular “Left Behind” novels or listened to pastors preaching about the “rapture” might see Revelation as a blow-by-blow preview of how the world will end.

Pagels, however, says the writer of Revelation was actually describing the way his own world ended.

She says the writer of Revelation may have been called John – the book is sometimes called “Book of the Revelation of Saint John the Divine” but he was not the disciple who accompanied Jesus. He was a devout Jew and mystic exiled on the island of Patmos in present-day Turkey.

“He would have been a very simple man in his clothes and dress,” Pagels says. “He may have gone from church to church preaching his message. He seems more like a traveling preacher or a prophet.”

The author of Revelation had experienced a catastrophe. He wrote his book not long after 60,000 Roman soldiers had stormed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., burned down its great temple and left the city in ruins after putting down an armed Jewish revolt.

For some of the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus, the destruction of Jerusalem was incomprehensible. They had expected Jesus to return “with power” and conquer Rome before inaugurating a new age. But Rome had conquered Jesus’ homeland instead.

The author of Revelation was trying to encourage the followers of Jesus at a time when their world seemed doomed. Think of the Winston Churchill radio broadcasts delivered to the British during the darkest days of World War II.

Revelation was an anti-Roman tract and a piece of war propaganda wrapped in one. The message: God would return and destroy the Romans who had destroyed Jerusalem.

“His primary target is Rome,” Pagels says of the book’s author. “He really is deeply angry and grieved at the Jewish war and what happened to his people.”

2. The numerals 666 stand for the devil

The 1976 horror film “The Omen” scared a lot of folks. It may have scared some theologians, too, who began encountering people whose view of Revelation comes from a Hollywood movie.

The Omen” depicted the birth and rise of the “anti-Christ,” the cunning son of Satan who would be known by “the mark of the beast,” 666, on his body.

Here’s the passage from Revelation that “The Omen” alluded to: “This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six.”

Good movies, though, don’t always make good theology. Most people think 666 stands for an anti-Christ-like figure that will deceive humanity and trigger a final battle between good and evil. Some people think he’s already here.

Pagels, however, says the writer of Revelation didn’t really intend 666 as the devil’s digits. He was describing another incarnation of evil: The Roman emperor, Nero.

The arrogant and demented Nero was particularly despised by the earliest followers of Jesus, including the writer of Revelation. Nero was said to have burned followers of Jesus alive to illuminate his garden.

But the author of Revelation couldn’t safely name Nero, so he used the Jewish numerology system to spell out Nero’s imperial name, Pagels says.

Pagels says that John may have had in mind other meanings for the mark of the beast: the imperial stamp Romans used on official documents, tattoos authorizing people to engage in Roman business, or the images of Roman emperors on stamps and coins.

Since Revelation’s author writes in “the language of dreams and nightmares,” Pagels says it’s easy for outsiders to misconstrue the book’s original meaning.

Still, they take heart from Revelation’s larger message, she writes:

“…Countless people for thousands of years have been able to see their own conflicts, fears, and hopes reflected in his prophecies. And because he speaks from his convictions about divine justice, many readers have found reassurance in his conviction that there is meaning in history – even when he does not say exactly what that meaning is – and that there is hope.”

3. The writer of Revelation was a Christian

The author of Revelation hated Rome, but he also scorned another group – a group of people we would call Christians today, Pagels says.

There’s a common perception that there was a golden age of Christianity, when most Christians agreed on an uncontaminated version of the faith. Yet there was never one agreed-upon Christianity. There were always clashing visions.

Revelation reflects some of those early clashes in the church, Pagels says.

That idea isn’t new territory for Pagels. She won the National Book Award for “The Gnostic Gospels,” a 1979 book that examined a cache of newly discovered “secret” gospels of Jesus. The book, along with other work from Pagels, argues that there were other accounts of Jesus’ life that were suppressed by early church leaders because it didn’t fit with their agenda.

The author of Revelation was like an activist crusading for traditional values. In his case, he was a devout Jew who saw Jesus as the messiah. But he didn’t like the message that the apostle Paul and other followers of Jesus were preaching.

This new message insisted that gentiles could become followers of Jesus without adopting the requirements of the Torah. It accepted women leaders, and intermarriage with gentiles, Pagels says.

The new message was a lot like what we call Christianity today.

That was too much for the author of Revelation. At one point, he calls a woman leader in an early church community a “Jezebel.” He calls one of those gentile-accepting churches a “synagogue of Satan.”

John was defending a form of Christianity that would be eclipsed by the Christians he attacked, Pagels says.

“What John of Patmos preached would have looked old-fashioned – and simply wrong to Paul’s converts…,” she writes.

The author of Revelation was a follower of Jesus, but he wasn’t what some people would call a Christian today, Pagels says.

“There’s no indication that he read Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount or that he read the gospels or Paul’s letters,” she says. “….He doesn’t even say Jesus died for your sins.”

4. There is only one Book of Revelation

There’s no other book in the Bible quite like Revelation, but there are plenty of books like Revelation that didn’t make it into the Bible, Pagels says.

Early church leaders suppressed an “astonishing” range of books that claimed to be revelations from apostles such as Peter and James. Many of these books were read and treasured by Christians throughout the Roman Empire, she says.

There was even another “Secret Revelation of John.” In this one, Jesus wasn’t a divine warrior, but someone who first appeared to the apostle Paul as a blazing light, then as a child, an old man and, some scholars say, a woman.

So why did the revelation from John of Patmos make it into the Bible, but not the others?

Pagels traces that decision largely to Bishop Athanasius, a pugnacious church leader who championed Revelation about 360 years after the death of Jesus.

Athanasius was so fiery that during his 46 years as bishop he was deposed and exiled five times. He was primarily responsible for shaping the New Testament while excluding books he labeled as hearsay, Pagels says.

Many church leaders opposed including Revelation in the New Testament. Athanasius’s predecessor said the book was “unintelligible, irrational and false.”

Athanasius, though, saw Revelation as a useful political tool. He transformed it into an attack ad against Christians who questioned him.

Rome was no longer the enemy; those who questioned church authority were the anti-Christs in Athanasius’s reading of Revelation, Pagels says.

“Athanasius interprets Revelation’s cosmic war as a vivid picture of his own crusade against heretics and reads John’s visions as a sharp warning to Christian dissidents,” she writes. “God is about to divide the saved from the damned – which now means dividing the ‘orthodox’ from ‘heretics.’ ’’

Centuries later, Revelation still divides people. Pagels calls it the strangest and most controversial book in the Bible.

Even after writing a book about it, Pagels has hardly mastered its meaning.

“The book is the hardest one in the Bible to understand,” Pagels says. “I don’t think anyone completely understands it.”

See also, Elaine Pagels’ article in The New Yorker on the book of Revelation.

Guest Blog: Sahar Khan, “Born to Resist Injustice”

The ideas discussed in class have incited me to view society with a different outlook. Society is now an intelligent mass that constructs the world. Evidence lies in the timeline project where people throughout time have been participating in acts that may have affected our customs today.  The Time line project introduced me to the idea of picking out important worldly occurrences that have had impact on our interaction with the law.  The project also led to me to ask, “To what extent global events impact me right now? Do these legal processes have to take place at a national level to influence people or can it be local? Can just one person’s action mold our lives in some way?” For example the act of one Tunisian man (Muhammad Bouzizi) giving up his life had empowered nations to over throw their corrupt rulers of years. Not only was this an international occurrence but the revolutionary spirit empowered the people of Wisconsin too. Though the bodies of these movements share a different nomos—it seems as if we all share a similar human characteristic of justice—as if we are innately born to resist injustice.

We may share a different nomos but then how come we humans are so alike in some respects? A normative universe evolves with time; the implementations of practices are dependent on time and the people’s acceptance of them. The nomos is the normative universe that is encircling us with our experiences, beliefs and culture etc.; and these factors will impact our everyday decisions (law making processes). For instance an act of destructing a Temple had led religious leaders to change their old philosophy to better survive, in a different time among a changed society. They first understood that the philosophy of the world stands upon the Torah, temple worship and deeds of kindness. This ideal was upheld when the Temple stood tall but in its destruction the world now stood on justice truth and peace. It was understood that in order for their belief system to survive it was necessary to uncover the basic fundamentals of the old message in to three new Jewish principles that would easily interact with a changed society.

Another example of evolutionary law is the Inheritance rights of women in early Salic law and the later legal system. At a time when property amassed to wealth and power, women could not acclaim any land if they had brothers. After many years Salic law was given no precedence. But in the 14th century French nobles had revived the Salic law of inheritance which led to a dispute among two possible heirs.  One heir claimed to be the rightful monarch but because his blood line came from a woman, he was given no right to succession. This shows the evolutionary dynamics of law. A group of French nobles could basically implement and modify an old law only because it held some sort of historical value to the people.

In essences we learn the relationship between society and law and most inspiring is to know that we the common people are the true implementers of law—as we practice and abide. But if we seek to change, there is no doubt we can’t.

Shlain’s Thesis, third part: Judaism, Christianity and Islam

Feb. 28: Western Monotheism: Judaism and Christianity

Shlain, 202-260.

Mar. 1: Islam

Shlain, 261-291.

These three religious traditions make up the backbone of western religious culture, but why? What about them made these religions dominate western thought and culture, according to Shlain. How intertwined were they with one another?

  • 3 factual errors and where the correct information can be found
  • 3 omissions (things you needed to know to evaluate his argument)
  • 3 areas of logic or reasoning with you agree or disagree and a brief explanation as to why (see instructions for the Second Project, below)
  • 1 book or article on the week’s topic written after 1990 that he could have cited in his bibliography but did not.

Shain’s Thesis continued:

Shlain’s treatment of Near Eastern and Western Culture is, if not exactly what recent experts in the field would all concur on, an approximation of the usual textbook version of events, with some modification. Most of us know less about Non-western and Eastern cultures, and this may seem more difficult to critique. If you are taking courses from Prof. Boyle or Prof. Jones, you may possess some knowledge from those classes. If not, you may remember things from your World Civ 1 class (Hist. 121). Remember that the point is for you to question what you read, all the time!


Feb. 21: Non-western Ancient Thought

Shlain, 159-178.

Feb. 23: Eastern Traditions

Shlain, 179-202.

Comment on two out of the four categories (Second Project):

  • 3 factual errors and where the correct information can be found
  • 3 omissions (things you needed to know to evaluate his argument)
  • 3 areas of logic or reasoning with you agree or disagree and a brief explanation as to why (see instructions for the Second Project, below)
  • 1 book or article on the week’s topic written after 1990 that he could have cited in his bibliography but did not.

Beginning The Alphabet vs. The Goddess

Leonard Shlain’s book The Alphabet versus The Goddess is a highly controversial book by a historian without academic training in history. We will be testing this book’s thesis by checking his facts, his omissions, his logic and his use of historiography. Post in the comments sections

  • 3 factual errors and where the correct information can be found
  • 3 omissions (things you needed to know to evaluate his argument)
  • 3 areas of logic or reasoning with you agree or disagree and a brief explanation as to why
  • 1 book or article on the week’s topic written after 1990 that he could have cited in his bibliography but did not.

Goddess Worship and the Rise of the Alphabet in the Middle East and Greco-Roman World, Shlain, vii-71.

Nomos, Narrative and Bob Jones University v. The United States (1983)

In his article “Nomos and Narrative,” Robert Cover makes an argument for the US Supreme Court to accept the narrative offered by Bob Jones University as its basis for understanding the meaning of the First Amendment’s establishment clause and freedom of religion clause. When Prof. Cover wrote the article, the case had not yet been decided.

Here is a brief statement of the court’s ruling and you can read the entire case at

Bob Jones University v. United States (No. 81-3)
No. 81-1, 644 F.2d 879, and No. 81-3, 639 F.2d 147, affirmed.

Opinion [ Burger ]
Concurrence [ Powell ]
Dissent [ Rehnquist ]



461 U.S. 574

Bob Jones University v. United States


No. 81-3 Argued: October 12, 1982 — Decided: May 24, 1983 [*]
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (IRC) provides that “[c]orporations . . . organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable . . . or educational purposes” are entitled to tax exemption. Until 1970, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) granted tax-exempt status under § 501(c)(3) to private schools, independent of racial admissions policies, and granted charitable deductions for contributions to such schools under § 170 of the IRC. But in 1970, the IRS concluded that it could no longer justify allowing tax-exempt status under § 501(c)(3) to private schools that practiced racial discrimination, and in 1971 issued Revenue Ruling 71-447 providing that a private school not having a racially nondiscriminatory policy as to students is not “charitable” within the common law concepts reflected in §§ 170 and 501(c)(3). In No. 81-3, petitioner Bob Jones University, while permitting unmarried Negroes to enroll as students, denies admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating. Because of this admissions policy, the IRS revoked the University’s tax-exempt status. After paying a portion of the federal unemployment taxes for a certain taxable year, the University filed a refund action in Federal District Court, and the Government counterclaimed for unpaid taxes for that and other taxable years. Holding that the IRS exceeded its powers in revoking the University’s tax-exempt status and violated the University’s rights under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the District Court ordered the IRS to refund the taxes paid and rejected the counterclaim. The Court of Appeals reversed. In No. 81-1, petitioner Goldsboro Christian Schools maintains a racially discriminatory admissions policy based upon its interpretation of the Bible, accepting for the most part only Caucasian students. The IRS determined that Goldsboro was not an organization described in § 501(c)(3), and hence was required to pay federal social security and unemployment taxes. After paying a portion of such taxes for certain years, Goldsboro filed a refund suit in Federal District Court, and the IRS counterclaimed for unpaid taxes. The District Court entered summary judgment for [p575] the IRS, rejecting Goldsboro’s claim to tax-exempt status under § 501(c) (3) and also its claim that the denial of such status violated the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: Neither petitioner qualifies as a tax-exempt organization under § 501(c)(3). Pp. 585-605.

The court rejected Cover’s particular argument about how to understand religious freedom, but that probably came as no surprise to Prof. Cover. The court reasoned,

(d) The Government’s fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners’ exercise of their religious beliefs. Petitioners’ asserted interests cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, and no less restrictive means are available to achieve the governmental interest. Pp. 602-604.

Why didn’t the court accept Cover’s understanding of the first amendment?

Nomos, Narrative, and Hercules

Robert Cover’s article for the Harvard Law Review that opened the Supreme Court’s 1982 term makes reference to a concept we find in myth: Hercules. The person who introduced Hercules to jurisprudence was Ronald Dworkin, a prominent legal philosopher.

This description of Hercules is from Wikipedia:

The right answer thesis

Suppose the legislature has passed a statute stipulating that ‘sacrilegious contracts shall henceforth be invalid.’ The community is divided as to whether a contract signed on Sunday is, for that reason alone, sacrilegious. It is known that very few of the legislators had that question in mind when they voted, and that they are now equally divided on the question of whether it should be so interpreted. Tom and Tim have signed a contract on Sunday, and Tom now sues Tim to enforce the terms of the contract, whose validity Tim contests. Shall we say that the judge must look for the right answer to the question of whether Tom’s contract is valid, even though the community is deeply divided about what the right answer is? Or is it more realistic to say that there simply is no right answer to the question? (Dworkin, 1985, p. 119)

One of Dworkin’s most interesting and controversial theses states that the law as properly interpreted will give an answer. This is not to say that everyone will have the same answer (a consensus of what is “right”), or if it did, the answer would not be justified exactly in the same way for every person; rather it means that there will be a necessary answer for each individual if he applies himself correctly to the legal question. For the correct method is that encapsulated by the metaphor of Hercules J. This metaphor of JudgeHercules, an ideal judge, immensely wise and with full knowledge of legal sources. Hercules (the name comes from a classical mythological hero) would also have plenty of time to decide. Acting on the premise that the law is a seamless web, Hercules is required to construct the theory that best fits and justifies the law as a whole (law as integrity) in order to decide any particular case. Hercules, Dworkin argues, would always come to the one right answer.

Dworkin does not deny that competent lawyers often disagree on what is the solution to a given case. On the contrary, he claims that they are disagreeing about the right answer to the case, the answer Hercules would give. Dworkin’s critics argue not only that law proper (that is, the legal sources in a positivist sense) is full of gaps and inconsistencies, but also that other legal standards (including principles) may be insufficient to solve a hard case. Some of them are incommensurable. In any of these situations, even Hercules would be in a dilemma and none of the possible answers would be the right one. 


Why is Hercules used at all to create the idea of the ideal judge? What does choosing Hercules over other mythical heros indicate about what Dworkin thinks a justice is? What does Cover think about Herculean judging?

Timeline 2: The Absolutely Most Important Legal Events Ever

3000 BCE – Hinduism emerged

1300 BCE-The Ten Commandments

1000 BCE Enuma Elish

610 BCE- Rome creates the Senate


400 BCE Justinian Code

1453 CE – The Fall of the Byzantine Empire

1517 CE- Martin Luther’s 95 Theses

1500 CE – The Reformation

1776 CE Declaration of Independence

1787 CE- Constitution of the United States was adopted and ratified by 11 states.

1789 CE Declaration of rights of man

1794 slavery abolish in French colonies

beginning of 19th Century CE: Napoleonic Law

1807 CE Slavery Abolition Act

1814-1815 C.E. Congress of Vienna

1858 Lincoln’s House Divided speach

1863 CE- The Emancipation Proclamation

1864 CE- Geneva Convention

1920- 19th Amendment

1933 CE- Enabling Act is passed for Hitler to declare any laws

1963 The Limited Tespiant Treaty

1964 CE Civil Rights Act