| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
45 of 62 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Creating some myths of his own. . .,
By
This review is from: The Myth of Separation: What Is the Correct Relationship Between Church and State? (Paperback)
The words "separation of Church and State" do not appear in the Constitution, and several state-endorsed churches (notably the Anglican Church in Virginia) continued to receive state backing in one form or another even after the Constitution's ratification.
But Barton's case for a "myth" goes too far. The Framers of the Constitution were gravely concerned that the government might get too involved in the operation of churches or that religion would be foisted upon people by the state. In making his case, Barton embellishes and overstates. Take the example of his "quotation" from the 1892 US Supreme Court opinion in Holy Trinity Church v. United States. Barton cites the Court as saying, "Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. And in this sense, and to this extent, our civilization and institutions are emphatically Christian." A pretty theocratic declaration if ever there was one. The problem is, this quotation can't be found in the Supreme Court case. The actual source of the quote? The 1883 opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Richmond v. Moore. And what's worse is that the quote is taken way out of context . Take a look at the full quote, with the portion Barton cites set of by asterices. "Although it is no part of the functions of our system of government to propagate religion, and to enforce its tenets, when the great body of the people are Christians, in fact or sentiment, *** our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. And in this sense, and to this extent, our civilization and institutions are emphatically Christian *** , but not for the purpose of compelling men to embrace particular doctrines or creeds of any church, or to support one or another denomination by public burthens, but simply to afford protection to all in the enjoyment of their belief or unbelief." Ironically, when one views the quotation in its entirety and in context, it is actually a clear call for separation of Church and State! And by the Supreme Court of Illinois less than 100 years after our Constitution's ratification, what's more. How sad to see such a disingenuous argument from one who lays claim to Christian principles.
65 of 95 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Attributes nonexistent quotes to early presidents,
By
This review is from: The Myth of Separation: What Is the Correct Relationship Between Church and State? (Paperback)
David Barton's THE MYTH OF SEPARATION tries to make a case for dismantling the wall of separation between church and state, but it does so partially by putting words in the mouths of early American statesmen such as Jefferson and Washington. At least ten quotes from the Founding Fathers in this book were independently researched and found to be either questionable or just plain false, rendering MYTH unreliable. Barton has since released ORIGINAL INTENT, which replaces MYTH and removes the spurious quotes, but still has a few errors.
80 of 118 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
As a Christian, I object to these distortions,
By Thomas Luttrell "M.S. MFT Intern, Theology & ... (Loma Linda, CA, USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)
This review is from: The Myth of Separation: What Is the Correct Relationship Between Church and State? (Paperback)
This book by David Barton is full of distortions that I could not possibly use the book for any research. Small "quote-lets" are constantly taken out of context and used to say the *opposite* of what the original authors intended. Barton makes several lists of people who "support" ideas by taking small quotes out of context that sound good, when the Barton is really stretching their use. One small example, Barton uses the quote from James Madison saying "Religion...[is] the basis and foundation of government," which I happen to agree with. But he uses this quote in a different context to say that Madison would support the cooperation of church and state. This could NOT be farther from the truth. Madison was raised in a Christian home and attended a Presbyterian seminary, but his first initiative as a freshman lawmaker was legislation that protected the rights of religious minorities. He was perhaps the most decisive force shaping the First Amendment's religion clauses. Madison dedicated his life to separating church and state. Barton even uses the ridiculous assertion that the 1st Amendment is in common with article 52 of the former Soviet Union, thus painting it Communist, when in fact, this document was drafted over a century AFTER the U.S. Constitution was written! I also agree with this: "Religious Right propagandist David Burton claimed in his self-published 1989 book The Myth of Separation that later in the [Danbury] letter Jefferson wrote that the wall of separation was meant to be 'one directional,' protecting the church from the state but not the other way around. Barton also alleged that Jefferson added that 'Christian principles' should always guide government. These assertions appear nowhere in the letter, and Barton corrected the errors in later editions-although he continues to dismiss the letter as unimportant and distort its contents and meaning in other ways. "One scholar who has studied Jefferson and church-state separation says Religious Right leaders fail to grasp the significance of the Danbury letter because they don't understand or will not acknowledge its historical context." * As a Christian, I MUST ask my fellow Christians: If our Founding Fathers believed that religion has a role in government, then why doesn't the Constitution mention God anywhere? The only place religion is mentioned is in the negative, that religion cannot be a test of public office. My fellow Christians, it IS true that most of the Colonies were established as Christian colonies, but let us NOT be ignorant of the historical results. The fact is that persecution resulted and the majority in society abhored the power-hungry churches. Guess what happened as a result? Our founders established a secular government that "deregulated" religion and created a free market of religious ideas. Even the Preamble to the Constitution states that the authority of the government rests in the people, like a social contract, rather than deriving its authority from God. My fellow Christians, why do we need to rely on civil power to encourage morality? I get suspicious of other churches when they become power-hungry. Why must we entangle ourselves in the domain of government? At a critical time in the formation of Christianity as a growing movement, neither Jesus nor his apostles relied on civic power. In fact, the church grew *despite* opposition and persecution from government. My fellow Christians, why must the church seek to coerce the moral decision-making of others? Why must we rely on government-instituted schools to teach morality, enforce prayer and indoctrinate religious teachings? The very people who tout the importance of "family" are passing off their responsibilities. Shouldn't the "family" be responsible for moral training? Isn't it "legalistic" to resort to political power and legislation to enforce morality? My humble opinion.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
