Customer Reviews

The Myth of Separation: What Is the Correct Relationship Between Church and State?

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

True, the words "separation of church and state" do not appear on the Constitution, but neither do the words "right to a fair trial." The concept is certainly expressed though, and so is that of the establishment clause.

Read the personal writings and speeches of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding fathers. It becomes overwhelmingly apparent that not only did they NOT seek to establish a "Christian nation," they actively and fervently sought to found a government in which religion would not interfere with fairness and civil law.

Imagine that the average televangelist was an emperor for the U.S. and you will understand the fundamentalist dream- a nightmare for anyone who doesn't adhere to their superstitions. Don't support biased and badly supported half truths and weak arguments like these by buying this ridiculous tome. Read something of substance instead- like maybe the Constitution itself. It's available for free all over the web. In particular, read up on "Everson vs. Board of Education, 1947." Much more enlightening than this claptrap.

Lots of people have differing opinions on that they have thought (or wished) the 1st Amendment meant. But why theorize on what the actual founding fathers meant when you can just read their stated opinions for yourself? The principle authors of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. See what they thought on the subject:

These first two are Jefferson:

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the `wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

And these two are Madison:

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State"

Case closed.

The preponderence of documentation relating to the founding of this, One Nation Under God, reveals the intent to have freedom OF religion and not freedom FROM religion. The words of the first amendment, so often confused, misused, and abused, read :"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
John Quincy Adams said: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
Patrick Henry wrote: " It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".
Author David Barton rightly addressses our nations beginnings, and the travesty of the court decisions and misguided efforts of others in the gross misapplication of the First Ammendment.
Suffice it to say this book should be read by every American, regardless of religious affiliation, or lack thereof. I would especially draw attention to the introductory paragraph of chapter 17. READ IT !
Warren McBee

The fundamental thing about "the separation of Church and State" is that it is directly based on the Constitution. There is to be no establishment of religion. That's a curious phrase for us today, but it had very real meaning for people brought up with the memories of the burning of heretics, discrimination against believers in another sect or religion, or against those without religious beliefs entirely. To have freedom of religion, you need to separate it from the state. You have to have the state acting with no preference for one or another religion or philosophical belief. The only way you can do that is to separate the law-making powers of the state from the rule-making authority -- for those who voluntarily embrace the belief -- of any particular religion.

I take it that most, if not all of the people espousing this point of view are of a particular sect that is very popular in the American South. It's difficult to find anyone who takes this Dominionism seriously in more urban areas. Yet the born-again Christian supremacist fundamentalists continue to preach this false philosophy. I can understand their frustration, I suppose, but there is no power in the constitution that permits them to establish their brand of Christianity over any other faith. (There's no direct talk about "separation of Church and State" in the constitution, but that's the wrong question. The question is, where is the authority in the constitution to elevate one faith above the others?)

And that's the trap. The Born-Again Supremacists must believe they have the right to lord it over all the rest of us. Over Catholics, Jews, over the Universalists, over the faith of people who are today naming gay priests and bishops. They don't believe precisely in the fundamentalist paradise. Non-religious people don't believe this way either, and they obviously have the right to believe or not, as they wish. Yet the Christian Supremacist movement, typified by this book, would have one brand of philosophical belief, of religious practice and belief, held supreme over all others. And we can say, very clearly, that that idea is unconstitutional. The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No law establishing a preferred religion. That would, after all, not help in the free exercise of religion other than the official one, and it would limit the freedom of speech or the press. If one group gains the power of the state backing them up, all of the others' rights are diminished. And there's no way around that, including the sophistry indulged in by this book.

True, the words "separation of church and state" do not appear on the Constitution, but neither do the words "right to a fair trial." The concept is certainly expressed though, and so is that of the establishment clause.

Read the personal writings and speeches of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding fathers. It becomes overwhelmingly apparent that not only did they NOT seek to establish a "Christian nation," they actively and fervently sought to found a government in which religion would not interfere with fairness and civil law.

Imagine that the average televangelist was an emperor for the U.S. and you will understand the fundamentalist dream- a nightmare for anyone who doesn't adhere to their superstitions. Don't support biased and badly supported half truths and weak arguments like these by buying this ridiculous tome. Read something of substance instead- like maybe the Constitution itself. It's available for free all over the web. In particular, read up on "Everson vs. Board of Education, 1947." Much more enlightening than this claptrap.

Lots of people have differing opinions on that they have thought (or wished) the 1st Amendment meant. But why theorize on what the actual founding fathers meant when you can just read their stated opinions for yourself? The principle authors of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. See what they thought on the subject:

These first two are Jefferson:

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the `wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

And these two are Madison:

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State"

Case closed.

Barton makes what appears to be on the surface a supposedly well-researched support of the claim that America was founded as a Christian nation by Christians and it was our freedoms we have that is based, according to him , on the Christian religion.

Problem with this book is that the history represented here is not an accurate history of what actually happened. This Norman Rockwell praise God pious America image seems to omit in the telling various facts, such as how the American Indians were actually treated by the white European colonists and how they realized they were in fact being invaded and their lands taken over. Or how the colonists praise their god when the "red savages" started dying of diseases the colonists deliberately introduced the tribes as an early form of germ warfare. Their view of this "Christian America founded by God" is not mentioned in this book.

Nor is it mentioned certain founders such as Thomas Paine. What is mentioned is the Christian Reconstructionist/Dominon Now teaching that anyone who criticizes their God is not only un-American but guilty of treason. No mention of the fact that these supposed devout Christian colonists had in their towns laws against one another based on which Christian sect they were, such as laws against Quakers in Puritan towns.

There is also a glaring omission that the reason why the Courts changed the laws to reflect a pluralistic society and not a Christian dominated one was that in fact the growing number of Americans who are atheists, various non-Christian religions and freethinkers who realized that the blatant favoritism towards one religion ( white European Christianity) was also relegating everyone else to second class citizenship at best. Denying the civil liberties and imposing one religion, a bully pulpit.

This was published during the time Pat Robertson was campaigning for President of the United States. The publishing company and the author are blatant associates of the James Dobson conservative Christian faction , with their own political agendas camoflaged in religion.

No mention of the 19th Century Chinese immigrants and their "pagan" religions or how the Native Americans were actually treated in reservations where their tribal religions were prohibited while the Xian missionaries tried to " westernize" them at the expense of everything they were.

When an author deliberately distorts history like this, consider what he's trying to hide from you and why. Could be what he is advocating is not as wonderful as he claims.

Barton, BTW has no degree in history and spoke twice at a Christian Identity holocaust denier group.

Here is one quote from a well-known man of the 19th Century whose ethnic people Barton forgot to include;

"Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of
Christ, I recognize the widest, possible difference-so wide, that to
receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the
other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of
necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable,
and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt,
slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and
hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason,
but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land
Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the
boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels."-- Frederick
Douglass

[']

Mr. Barton's poorly researced and written book is used as a marketing tool by radio and tv evangelists of the religious right to prop up their political views. It has no cohesion and takes many of the Founders' quotes out of context or completely changes them. This is another example of the revisionist history taking place by the religious right.

The problem with cherry-picking history is that we never get to the truth. It becomes very obvious after reading this book that Barton has an agenda and will stop at nothing to support his hypothesis. This is not the work of an objective historian; it is the result of cherry-picking through archives of history trying to find any quote in or out of context that supports this hypothesis and ignoring the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The book is absolute rubbish and the fact that uneducated people are influenced by reading this book is horrifying.