Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[Gadawg73]

I call out the liberals and the right wing kooks each and every time they pull stunts like Barton pulled.
I show no partisan bias ever.

 

[Gadawg73]

More on your boy David Barton:
Dude wants to regulate gay sex:

Top Evangelical David Barton: "Why Don't We Regulate Homosexuality?" - YouTube

Thank you for putting in the effort.

I have to say, I don't like it when a show such as Ed's cuts off a person in mid sentence. It always leaves me wondering just what Ed didn't want us to hear.

I've tried to find the full version of Barton's statements but so far have been unsuccessful. For now, this is a black mark in my book on Barton, but seeing as how I can find a lot or ire over his words, but not a complete text of where he went after he was cut off, I have to hold full judgment for now. I did go look at wallbuilders.com. I did not find anything in reference to that interview but I saw titles of articles that I don't particularly find... well, let's just say Christlike, IMHO, when I searched for "homosexuality" on their site.

I am certain you can understand why I don't trust Ed or MSNBC to be honest to a fault.

Immie

Well said. I don't like Bigots either, and would not support Barton being destructive in that way. Still, I do not Condemn those I am in disagreement with for having their own perspective. This piece was a poorly prepared Hack job showing nothing of relevance. At best it is an example of the pot calling the kettle black. One thing it can never be accused of is showing context. There must be better information out there.

You are correct. The piece was a left leaning hack job.
But they got their facts right. That was Barton, he said it and it stinks. That is him 100%.
And I have never believed you to be a bigot. Wrong on this subject but no bigot.

 

[Immanuel]

Thank you for putting in the effort.

I have to say, I don't like it when a show such as Ed's cuts off a person in mid sentence. It always leaves me wondering just what Ed didn't want us to hear.

I've tried to find the full version of Barton's statements but so far have been unsuccessful. For now, this is a black mark in my book on Barton, but seeing as how I can find a lot or ire over his words, but not a complete text of where he went after he was cut off, I have to hold full judgment for now. I did go look at wallbuilders.com. I did not find anything in reference to that interview but I saw titles of articles that I don't particularly find... well, let's just say Christlike, IMHO, when I searched for "homosexuality" on their site.

I am certain you can understand why I don't trust Ed or MSNBC to be honest to a fault.

Immie

Well said. I don't like Bigots either, and would not support Barton being destructive in that way. Still, I do not Condemn those I am in disagreement with for having their own perspective. This piece was a poorly prepared Hack job showing nothing of relevance. At best it is an example of the pot calling the kettle black. One thing it can never be accused of is showing context. There must be better information out there.

You are correct. The piece was a left leaning hack job.
But they got their facts right. That was Barton, he said it and it stinks. That is him 100%.
And I have never believed you to be a bigot. Wrong on this subject but no bigot.

Good post.

I am glad you admit it is a hack job. Here is my problem. I have been reading this thread. I knew nothing about David Barton before I started to read it. So, while reading it, or maybe it was the thread about the MLK memorial? not sure which now, while reading it, I am told Barton doesn't think that MLK deserves ANY credit for the Civil Rights Movement. I ask anyone to give me some kind of proof that this is true. I either get no response or an opinion piece which I had already found anyway that doesn't prove a damned thing. No one can or will prove it. Along comes Avatar4321 with a Glenn Beck interview that shows Barton in a completely different light than I was led to believe.

Every time I see anything about Barton from the left, I see things like he is a liar or a racist, etc. but no one wants to back that up with anything except maybe an opinion piece that doesn't even quote Mr. Barton. Until you came along and at least showed something that he said that is questionable, but then, Ed had to cut him off mid sentence which says to me that there was something that Ed didn't want me to hear and that throws up more red flags.

I have read too many of the misleading titles of threads from TDM and her kind to trust people that won't back up their statements with more than an opinion from HuffPost or TPM.

I went to Wallbuilders site. I saw the article you referenced entitled "Unconfirmed Quotes". I disagree with your pov on that document because I think going back to original documents is the right thing to do, but, then there seems to be something that I am missing in regards to this which has something to do with his usage of those quotes BEFORE he attempted to confirm them. I don't have time nor do I care to delve that deeply into this issue.

The long and short of this is that every time a leftist uses his name they bad mouth him. But, for the most part when I hear him speak on the subject, it is obvious that the leftist had not and that they are only spreading lies.

Thanks again for your input. At least you have shown a common sense reason for your ire towards Mr. Barton while others have not.

Immie

 

[Dr.Drock]

Look your opinion of all of it is just that, your opinion. I have not had issue with that

I dunno if it's opinion. I thought being a conservative was about pulling back gov't, not making it bigger, pulling back spending, not increasing it, lowering welfare/social security/medicaid budgets, not increasing, lowering debt, not increasing.

Seems more like fact than opinion to me.

Unless you start with accurate information then how do you know what that is?
with 5% UE we got within 162 billion in 2007. I kept stating this because it gives us a baseline to have cut spending to a point in which we had a balanced budget

CBO has estimated that "war-related defense activities" in 2007 were "roughly $115 billion." (CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, August 2007, Box 1-1, available at <http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8565&type=0>) See Below for total defense spending.

there 60 billion there (Iraq is over)
you can pick and choose the rest
this was how close we got prior to the Libs taking over congress in 07. Of course 10% UE is not helping either


$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$20.5 billion (+0.8%) - Energy
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government

I'm quite confident you've twisted every figure you've gotten or they're just downright fake, I've provided links for mine and you haven't provided a single one.

But anyways I'll keep playing your game with your tools, every department you're showing me shows an increase and you're showing me trillions of dollars in increased spending.

So we had a democrat president who every republican called liberal, then you elect a republican and he's 1000 times more liberal than the democrat you all called liberal.

So thank you again for helping me prove my point.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well said. I don't like Bigots either, and would not support Barton being destructive in that way. Still, I do not Condemn those I am in disagreement with for having their own perspective. This piece was a poorly prepared Hack job showing nothing of relevance. At best it is an example of the pot calling the kettle black. One thing it can never be accused of is showing context. There must be better information out there.

You are correct. The piece was a left leaning hack job.
But they got their facts right. That was Barton, he said it and it stinks. That is him 100%.
And I have never believed you to be a bigot. Wrong on this subject but no bigot.

Good post.

I am glad you admit it is a hack job. Here is my problem. I have been reading this thread. I knew nothing about David Barton before I started to read it. So, while reading it, or maybe it was the thread about the MLK memorial? not sure which now, while reading it, I am told Barton doesn't think that MLK deserves ANY credit for the Civil Rights Movement. I ask anyone to give me some kind of proof that this is true. I either get no response or an opinion piece which I had already found anyway that doesn't prove a damned thing. No one can or will prove it. Along comes Avatar4321 with a Glenn Beck interview that shows Barton in a completely different light than I was led to believe.

Every time I see anything about Barton from the left, I see things like he is a liar or a racist, etc. but no one wants to back that up with anything except maybe an opinion piece that doesn't even quote Mr. Barton. Until you came along and at least showed something that he said that is questionable, but then, Ed had to cut him off mid sentence which says to me that there was something that Ed didn't want me to hear and that throws up more red flags.

I have read too many of the misleading titles of threads from TDM and her kind to trust people that won't back up their statements with more than an opinion from HuffPost or TPM.

I went to Wallbuilders site. I saw the article you referenced entitled "Unconfirmed Quotes". I disagree with your pov on that document because I think going back to original documents is the right thing to do, but, then there seems to be something that I am missing in regards to this which has something to do with his usage of those quotes BEFORE he attempted to confirm them. I don't have time nor do I care to delve that deeply into this issue.

The long and short of this is that every time a leftist uses his name they bad mouth him. But, for the most part when I hear him speak on the subject, it is obvious that the leftist had not and that they are only spreading lies.

Thanks again for your input. At least you have shown a common sense reason for your ire towards Mr. Barton while others have not.

Immie

I R NOT a leftist, am a conservative and have worked 30 years preparing cases for trial as an investigator. Have investigated over 5000 cases, 1000 or more for trial.
I see guys like Barton a lot. Not qualified and he ONLY attempted to confirm them when he was EXPOSED as offering them for years as fact.

 

[Intense]

Looking at the issue from both sides, in context.

David Barton Bio

David Barton is the Founder and President of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization that presents America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage.

WallBuilders is a name taken from the Old Testament writings of Nehemiah, who led a grassroots movement to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and restore its strength and honor. In the same way, WallBuilders seeks to energize the grassroots today to become involved in strengthening their communities, states, and nation.

David is the author of numerous best-selling books, with the subjects being drawn largely from his massive library of tens of thousands of original writings from the Founding Era. He also addresses well over 400 groups each year.

His exhaustive research has rendered him an expert in historical and constitutional issues and he serves as a consultant to state and federal legislators, has participated in several cases at the Supreme Court, was involved in the development of the History/Social Studies standards for states such as Texas and California, and has helped produce history textbooks now used in schools across the nation.

A national news organization has described him as "America's historian," and Time Magazine called him "a hero to millions - including some powerful politicians. In fact, Time Magazine named him as one of America's 25 most influential evangelicals.

David has received numerous national and international awards, including Who's Who in Education, DAR's Medal of Honor, and the George Washington Honor Medal from the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. His work in media has merited several Angel Awards, Telly Awards, and the Dove Foundation Seal of Approval.

David and his wife Cheryl have three grown children, Damaris, Timothy, and Stephen, and reside in Aledo, TX.

WallBuilders - David Barton Bio

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criticism

He has received harsh criticism from secular groups and professional historians:

Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been critical, stating

The Religious Right's leading practitioner of this type of historical revisionism is David Barton ... Barton makes a lucrative living traveling the right wing's lecture circuit where he offers up a cut-and-paste version of U.S. history liberally sprinkled with gross distortions and, in some cases, outright factual errors. Crowds of fundamentalist Christians from coast to coast can't get enough of it.[36]

Rev. Randolph Bracy, president of the Orange County, Florida chapter of the NAACP has referred to Barton as a "Holocaust-denier, an anti-Semite and someone who has called for the death penalty for gay and lesbian people", stating that Barton has "a long history of being related to the worst fringes of our society."[36]

Many historians dismiss his thinking, but Barton's advocacy organization, WallBuilders, and his relentless stream of publications, court amicus briefs and books like The Myth of Separation, have made him a hero to millions&#8212;including some powerful politicians.[8]

&#8212; 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America, Time Magazine

Richard V. Pierard, Stephen Phillips Professor of History at Gordon College, describes Barton's work as follows:

Moreover, American history is rewritten to become &#8220;Christian history,&#8221; the story of a people chosen by God and who honored him in the past. David Barton and a host of other evangelicals have produced books and videos setting forth a &#8220;holy history&#8221; of America&#8212;an idyllic past to which we must return if the nation is to be saved from destruction at the hands of secularists.[37]

Writing in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, (then Republican) Senator Arlen Specter stated:

Probably the best refutation of Barton's argument simply is to quote his own exegesis of the First Amendment: "Today," Barton says, "we would best understand the actual context of the First Amendment by saying, 'Congress shall make no law establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination.' " In keeping with Barton's restated First Amendment, Congress could presumably make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion, and each state could pass a law establishing a particular Christian church as its official religion.[4]

&#8212; Arlen Specter, Defending the wall: Maintaining church/state separation in America

Chris Rhodda, Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, published Liars for Jesus in 2006. It was largely devoted to debunking Barton's misrepresentations.[38]

Writing in Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?, historian John Fea suggests that Barton's 'legal' mode of inquiry is at odds with historical scholarship. Fea states that this mode of inquiry is focused upon obtaining a predetermined desired result (as a lawyer does, advocating for a client), cherry-picks material to obtain this result, and fails to reconstruct the complexity of the past, but rather "lets the Founders speak for themselves" devoid of this context, which may violate "every rule of historical enquiry".[39] Baylor University historian Barry Hankins makes similar observations.[40]
[edit] First Muslim Congressman statement

In 2007, Barton published an article suggesting that founding-era Senator John Randolph of Roanoke of Virginia was actually the first Muslim member of Congress in reaction to the recent election of Keith Ellison (D-MN), a practicing Muslim.[41][42] Barton's statement garnered widespread coverage in the evangelical Christian media at the time, but appears to have been based on a misinterpretation of a passage in which Randolph reported a youthful flirtation with agnosticism and professed sympathy for the Muslim Arabs during the crusades. Randolph was a practicing Episcopalian for most of his life, and biographer William Cabell Bruce considered Randolph's self-described "absurd prejudice in favor of Mohammedanism" a vagary that soon passed.[43]
[edit] "Unconfirmed Quotations"

In an article titled "Unconfirmed Quotations," Barton conceded that he has not located primary sources for eleven of the alleged quotes from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions (hence, the title of the article), but maintained that the quotes were "completely consistent" with the views of the Founders.[44] This drew heavy criticism from Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who accused Barton of "shoddy workmanship", and said that despite these and other corrections, Barton's work "remains rife with distortions of history and court rulings".[45] WallBuilders responded to its critics by saying that Barton followed "common practice in the academic community" in citing secondary sources, and that in publishing "Unconfirmed Quotations," Barton's intent was to raise the academic bar in historical debates pertinent to public policy.[44]

The Texas Monthly noted[1] that Barton has denied saying that in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists[46] "Jefferson referred to the wall of separation between church and state as 'one-directional'&#8212;that is, it was meant to restrain government from infringing on the church's domain but not the other way around. There is no such language in the letter." The article goes on to note that this denial is contradicted by a 1990 version of Barton's video America's Godly Heritage in which Barton states:
&#8220; On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them&#8212;he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government. &#8221;

Barton was also criticized for speaking at two functions that were organized by Christian Identity adherent and Holocaust denier Pete Peters' ministry, although he later stated that he "didn't know they (the groups he spoke at) were part of the Nazi movement".[26]

Barton's legitimacy was reported to be growing in 2006, due largely to his first work which was not self-published, a 2003 article in the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, (Volume XVII Issue No. 2, 2003, p. 399), a "rather tame survey" on Jefferson&#8217;s writings about the First Amendment.[1]
David Barton (author) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This could have been done in nit's own Thread without derailing this one.
I found the link supporting your assertions, something you should have done.

Again, Some fact, mostly opinion, it is not for you or I to dictate what resources are allowed here. Based on your litmus test, No One would be allowed to link at all. MSNBC, Arlen Specter, are not at the top of my most credible list. I would not censor anyone from using them. The context in which Barton was used, by me, was within reason. No One is right 100 % of the time. No two People are in agreement 100% of the time. That is no reason to shoot the messenger.
You challenged us to name one Founder that was Pro Abolition. I named 2, Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams, with Barton's help.

 

[Immanuel]

You are correct. The piece was a left leaning hack job.
But they got their facts right. That was Barton, he said it and it stinks. That is him 100%.
And I have never believed you to be a bigot. Wrong on this subject but no bigot.

Good post.

I am glad you admit it is a hack job. Here is my problem. I have been reading this thread. I knew nothing about David Barton before I started to read it. So, while reading it, or maybe it was the thread about the MLK memorial? not sure which now, while reading it, I am told Barton doesn't think that MLK deserves ANY credit for the Civil Rights Movement. I ask anyone to give me some kind of proof that this is true. I either get no response or an opinion piece which I had already found anyway that doesn't prove a damned thing. No one can or will prove it. Along comes Avatar4321 with a Glenn Beck interview that shows Barton in a completely different light than I was led to believe.

Every time I see anything about Barton from the left, I see things like he is a liar or a racist, etc. but no one wants to back that up with anything except maybe an opinion piece that doesn't even quote Mr. Barton. Until you came along and at least showed something that he said that is questionable, but then, Ed had to cut him off mid sentence which says to me that there was something that Ed didn't want me to hear and that throws up more red flags.

I have read too many of the misleading titles of threads from TDM and her kind to trust people that won't back up their statements with more than an opinion from HuffPost or TPM.

I went to Wallbuilders site. I saw the article you referenced entitled "Unconfirmed Quotes". I disagree with your pov on that document because I think going back to original documents is the right thing to do, but, then there seems to be something that I am missing in regards to this which has something to do with his usage of those quotes BEFORE he attempted to confirm them. I don't have time nor do I care to delve that deeply into this issue.

The long and short of this is that every time a leftist uses his name they bad mouth him. But, for the most part when I hear him speak on the subject, it is obvious that the leftist had not and that they are only spreading lies.

Thanks again for your input. At least you have shown a common sense reason for your ire towards Mr. Barton while others have not.

Immie

I R NOT a leftist, am a conservative and have worked 30 years preparing cases for trial as an investigator. Have investigated over 5000 cases, 1000 or more for trial.
I see guys like Barton a lot. Not qualified and he ONLY attempted to confirm them when he was EXPOSED as offering them for years as fact.

I NOT CALL YOU LEFTIST.

Immie

 

[Intense]

You are correct. The piece was a left leaning hack job.
But they got their facts right. That was Barton, he said it and it stinks. That is him 100%.
And I have never believed you to be a bigot. Wrong on this subject but no bigot.

Good post.

I am glad you admit it is a hack job. Here is my problem. I have been reading this thread. I knew nothing about David Barton before I started to read it. So, while reading it, or maybe it was the thread about the MLK memorial? not sure which now, while reading it, I am told Barton doesn't think that MLK deserves ANY credit for the Civil Rights Movement. I ask anyone to give me some kind of proof that this is true. I either get no response or an opinion piece which I had already found anyway that doesn't prove a damned thing. No one can or will prove it. Along comes Avatar4321 with a Glenn Beck interview that shows Barton in a completely different light than I was led to believe.

Every time I see anything about Barton from the left, I see things like he is a liar or a racist, etc. but no one wants to back that up with anything except maybe an opinion piece that doesn't even quote Mr. Barton. Until you came along and at least showed something that he said that is questionable, but then, Ed had to cut him off mid sentence which says to me that there was something that Ed didn't want me to hear and that throws up more red flags.

I have read too many of the misleading titles of threads from TDM and her kind to trust people that won't back up their statements with more than an opinion from HuffPost or TPM.

I went to Wallbuilders site. I saw the article you referenced entitled "Unconfirmed Quotes". I disagree with your pov on that document because I think going back to original documents is the right thing to do, but, then there seems to be something that I am missing in regards to this which has something to do with his usage of those quotes BEFORE he attempted to confirm them. I don't have time nor do I care to delve that deeply into this issue.

The long and short of this is that every time a leftist uses his name they bad mouth him. But, for the most part when I hear him speak on the subject, it is obvious that the leftist had not and that they are only spreading lies.

Thanks again for your input. At least you have shown a common sense reason for your ire towards Mr. Barton while others have not.

Immie

I R NOT a leftist, am a conservative and have worked 30 years preparing cases for trial as an investigator. Have investigated over 5000 cases, 1000 or more for trial.
I see guys like Barton a lot. Not qualified and he ONLY attempted to confirm them when he was EXPOSED as offering them for years as fact.

Makes me wonder whether this Nation was built on Rock and Roll or Advertising and Commercialism.

So what is the greater threat to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Lawyers or Salesmen?

 

[GHook93]

I believe Thomas Jefferson wrote that there should be a wall between the Church and the State and I believe that was part of the basis for the Everson case.

For the record I think the Separation of Church and State is a great thing! However, I am getting sick of the atheist assault on all things religious (specifically all things Christian) and there desire to have freedom from religion. The pledge of alliance shouldn't be spoke without in god we trust. A court house shouldn't have to remove the 10 commandments monument! ETC.

There is a difference between case law created doctrine, specific clauses in the constitution and federal laws.

Freedom of religion is a clause right in the constitution. The separation of church and state doctrine is a case law created doctrine established in 1947 in the Everson case. Yes it is a well established doctrine and does look like it will change any time soon. But well established case law doctrines can and do change. For over a half century the case law doctrine of the Separate but Equal clause was undisputed and an established case law doctrine. Thankfully it was overruled. Who knows one day a case may overturn the Separation of Church and State doctrine, since it's not in the constitution case law can overturn it!

So what your saying is the SCOTUS set the precedent that now separates the church from the state and has ruled in agreement with its precedent many times since, further defining the separation of the two.

So who's lying to you?

The SCOTUS?

You know Madison spoke of separation of Church and State.

things.

First, he stated in matters of Conscience, as Human Beings, Our obligation to our Creator takes Precedent over Our Obligation to the State. God First.

He neither approved of Dogma regulating Society, or Judges/Authorities Ruling over matters of Salvation. Dogma is not to be confused with Ethics and Values confirmed both in Religion and Civil Society.

Madison distinguished between God, the Individual, the Church, the Society, and the Government.

I would suggest the problems lie more in the definition of Separation of Church and State, which I too believe to be misapplied, than the concept of it, which actually is a Christian teaching, rooted in Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and God the things that are God's.

 

[Gadawg73]

Looking at the issue from both sides, in context.

David Barton Bio

David Barton is the Founder and President of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization that presents America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage.

WallBuilders is a name taken from the Old Testament writings of Nehemiah, who led a grassroots movement to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and restore its strength and honor. In the same way, WallBuilders seeks to energize the grassroots today to become involved in strengthening their communities, states, and nation.

David is the author of numerous best-selling books, with the subjects being drawn largely from his massive library of tens of thousands of original writings from the Founding Era. He also addresses well over 400 groups each year.

His exhaustive research has rendered him an expert in historical and constitutional issues and he serves as a consultant to state and federal legislators, has participated in several cases at the Supreme Court, was involved in the development of the History/Social Studies standards for states such as Texas and California, and has helped produce history textbooks now used in schools across the nation.

A national news organization has described him as "America's historian," and Time Magazine called him "a hero to millions - including some powerful politicians. In fact, Time Magazine named him as one of America's 25 most influential evangelicals.

David has received numerous national and international awards, including Who's Who in Education, DAR's Medal of Honor, and the George Washington Honor Medal from the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. His work in media has merited several Angel Awards, Telly Awards, and the Dove Foundation Seal of Approval.

David and his wife Cheryl have three grown children, Damaris, Timothy, and Stephen, and reside in Aledo, TX.

WallBuilders - David Barton Bio

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criticism

He has received harsh criticism from secular groups and professional historians:

Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been critical, stating

The Religious Right's leading practitioner of this type of historical revisionism is David Barton ... Barton makes a lucrative living traveling the right wing's lecture circuit where he offers up a cut-and-paste version of U.S. history liberally sprinkled with gross distortions and, in some cases, outright factual errors. Crowds of fundamentalist Christians from coast to coast can't get enough of it.[36]

Rev. Randolph Bracy, president of the Orange County, Florida chapter of the NAACP has referred to Barton as a "Holocaust-denier, an anti-Semite and someone who has called for the death penalty for gay and lesbian people", stating that Barton has "a long history of being related to the worst fringes of our society."[36]

Many historians dismiss his thinking, but Barton's advocacy organization, WallBuilders, and his relentless stream of publications, court amicus briefs and books like The Myth of Separation, have made him a hero to millions&#8212;including some powerful politicians.[8]

&#8212; 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America, Time Magazine

Richard V. Pierard, Stephen Phillips Professor of History at Gordon College, describes Barton's work as follows:

Moreover, American history is rewritten to become &#8220;Christian history,&#8221; the story of a people chosen by God and who honored him in the past. David Barton and a host of other evangelicals have produced books and videos setting forth a &#8220;holy history&#8221; of America&#8212;an idyllic past to which we must return if the nation is to be saved from destruction at the hands of secularists.[37]

Writing in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, (then Republican) Senator Arlen Specter stated:

Probably the best refutation of Barton's argument simply is to quote his own exegesis of the First Amendment: "Today," Barton says, "we would best understand the actual context of the First Amendment by saying, 'Congress shall make no law establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination.' " In keeping with Barton's restated First Amendment, Congress could presumably make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion, and each state could pass a law establishing a particular Christian church as its official religion.[4]

&#8212; Arlen Specter, Defending the wall: Maintaining church/state separation in America

Chris Rhodda, Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, published Liars for Jesus in 2006. It was largely devoted to debunking Barton's misrepresentations.[38]

Writing in Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?, historian John Fea suggests that Barton's 'legal' mode of inquiry is at odds with historical scholarship. Fea states that this mode of inquiry is focused upon obtaining a predetermined desired result (as a lawyer does, advocating for a client), cherry-picks material to obtain this result, and fails to reconstruct the complexity of the past, but rather "lets the Founders speak for themselves" devoid of this context, which may violate "every rule of historical enquiry".[39] Baylor University historian Barry Hankins makes similar observations.[40]
[edit] First Muslim Congressman statement

In 2007, Barton published an article suggesting that founding-era Senator John Randolph of Roanoke of Virginia was actually the first Muslim member of Congress in reaction to the recent election of Keith Ellison (D-MN), a practicing Muslim.[41][42] Barton's statement garnered widespread coverage in the evangelical Christian media at the time, but appears to have been based on a misinterpretation of a passage in which Randolph reported a youthful flirtation with agnosticism and professed sympathy for the Muslim Arabs during the crusades. Randolph was a practicing Episcopalian for most of his life, and biographer William Cabell Bruce considered Randolph's self-described "absurd prejudice in favor of Mohammedanism" a vagary that soon passed.[43]
[edit] "Unconfirmed Quotations"

In an article titled "Unconfirmed Quotations," Barton conceded that he has not located primary sources for eleven of the alleged quotes from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions (hence, the title of the article), but maintained that the quotes were "completely consistent" with the views of the Founders.[44] This drew heavy criticism from Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who accused Barton of "shoddy workmanship", and said that despite these and other corrections, Barton's work "remains rife with distortions of history and court rulings".[45] WallBuilders responded to its critics by saying that Barton followed "common practice in the academic community" in citing secondary sources, and that in publishing "Unconfirmed Quotations," Barton's intent was to raise the academic bar in historical debates pertinent to public policy.[44]

The Texas Monthly noted[1] that Barton has denied saying that in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists[46] "Jefferson referred to the wall of separation between church and state as 'one-directional'&#8212;that is, it was meant to restrain government from infringing on the church's domain but not the other way around. There is no such language in the letter." The article goes on to note that this denial is contradicted by a 1990 version of Barton's video America's Godly Heritage in which Barton states:
&#8220; On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them&#8212;he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government. &#8221;

Barton was also criticized for speaking at two functions that were organized by Christian Identity adherent and Holocaust denier Pete Peters' ministry, although he later stated that he "didn't know they (the groups he spoke at) were part of the Nazi movement".[26]

Barton's legitimacy was reported to be growing in 2006, due largely to his first work which was not self-published, a 2003 article in the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, (Volume XVII Issue No. 2, 2003, p. 399), a "rather tame survey" on Jefferson&#8217;s writings about the First Amendment.[1]
David Barton (author) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This could have been done in nit's own Thread without derailing this one.
I found the link supporting your assertions, something you should have done.

Again, Some fact, mostly opinion, it is not for you or I to dictate what resources are allowed here. Based on your litmus test, No One would be allowed to link at all. MSNBC, Arlen Specter, are not at the top of my most credible list. I would not censor anyone from using them. The context in which Barton was used, by me, was within reason. No One is right 100 % of the time. No two People are in agreement 100% of the time. That is no reason to shoot the messenger.
You challenged us to name one Founder that was Pro Abolition. I named 2, Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams, with Barton's help.

Links are for fools most of the time.
Anyone can find a link to support what they claim.
I guess my background where everyone and anyone that is qualified to testify as an expert witness is qualified before they testify and are then labeled as such is what I am used to.
Barton would never qualify as an expert at history. He has zero experience or training in it.
The man is a preacher only.
Holding up one's medals and such is not evidence of anything.
And where did Franklin offer any legislation or support of any legislation to abolish slavery?
Or Adams?
But Adams was deeply anti slavery in conviction.
In these parts talk is cheap. Franklin bought and sold slaves for many years. He offered rewards for runaway slaves in ads in his Pennsylvania Gazette. His own slave accompanied him to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. In later life he was strong against slavery. Same with Adams. Adams lectured at intolerant fundementalists for their strict conservatism in religion. Would you hear Barton state that fact? Funny how neither was very active at all in religous life so how does this prove the church was anti slavery in colonial times which WAS the topic of discussion here.
Adams was an independent congregtionalists. Same as I am. However, I am not liberal leaning like Adams.
Open door at the church for anyone to attend as God makes us all as we are.
He died a member of the Quincy church and late in life was very religous.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I believe Thomas Jefferson wrote that there should be a wall between the Church and the State and I believe that was part of the basis for the Everson case.

For the record I think the Separation of Church and State is a great thing! However, I am getting sick of the atheist assault on all things religious (specifically all things Christian) and there desire to have freedom from religion. The pledge of alliance shouldn't be spoke without in god we trust. A court house shouldn't have to remove the 10 commandments monument! ETC.

There is a difference between case law created doctrine, specific clauses in the constitution and federal laws.

Freedom of religion is a clause right in the constitution. The separation of church and state doctrine is a case law created doctrine established in 1947 in the Everson case. Yes it is a well established doctrine and does look like it will change any time soon. But well established case law doctrines can and do change. For over a half century the case law doctrine of the Separate but Equal clause was undisputed and an established case law doctrine. Thankfully it was overruled. Who knows one day a case may overturn the Separation of Church and State doctrine, since it's not in the constitution case law can overturn it!

You know Madison spoke of separation of Church and State.

things.

First, he stated in matters of Conscience, as Human Beings, Our obligation to our Creator takes Precedent over Our Obligation to the State. God First.

He neither approved of Dogma regulating Society, or Judges/Authorities Ruling over matters of Salvation. Dogma is not to be confused with Ethics and Values confirmed both in Religion and Civil Society.

Madison distinguished between God, the Individual, the Church, the Society, and the Government.

I would suggest the problems lie more in the definition of Separation of Church and State, which I too believe to be misapplied, than the concept of it, which actually is a Christian teaching, rooted in Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and God the things that are God's.

So if someone doesn't believe in a god they should be obligated to say under god in the pledge of allegiance? Yeah that's not government over-stepping their bounds......

 

[Intense]

Looking at the issue from both sides, in context.

David Barton Bio

David Barton is the Founder and President of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization that presents America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage.

WallBuilders is a name taken from the Old Testament writings of Nehemiah, who led a grassroots movement to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and restore its strength and honor. In the same way, WallBuilders seeks to energize the grassroots today to become involved in strengthening their communities, states, and nation.

David is the author of numerous best-selling books, with the subjects being drawn largely from his massive library of tens of thousands of original writings from the Founding Era. He also addresses well over 400 groups each year.

His exhaustive research has rendered him an expert in historical and constitutional issues and he serves as a consultant to state and federal legislators, has participated in several cases at the Supreme Court, was involved in the development of the History/Social Studies standards for states such as Texas and California, and has helped produce history textbooks now used in schools across the nation.

A national news organization has described him as "America's historian," and Time Magazine called him "a hero to millions - including some powerful politicians. In fact, Time Magazine named him as one of America's 25 most influential evangelicals.

David has received numerous national and international awards, including Who's Who in Education, DAR's Medal of Honor, and the George Washington Honor Medal from the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. His work in media has merited several Angel Awards, Telly Awards, and the Dove Foundation Seal of Approval.

David and his wife Cheryl have three grown children, Damaris, Timothy, and Stephen, and reside in Aledo, TX.

WallBuilders - David Barton Bio

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criticism

He has received harsh criticism from secular groups and professional historians:

Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been critical, stating

The Religious Right's leading practitioner of this type of historical revisionism is David Barton ... Barton makes a lucrative living traveling the right wing's lecture circuit where he offers up a cut-and-paste version of U.S. history liberally sprinkled with gross distortions and, in some cases, outright factual errors. Crowds of fundamentalist Christians from coast to coast can't get enough of it.[36]

Rev. Randolph Bracy, president of the Orange County, Florida chapter of the NAACP has referred to Barton as a "Holocaust-denier, an anti-Semite and someone who has called for the death penalty for gay and lesbian people", stating that Barton has "a long history of being related to the worst fringes of our society."[36]

Many historians dismiss his thinking, but Barton's advocacy organization, WallBuilders, and his relentless stream of publications, court amicus briefs and books like The Myth of Separation, have made him a hero to millions—including some powerful politicians.[8]

— 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America, Time Magazine

Richard V. Pierard, Stephen Phillips Professor of History at Gordon College, describes Barton's work as follows:

Moreover, American history is rewritten to become “Christian history,” the story of a people chosen by God and who honored him in the past. David Barton and a host of other evangelicals have produced books and videos setting forth a “holy history” of America—an idyllic past to which we must return if the nation is to be saved from destruction at the hands of secularists.[37]

Writing in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, (then Republican) Senator Arlen Specter stated:

Probably the best refutation of Barton's argument simply is to quote his own exegesis of the First Amendment: "Today," Barton says, "we would best understand the actual context of the First Amendment by saying, 'Congress shall make no law establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination.' " In keeping with Barton's restated First Amendment, Congress could presumably make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion, and each state could pass a law establishing a particular Christian church as its official religion.[4]

— Arlen Specter, Defending the wall: Maintaining church/state separation in America

Chris Rhodda, Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, published Liars for Jesus in 2006. It was largely devoted to debunking Barton's misrepresentations.[38]

Writing in Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?, historian John Fea suggests that Barton's 'legal' mode of inquiry is at odds with historical scholarship. Fea states that this mode of inquiry is focused upon obtaining a predetermined desired result (as a lawyer does, advocating for a client), cherry-picks material to obtain this result, and fails to reconstruct the complexity of the past, but rather "lets the Founders speak for themselves" devoid of this context, which may violate "every rule of historical enquiry".[39] Baylor University historian Barry Hankins makes similar observations.[40]
[edit] First Muslim Congressman statement

In 2007, Barton published an article suggesting that founding-era Senator John Randolph of Roanoke of Virginia was actually the first Muslim member of Congress in reaction to the recent election of Keith Ellison (D-MN), a practicing Muslim.[41][42] Barton's statement garnered widespread coverage in the evangelical Christian media at the time, but appears to have been based on a misinterpretation of a passage in which Randolph reported a youthful flirtation with agnosticism and professed sympathy for the Muslim Arabs during the crusades. Randolph was a practicing Episcopalian for most of his life, and biographer William Cabell Bruce considered Randolph's self-described "absurd prejudice in favor of Mohammedanism" a vagary that soon passed.[43]
[edit] "Unconfirmed Quotations"

In an article titled "Unconfirmed Quotations," Barton conceded that he has not located primary sources for eleven of the alleged quotes from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions (hence, the title of the article), but maintained that the quotes were "completely consistent" with the views of the Founders.[44] This drew heavy criticism from Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who accused Barton of "shoddy workmanship", and said that despite these and other corrections, Barton's work "remains rife with distortions of history and court rulings".[45] WallBuilders responded to its critics by saying that Barton followed "common practice in the academic community" in citing secondary sources, and that in publishing "Unconfirmed Quotations," Barton's intent was to raise the academic bar in historical debates pertinent to public policy.[44]

The Texas Monthly noted[1] that Barton has denied saying that in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists[46] "Jefferson referred to the wall of separation between church and state as 'one-directional'—that is, it was meant to restrain government from infringing on the church's domain but not the other way around. There is no such language in the letter." The article goes on to note that this denial is contradicted by a 1990 version of Barton's video America's Godly Heritage in which Barton states:
“ On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them—he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government. ”

Barton was also criticized for speaking at two functions that were organized by Christian Identity adherent and Holocaust denier Pete Peters' ministry, although he later stated that he "didn't know they (the groups he spoke at) were part of the Nazi movement".[26]

Barton's legitimacy was reported to be growing in 2006, due largely to his first work which was not self-published, a 2003 article in the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, (Volume XVII Issue No. 2, 2003, p. 399), a "rather tame survey" on Jefferson’s writings about the First Amendment.[1]
David Barton (author) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This could have been done in nit's own Thread without derailing this one.
I found the link supporting your assertions, something you should have done.

Again, Some fact, mostly opinion, it is not for you or I to dictate what resources are allowed here. Based on your litmus test, No One would be allowed to link at all. MSNBC, Arlen Specter, are not at the top of my most credible list. I would not censor anyone from using them. The context in which Barton was used, by me, was within reason. No One is right 100 % of the time. No two People are in agreement 100% of the time. That is no reason to shoot the messenger.
You challenged us to name one Founder that was Pro Abolition. I named 2, Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams, with Barton's help.

Links are for fools most of the time.
Anyone can find a link to support what they claim.
I guess my background where everyone and anyone that is qualified to testify as an expert witness is qualified before they testify and are then labeled as such is what I am used to.
Barton would never qualify as an expert at history. He has zero experience or training in it.
The man is a preacher only.
Holding up one's medals and such is not evidence of anything.
And where did Franklin offer any legislation or support of any legislation to abolish slavery?
Or Adams?
But Adams was deeply anti slavery in conviction.
In these parts talk is cheap. Franklin bought and sold slaves for many years. He offered rewards for runaway slaves in ads in his Pennsylvania Gazette. His own slave accompanied him to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. In later life he was strong against slavery. Same with Adams. Adams lectured at intolerant fundementalists for their strict conservatism in religion. Would you hear Barton state that fact? Funny how neither was very active at all in religous life so how does this prove the church was anti slavery in colonial times which WAS the topic of discussion here.
Adams was an independent congregtionalists. Same as I am. However, I am not liberal leaning like Adams.
Open door at the church for anyone to attend as God makes us all as we are.
He died a member of the Quincy church and late in life was very religous.

Links are for fools most of the time.

Links are expected to back up your claims. Deal with it. Calling people fools for backing up what they say is moronic. Grow up. Making allegations without backing them up repeatedly is a fail. I don't care what side of the aisle you are on. Very bad form. No One should have to do it for you.

Anyone can find a link to support what they claim.

Not even worthy of response. Fail.

I guess my background where everyone and anyone that is qualified to testify as an expert witness is qualified before they testify and are then labeled as such is what I am used to.

This is a message board, not a court room. No one is under oath here. No One is discouraged by the Administration here from speaking their mind or sourcing from links. Your approval nor mine is even asked for. The only qualifications to Posting here is Sign Up and posting within the rules.

Barton would never qualify as an expert at history. He has zero experience or training in it.

He is more experienced in History than you credit him for. You may disagree with some of his conclusions, so may I, yet I disagree with your conclusions too, and perceive you to be on the witch hunt to discredit everything about him.

The man is a preacher only.

Not at all True. He is a very busy man.

Holding up one's medals and such is not evidence of anything.

We should each consider the wisdom of those words, maybe take a break from the stoning and tar and feathering, and consider our own reflections.

And where did Franklin offer any legislation or support of any legislation to abolish slavery?
Or Adams?

Raising the bar? is this a bait and switch councilor? You asked for Founders that were Anti Slavery, Pro-Abolitionist. Changing horses in mid stream? Fail. There is allot there on Abolition. Again, it should be in it's own Thread.

But Adams was deeply anti slavery in conviction.
In these parts talk is cheap. Franklin bought and sold slaves for many years. He offered rewards for runaway slaves in ads in his Pennsylvania Gazette. His own slave accompanied him to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. In later life he was strong against slavery. Same with Adams. Adams lectured at intolerant fundementalists for their strict conservatism in religion. Would you hear Barton state that fact? Funny how neither was very active at all in religous life so how does this prove the church was anti slavery in colonial times which WAS the topic of discussion here.
Adams was an independent congregtionalists. Same as I am. However, I am not liberal leaning like Adams.
Open door at the church for anyone to attend as God makes us all as we are.
He died a member of the Quincy church and late in life was very religious.

We live in a different time, a different Culture, with different concerns. Some of the same head trips, yet different head trips and spin too. There is allot that does not compare between then and now, and there is that which does compare. Let us distinguish between God and the Church. Scripture and the Church.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The Holy Bible

 

[koshergrl]

This is where he returns with the brilliant rejoinder...

"I am very important and know lots of stuff!"

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe Thomas Jefferson wrote that there should be a wall between the Church and the State and I believe that was part of the basis for the Everson case.

For the record I think the Separation of Church and State is a great thing! However, I am getting sick of the atheist assault on all things religious (specifically all things Christian) and there desire to have freedom from religion. The pledge of alliance shouldn't be spoke without in god we trust. A court house shouldn't have to remove the 10 commandments monument! ETC.

There is a difference between case law created doctrine, specific clauses in the constitution and federal laws.

Freedom of religion is a clause right in the constitution. The separation of church and state doctrine is a case law created doctrine established in 1947 in the Everson case. Yes it is a well established doctrine and does look like it will change any time soon. But well established case law doctrines can and do change. For over a half century the case law doctrine of the Separate but Equal clause was undisputed and an established case law doctrine. Thankfully it was overruled. Who knows one day a case may overturn the Separation of Church and State doctrine, since it's not in the constitution case law can overturn it!

You know Madison spoke of separation of Church and State.

things.

First, he stated in matters of Conscience, as Human Beings, Our obligation to our Creator takes Precedent over Our Obligation to the State. God First.

He neither approved of Dogma regulating Society, or Judges/Authorities Ruling over matters of Salvation. Dogma is not to be confused with Ethics and Values confirmed both in Religion and Civil Society.

Madison distinguished between God, the Individual, the Church, the Society, and the Government.

I would suggest the problems lie more in the definition of Separation of Church and State, which I too believe to be misapplied, than the concept of it, which actually is a Christian teaching, rooted in Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and God the things that are God's.

The 'wall of separation' of which Jerfferson wrote, however, was in response to a letter he received from the Danbury Baptists expressing concern about their rights and liberties as Christians. In their letter:

". . . .Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . ."
The Danbury Baptist's letter to Jefferson


In his response, Jefferson wrote:

"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which
declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State."
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

It should be noted that Jefferson, as does all of the Constitution, states what the federal government and cannot do. It cannot infringe on the right of the Baptists to practice their faith freely and without government interference. His letter clearly was meant to reasure the Baptists of this fact, and that they had nothing to fear from their government. The 'wall' was to protect the people from the government. It was not to protect the government from the people.

I do believe Jefferson would be contemplating organizing a second full scale revolution if he lived now and saw how much the government has restricted the free exercise of religion. He wouldn't miss how much more the government and courts respond more to the pressures of those demanding restrictions on religion than they respond to those objecting to the erosion of our freedoms.

 

[Gadawg73]

Good post.

I am glad you admit it is a hack job. Here is my problem. I have been reading this thread. I knew nothing about David Barton before I started to read it. So, while reading it, or maybe it was the thread about the MLK memorial? not sure which now, while reading it, I am told Barton doesn't think that MLK deserves ANY credit for the Civil Rights Movement. I ask anyone to give me some kind of proof that this is true. I either get no response or an opinion piece which I had already found anyway that doesn't prove a damned thing. No one can or will prove it. Along comes Avatar4321 with a Glenn Beck interview that shows Barton in a completely different light than I was led to believe.

Every time I see anything about Barton from the left, I see things like he is a liar or a racist, etc. but no one wants to back that up with anything except maybe an opinion piece that doesn't even quote Mr. Barton. Until you came along and at least showed something that he said that is questionable, but then, Ed had to cut him off mid sentence which says to me that there was something that Ed didn't want me to hear and that throws up more red flags.

I have read too many of the misleading titles of threads from TDM and her kind to trust people that won't back up their statements with more than an opinion from HuffPost or TPM.

I went to Wallbuilders site. I saw the article you referenced entitled "Unconfirmed Quotes". I disagree with your pov on that document because I think going back to original documents is the right thing to do, but, then there seems to be something that I am missing in regards to this which has something to do with his usage of those quotes BEFORE he attempted to confirm them. I don't have time nor do I care to delve that deeply into this issue.

The long and short of this is that every time a leftist uses his name they bad mouth him. But, for the most part when I hear him speak on the subject, it is obvious that the leftist had not and that they are only spreading lies.

Thanks again for your input. At least you have shown a common sense reason for your ire towards Mr. Barton while others have not.

Immie

I R NOT a leftist, am a conservative and have worked 30 years preparing cases for trial as an investigator. Have investigated over 5000 cases, 1000 or more for trial.
I see guys like Barton a lot. Not qualified and he ONLY attempted to confirm them when he was EXPOSED as offering them for years as fact.

Makes me wonder whether this Nation was built on Rock and Roll or Advertising and Commercialism.

So what is the greater threat to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Lawyers or Salesmen?

The majority of the Founders were lawyers. 30 of the 55 that were the framers of the Constitution and DOI were lawyers.
Next time someone tries to take your freedom away by force with the power of government go hire a salesman from WalMart and see how far that gets you.

 

[Gadawg73]

I believe Thomas Jefferson wrote that there should be a wall between the Church and the State and I believe that was part of the basis for the Everson case.

For the record I think the Separation of Church and State is a great thing! However, I am getting sick of the atheist assault on all things religious (specifically all things Christian) and there desire to have freedom from religion. The pledge of alliance shouldn't be spoke without in god we trust. A court house shouldn't have to remove the 10 commandments monument! ETC.

You know Madison spoke of separation of Church and State.

things.

First, he stated in matters of Conscience, as Human Beings, Our obligation to our Creator takes Precedent over Our Obligation to the State. God First.

He neither approved of Dogma regulating Society, or Judges/Authorities Ruling over matters of Salvation. Dogma is not to be confused with Ethics and Values confirmed both in Religion and Civil Society.

Madison distinguished between God, the Individual, the Church, the Society, and the Government.

I would suggest the problems lie more in the definition of Separation of Church and State, which I too believe to be misapplied, than the concept of it, which actually is a Christian teaching, rooted in Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and God the things that are God's.

The 'wall of separation' of which Jerfferson wrote, however, was in response to a letter he received from the Danbury Baptists expressing concern about their rights and liberties as Christians. In their letter:

". . . .Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . ."
The Danbury Baptist's letter to Jefferson


In his response, Jefferson wrote:

"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which
declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State."
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

It should be noted that Jefferson, as does all of the Constitution, states what the federal government and cannot do. It cannot infringe on the right of the Baptists to practice their faith freely and without government interference. His letter clearly was meant to reasure the Baptists of this fact, and that they had nothing to fear from their government. The 'wall' was to protect the people from the government. It was not to protect the government from the people.

I do believe Jefferson would be contemplating organizing a second full scale revolution if he lived now and saw how much the government has restricted the free exercise of religion. He wouldn't miss how much more the government and courts respond more to the pressures of those demanding restrictions on religion than they respond to those objecting to the erosion of our freedoms.

Religion is restricted in no way in this country.
How does anyone stop you from attending your church and worshipping in your home in any way you want?
Jesus never took his prayers in the public forum. He was a radical for his day and scolded the public servant religous leaders of his day that aligned themselves with government to preach their message.
You do not know much about Jefferson. He butchered the Bible to make his own version and you claim he was a champion of government sponsored religion.
You must be reading Barton.

 

[Gadawg73]

Looking at the issue from both sides, in context.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This could have been done in nit's own Thread without derailing this one.
I found the link supporting your assertions, something you should have done.

Again, Some fact, mostly opinion, it is not for you or I to dictate what resources are allowed here. Based on your litmus test, No One would be allowed to link at all. MSNBC, Arlen Specter, are not at the top of my most credible list. I would not censor anyone from using them. The context in which Barton was used, by me, was within reason. No One is right 100 % of the time. No two People are in agreement 100% of the time. That is no reason to shoot the messenger.
You challenged us to name one Founder that was Pro Abolition. I named 2, Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams, with Barton's help.

Links are for fools most of the time.
Anyone can find a link to support what they claim.
I guess my background where everyone and anyone that is qualified to testify as an expert witness is qualified before they testify and are then labeled as such is what I am used to.
Barton would never qualify as an expert at history. He has zero experience or training in it.
The man is a preacher only.
Holding up one's medals and such is not evidence of anything.
And where did Franklin offer any legislation or support of any legislation to abolish slavery?
Or Adams?
But Adams was deeply anti slavery in conviction.
In these parts talk is cheap. Franklin bought and sold slaves for many years. He offered rewards for runaway slaves in ads in his Pennsylvania Gazette. His own slave accompanied him to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. In later life he was strong against slavery. Same with Adams. Adams lectured at intolerant fundementalists for their strict conservatism in religion. Would you hear Barton state that fact? Funny how neither was very active at all in religous life so how does this prove the church was anti slavery in colonial times which WAS the topic of discussion here.
Adams was an independent congregtionalists. Same as I am. However, I am not liberal leaning like Adams.
Open door at the church for anyone to attend as God makes us all as we are.
He died a member of the Quincy church and late in life was very religous.

Links are expected to back up your claims. Deal with it. Calling people fools for backing up what they say is moronic. Grow up. Making allegations without backing them up repeatedly is a fail. I don't care what side of the aisle you are on. Very bad form. No One should have to do it for you.


Not even worthy of response. Fail.


This is a message board, not a court room. No one is under oath here. No One is discouraged by the Administration here from speaking their mind or sourcing from links. Your approval nor mine is even asked for. The only qualifications to Posting here is Sign Up and posting within the rules.


He is more experienced in History than you credit him for. You may disagree with some of his conclusions, so may I, yet I disagree with your conclusions too, and perceive you to be on the witch hunt to discredit everything about him.



Not at all True. He is a very busy man.



We should each consider the wisdom of those words, maybe take a break from the stoning and tar and feathering, and consider our own reflections.

And where did Franklin offer any legislation or support of any legislation to abolish slavery?
Or Adams?

Raising the bar? is this a bait and switch councilor? You asked for Founders that were Anti Slavery, Pro-Abolitionist. Changing horses in mid stream? Fail. There is allot there on Abolition. Again, it should be in it's own Thread.

But Adams was deeply anti slavery in conviction.
In these parts talk is cheap. Franklin bought and sold slaves for many years. He offered rewards for runaway slaves in ads in his Pennsylvania Gazette. His own slave accompanied him to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. In later life he was strong against slavery. Same with Adams. Adams lectured at intolerant fundementalists for their strict conservatism in religion. Would you hear Barton state that fact? Funny how neither was very active at all in religous life so how does this prove the church was anti slavery in colonial times which WAS the topic of discussion here.
Adams was an independent congregtionalists. Same as I am. However, I am not liberal leaning like Adams.
Open door at the church for anyone to attend as God makes us all as we are.
He died a member of the Quincy church and late in life was very religious.

We live in a different time, a different Culture, with different concerns. Some of the same head trips, yet different head trips and spin too. There is allot that does not compare between then and now, and there is that which does compare. Let us distinguish between God and the Church. Scripture and the Church.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The Holy Bible

Since when did you make up the rules?
Why don't you apply the same set of rules you make here with Barton?
Where were HIS LINKS to back up his bogus quotes?
But his ideology is the same as yours so he gets a pass.
Double blind standard you have there. It shows so do not get upset when you are called out on it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Religion is restricted in no way in this country.

I'm sorry but when a city or county is prohibited from including a historical cross indicating the religious heritage of the area on their official seals. . . .

When school children are prohibited from using a Bible verse for show and tell. . . .

When a community is prohibited from having a generic prayer at the Friday night football game and most schools no longer have the traditional Baccalaureate ceremonies out of fear of threatened lawsuits. . . .

When a village is forced to remove a historic old creche that has graced the courthouse lawn for decades. . . .

All that I definitely see as restriction of religion. You can call it whatever you wish.

How does anyone stop you from attending your church and worshipping in your home in any way you want?

I have not seen that expressed as an issue in this discussion. Please point me to the post that it was mentioned or we will just assume this is another one of your strawmen constructed to deflect from the actual issue.

Jesus never took his prayers in the public forum. He was a radical for his day and scolded the public servant religous leaders of his day that aligned themselves with government to preach their message.

Ditto re my immediately preceding comment.

You do not know much about Jefferson. He butchered the Bible to make his own version and you claim he was a champion of government sponsored religion. You must be reading Barton.

Ditto re my immediately preceding comment.

 

[Gadawg73]

Religion is restricted in no way in this country.

I'm sorry but when a city or county is prohibited from including a historical cross indicating the religious heritage of the area on their official seals. . . .

When school children are prohibited from using a Bible verse for show and tell. . . .

When a community is prohibited from having a generic prayer at the Friday night football game and most schools no longer have the traditional Baccalaureate ceremonies out of fear of threatened lawsuits. . . .

When a village is forced to remove a historic old creche that has graced the courthouse lawn for decades. . . .

All that I definitely see as restriction of religion. You can call it whatever you wish.

How does anyone stop you from attending your church and worshipping in your home in any way you want?

I have not seen that expressed as an issue in this discussion. Please point me to the post that it was mentioned or we will just assume this is another one of your strawmen constructed to deflect from the actual issue.

Jesus never took his prayers in the public forum. He was a radical for his day and scolded the public servant religous leaders of his day that aligned themselves with government to preach their message.

Ditto re my immediately preceding comment.

You do not know much about Jefferson. He butchered the Bible to make his own version and you claim he was a champion of government sponsored religion. You must be reading Barton.

Ditto re my immediately preceding comment.

None of what you post is restricting you from your religion. How is the state not putting a seal of a cross restrict you from practicing your religion?
"indicating the heritage of the area"
The heritage of the area here would be NATIVE AMERICAN, not Christian religion.
So your religous beliefs call for you to have government put a cross on something?
That is absurd.
Ditto for the rest of your argument.

 

[Intense]

I R NOT a leftist, am a conservative and have worked 30 years preparing cases for trial as an investigator. Have investigated over 5000 cases, 1000 or more for trial.
I see guys like Barton a lot. Not qualified and he ONLY attempted to confirm them when he was EXPOSED as offering them for years as fact.

Makes me wonder whether this Nation was built on Rock and Roll or Advertising and Commercialism.

So what is the greater threat to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Lawyers or Salesmen?

The majority of the Founders were lawyers. 30 of the 55 that were the framers of the Constitution and DOI were lawyers.
Next time someone tries to take your freedom away by force with the power of government go hire a salesman from WalMart and see how far that gets you.

Again you miss the point. Lighten up Girly Man.