Seperation Of Church And State Articles
This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is available in effort to advance understanding. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
February 8, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Man, I really detest that guy.
This is part of a grand scheme, where Barton and the other fascists are fishing for the perfect storm of ignorance of his real agenda, though this is fairly blatant, and the odds of running a suit in front of the next Judge Moore, and perhaps lucking out enough to get his day in front of his real objective, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, an incredible pick by Alito, the assist by Kennedy, and Barton shoots and scores!
February 8, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Why are they called the WallBuilders, anyway? They’re determined to tear down the Jeffersonian wall between church and state.
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
-U. S. Constitution, Article VI
February 8, 2010 at 8:47 pm
James F, you must not be aware of the fact that Mr. Barton has a personally autographed letter to him from one of the founding fathers, that specifically denounces Article VI. He prolly can’t find it right now, but take his word for it; None of the FFs would have cottoned allowing atheists to own property or to be taught to read, nevermind being seated in office or anywhere other than a prison cell.
I guess now I’m gonna have to look up why they chose the name Wallbuilders. The double-think is mind-blowing.
February 8, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Watch it James. Don’t confuse the issue with facts.
February 8, 2010 at 9:11 pm
“It is one thing to allow freedom of conscience to all. It is another to trust atheists to testify at trial or hold office. This is so because, if one does not believe in God and in an eternal state of punishment or reward, one has no reason to fear that punishment and thus, the theory goes, will be more likely to engage in immoral or unethical behavior, to the determent of one’s fellow citizens and of society.”
So Mr. Barton is saying ‘believers’ are less likely to commit crimes or engage in immoral or unethical behavior. In actual fact, we’ve seen a whole HECK of a lot of ‘believers’ committing crimes and engaged in immoral or unethical behavior. This dude, like Cathie Adams, has been smoking some world-class dope. He is such an idiot that he doesn’t even know he’s an idiot. He’s like the politicians in the movie, “Idiocracy.”
In addition, apparently, Mr Barton is saying that atheists need not apply for public office or to hold positions of public trust. Ha! I’ve trapped him in his own game. The radcons (radical conservatives) are always moaning about how persecuted they are. Yet here he is saying that only believers are qualified for the public trust; thus, he is persecuting non-believers.
And it’s true: I’d like to see one atheist attempt to run for office. A candidate’s faith always gets raised at some point during a campaign. Can you imagine an atheist admitting he/she is an atheist? As soon as the candidate’s atheism became publicly known, that would pretty much be the end of that candidate’s campaign.
February 8, 2010 at 9:24 pm
I’d like to clarify what I meant above: Believers are no more likely to commit crimes and engage in immoral or unethical behavior than non-believers. Neither are they less likely to do those things. Believers and non-believers alike are human and have human weaknesses and foibles. That’s all.
February 8, 2010 at 9:51 pm
I wonder how many atheists the Bartons, McLeroys, and the Adams’ are creating?
February 8, 2010 at 10:45 pm
I know plenty of nonbelievers and I’d stack their ethics up against Barton’s (or anybody else’s) anytime. All of them are moral and ethical in a way that Barton can’t even seem to comprehend.
February 9, 2010 at 12:17 am
“This dude, like Cathie Adams, has been smoking some world-class dope.”
Hey! As someone who enjoys a really good bu…uh, nevermind.
Forgot what I was gonna say…
February 9, 2010 at 3:06 am
Of course, the argument of David Barton and WallBuilders is “nonsense.” The Founding Fathers and the First Congress understood the English language and got the wording correct from the beginning: no “religious” test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, Art. 6., and “religion” shall not be established by law or Congress or government at any level, First Amendment.
Therefore and so help me, I fail to understand “God” unrelated to religion. What part of “God” does any court or judge or commentator in America not understand? But, would any judge dare add, “so help me Zeus” or “Allah” to anything? In other words, it is not only Barton who is routinely distorting what the supreme law of the land actually says and commands.
As ethics professor Dr. Bill Pinson used to tell us at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, “God gave us brains to use, not to sit on.” So, in his “Ecclesiastical Endowments” essay, James Madison “Father of the Constitution,” wrote, “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history,” W&MQ 3:555.
Furthermore, it is not only Barton who needs to get the terminology of the Constitution accurate: TFN and Americans United, for whom I used serve on the staff, do their argument no favor when they both continue to distort the words of the Constitution and assert a conclusion not based upon the wording of the Constitution: the words “church and state” are not in the Constitution. As Glenn Beck says about those words, “Arguing with Idiots,” page 287, “They’re not there.” Exactly right! When will “Idiot” Beck stop distorting the Constitution and admit the word in the Constitution is “religion,” the entire subject, not “church”?
It serves the cause and argument of “separation” to use constitutional wording, not words which are not in the Constitution. The “religion” commandments in the Constitution are the substance of about what America is in respect to religion: citizens of all religions and none are welcome to participate in all of America’s social and political functions. Nonetheless, the Free Exercise Clause is not a license for anarchy–actions are subject to law (see 1879 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Reynolds v. U.S.). It is opinion only which is unrestricted.
That said, my recently published book, The Religion Commandments in the Constitution: A Primer, presents a better argument for dealing with Barton and the religion wrong crowd than does TFN or AU. Of course, I hope everyone will read it. For example: “It is the religion commandments in the Constitution which should be hung on every court room wall, posted and taught in every American public school, and monumentalized throughout America, not the Jewish commandments of Moses or of any religion, p. 19.
Gene Garman
Pittsburg, KS
Baylor ‘62, B.A.
Midwestern Seminary ‘67, M.Div.
February 9, 2010 at 3:36 am
Those of you who know me know that I pine for the day when America becomes the Christian Theocracy so many Americans, their government representatives and some on the Supreme Court are waiting for.
Congress replaced by Mega Churches deciding the fate of the Country. Preachers teaching the Bible as Social Studies. Only one definition of family.
We can invade countries that do not hold Christianity up as it’s governing model (not sure which version of the new testement, but we’ll find one).
Only allowing White, Striaght, Christians to hold office or serve communities.
Ah! Won’t those be the days! Almost a 4th Reich if we get it right.
Can we build “Green Gas Chambers”? Auh, who cares as long as we can rid the Country of those non belivevers.
The sad truth is that their is always some accuracy in sarcasm.
Ah won’t those be the days!
February 9, 2010 at 7:58 am
While we are on this subject of “moral and ethical” with regard to David Barton, let us turn now briefly to one of his close associates (Brother Rick Scarborough) down in Texas. Here is the latest on radical right depredations and the church from the Correct Reverend (it wouldn’t be right to say “Right Reverend”) Dr. Bruce Prescott over at the Mainstream Baptists of Oklahoma blog. As you all know, Bruce is one of those brave Christians who tells it like it is. The first three blog articles are highly recommended:
http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com/
February 9, 2010 at 9:13 am
Gene, if you can explain why “So help me Zeus” doesn’t make just as much sense, please do.
February 9, 2010 at 9:52 am
If the religious right were real “ol-timey” conservatives, they’d be going back to the day when the fore-runners to the Jude0-Christian whatever tradition offered up blood sacrifice. Even HUMAN sacrifice.
Man, has religion EVOLVED since then.
They really want to go back to how they imagine it as it was in the ’50’s (and for time immemorial before that, of course).
You know, Father Knows Best, Ozzie and Harriet. Leave It to Beaver, etc.
“Gee, Wally.”
“That’s really swell, Beave.”
Etc.
Speaking of Robert Young, I saw a great movie the other day that I don’t remember seeing before. “Crossfire.”
Robert Young plays a crafty, sardonic detective. Robert Ryan plays an anti-Semite who kills a Jewish war hero. Gives a different picture of the post-war era.
Prof. Garman, I’ll get a copy of your book. This whole debate is a good opportunity for us to teach more REAL American history, the Constitution and the context of it’s creation, the rights and RESPONSIBILITIES of the citizen. etc.
That’s what we ought to be pushing for the hardest.
February 9, 2010 at 10:02 am
Good Blogsite
I’m glad to see there’s some good Baptists out there.
The Baptists started out as a racist organization. That’s why there’s still a “white baptist” and a “black baptist” church.
Sort of like courthouse drinkin’ fountains in the 50’s.
February 9, 2010 at 11:54 am
By golly, I think you guys have got it. Now if we could just convert TFN into a promoter and user of the Constitution’s wording, everyone would have a better understanding of what the Constitution actually says about “separation between Religion and Government,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555!
February 9, 2010 at 2:00 pm
First point: No disrespect meant, but whenever Mr. Garman posts a comment here, his screenname reminds me of Dan Akroyd’s very funny character “Fred Garvin-Male Prostitute”. Having appended “M.Div.”, I can only presume that there is a “F.Div.” in the next office/motel room from his.
“In order for the Fourth and Tenth Circuit Courts to make a decision, they require case law for guidance, that is, in this case, they concur with Marsh. In effect, they assert the Constitution is not sufficient and “provides little guidance,” even though the Constitution plainly says “religion” is not to be established by government and even though recent case law has been very clear.”
Why is it that Baptist minister Dr. Bruce Prescott and others like Mr. Garvin, can so easily grasp the obvious reasons why government has absolutely no business endorsing religion of any kind, while Supreme Court Justices and Assoc. and the fruitcake government leaders they protect, can’t resist throwing their brand of worship into everything? The Board of Supervisors meeting in _Simpson_ that Gene writes about for example; Why is it so imperative that they are willing to spend thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds to defend their ideological tantrums? Why is a religious “invocation” necessary in the first place? Do they reckon that Jesus can’t hear/anticipate the import of the meeting unless he’s reminded just before the session commences? Mebbe God has a short memory, so praying before you attend the meeting may not work as well, thus they must fight for this prayer, and only the proper type of prayer is acceptable, because he’s a jealous God, too.
Common sense has no business in government/ideology, I see.
February 9, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Mr Garman:
Jefferson, from whom the “wall of separation” expression originates, chose his words carefully. They may not be the words of the Constitution, but they neatly summarise their effect.
My Baptist ancestors were not amongst the Baptists at Danbury to whom Jefferson wrote, but they nonethless were urgently involved in the overthrow of the previous system of local theocracies that characterised most of the original colonies — many of them had served prison time for their religious opinions. (My Great …[6]… Grandfather was a delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention.)
I understand your zeal for Constitutional terminology, but don’t share your opinion that we must restrict our discourse to those words alone.
February 9, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Here’s a quote from James Madison that may explain where “separation of church and state” comes from. It’s not in the Constitution, but hey, it’s from the “Father of the Constitution.”
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
-1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches
I agree with Prof. Garman though, the best thing is to start teaching the Constitution early, and cover all of the history surrounding it’s birth as well as its evolution and perseverance throughout history.
I went to a funeral with my Dad the other day, one of his classmates. One of the featured songs was “The Old Rugged Cross”.
That’s the first time in a long time I felt good about being in a church.
Another great song Johnny Cash did beautifully. “I walked through the Garden Alone”
We enjoyed Mahalia Jackson back in the day.
Preachers used to preach sermons.
Now the televangelists are competing for the biggest “studio audience”, there in their “big box” churches on the interstate next to the Home Depot or Hooters.
It reminds me of all those Nazi propaganda films of the “30’s.
That’s what I’m worried about.
February 9, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Someone should inform Barton that the most religious people in history have also been the worst and most notorious to mankind. Don’t take my word for it.
February 9, 2010 at 3:44 pm
It’s clowns like David Barton that give religion a bad image. Did he take lessons from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?
February 9, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Some of the colonies, not all of them, did have state churches and the wording “church and state” has been used many times in history. No one suggests otherwise. However, it is the words of the Constitution which are the supreme law of the land. Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Bapitsts, for example, has no legal standing in any court of law withing the United States. The point is simple, the Constitution says it is a “religious” test which shall not be required, not just a “church” test, and it is “religion” which shall not be established, not just a “church,” but the whole subject of “religion.” The wording “church and state” is a distortion of what the Constitution commands, and until that is understood and adopted as basic argument, the separationist argument is weakened, as opponents of complete separation assert the Constitution is talking only about a “state” church or “national religion,” as Rehnquist did in Wallace v. Jaffree.
Which is why James Madison, about 1817, as he was leaving the Presidency, wrote “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history,” William and Mary Quarterly 3:555.
Which is also why I recommend The Religion Commandments in the Constitution. It is a primer for understanding the Constitution as written in history and by the Supreme Court. A part of what the Kirkus Discoveries review says is “effectively argued … required reading … persuasive.”
February 9, 2010 at 4:02 pm
And don’t forget Josh Ramsey, VD Caseworker.
Maybe one led to the other, hmmm?
February 9, 2010 at 4:10 pm
David, no honest person can deny the beautiful ways that humans have developed to worship or express their spiritual longing for God. I wish that more Christians would stop believing divisive liars who twist the words and actions of those who want no part of government colored by religion. As Austin Cline has so clearly articulated, lack of religion != atheism. Just because a school is directed not to endorse a religion does not mean that atheism will now be the standard through which all instruction must be filtered.
New voting law: All voters must prove eligibility by correctly describing the difference between “secular” and “atheism”.
February 9, 2010 at 4:51 pm
This is a semantic distinction that is of little effect when conducting discussion with ordinary church-going voters.
I would interpret “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies..” as referring to churches (in general) and the State (in particular), with the explicit use of the word “separation” as apposite.
You hit the lawyers, I’ll hit the voters. Everybody happy.
February 9, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Josh Ramsey, VD Caseworker? Oh, dear. Someone please tell me what piece of human culture I must have missed with this one. I stand totally ignorant and awaiting enlightement.
February 9, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Gene,
For those people reading these comments who aren’t familiar with the publishing industry, perhaps you should mention that Kirkus Discoveries charges $350 to review a book.
When Kirkus first started offering this paid-review service to self-published authors five or six years ago, many people in the publishing industry questioned the practice, for obvious reasons. They still do.
Please know that I’m not judging the quality of your book, because I haven’t read it. But I’m not a fan of paid reviews, because I think they take advantage of self-published authors who otherwise have very little chance for publicity. (Some disclosure of my own: I am not a self-published author.)
February 9, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Charles, Josh Ramsey was another Saturday Night Live character. I can’t remember whether he came before or after Fred Garvin. You’d think the male prostitute would come first, followed by the VD caseworker.
February 9, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Thomas Jefferson,
This quote’s on my list for “most witty”:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
I would argue that atheism is a religion. It’’s a belief.
“Monotheism”.
It’s funny how these guys deal with the Trinity, It’s three, three, three gods in one.
Is that 3 gods or are they 1/3 god apiece.
.
February 9, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Enough already. We ALL know the troublesome words in the Constitution and the difference thereof. But, really, let’s be frank. Is this not a case of splitting hairs? So the key word is ‘religion.’ AGREED.
‘Religion’ originates from the Latin ‘religio,’ or “to bind back together.” It’s the root for the words ‘ligature,’ and ‘ligament.’ Thus, religion is a tool humans use to bind themselves back together to their core beliefs and observances and with the community with whom they connect. ‘Church’ refers either to the meeting place of one particular religion, Christianity, or to the entire body of Christians. So, ‘religion’ has a broad and undefined meaning; ‘church’ a narrower one. Fine. Peachy. By using ‘religion,’ the Constitution is broadening its scope to the maximum, recognizing that there are other religions besides Christianity, religions that don’t meet in ‘churches’ and whose adherents are and can be U.S. residents and citizens.
Religion and state vs church and state. So it says ‘religion and state.’ Why is that a big deal? I should think that what matters is the end result: whose Constitutional rights are being upheld and whose are being infringed?
February 9, 2010 at 8:09 pm
David asks: “Is that 3 gods or are they 1/3 god apiece?”
Beats me. I could never understand it. It doesn’t even work mathematically: divide One by Three. It doesn’t work; you don’t get a whole number. So that would point to your second hypothesis: 1/3 god apiece.
February 9, 2010 at 8:26 pm
The roofers of the constitution (I get so tired of framers) rightly recognized that the United States might one day contain people of various religions, which indeed turned out to be the case. How very intuitive of those late 18th century gents. However, as a day-to-day matter in those times, the society consisted primarily of various stripes of Christians and people of no religion at all. There is a good historical argument that the latter encompossed nearly the entire population of North Carolina, which was viewed in that time and place as a magnet for the internal wretched refuse of the 13 colonies/states. Anyone remember The Standells and their song “Dirty Water”? According to some history books, that was North Carolina.
Anyhoo, the founding father quotes of that time emphasized separation of CHURCH and state because fighting and persecutions amongst Christian denominations were the primary concern of that time. Here is where Mr. Fruitcake would enter and say this proves that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that the roofers original intent was that their should be no national denomination lording it over the other denominations. However, as Mr. Garmin notes, the constitution that was ratified in 1788 formally clarified the actual intent of the founding fathers UNMISTAKABLY by using the word “religion” instead of “church” in the First Amendment. Those of us who actually know something about American history are well aware of the excruciating editorialism that went into the Declaration of Independence after Jefferson’s initial working draft. Words and phrases were considered and weighed carefully. It would be logical to assume that the same care went into drafting the constitution. Therefore, the selection of the word “religion” was no doubt a careful and intentional choice of words rather than a Watergate-style “misspoke.” Clearly, the roofers were not establishing a Christian theocracy with that selection of wording. It would have been a shame to have had our “rising sun” republic torn to shreds by warfare between the various Christian denominations. I think the separation of churches and religions from state is an especially good thing today because many Christian denominations, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, have become militant in nature and are fomenting verbal warfare that, in my opinion, could easily become shooting warfare one of these days.
February 9, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Cytocop:
Actually, if God exists in another parallel dimension that we call heaven, the trinity might not be such a mystery. It could be some weird thing that can exist, as such, only in a bizarro dimension that our three (our four) dimensional world has no means of conceptually capturing in any meaningful way. As an example, I offer up the strange message from the alien world that they were trying to decipher in the Jodie Foster movie “Contact.” Just a thought.
February 9, 2010 at 8:56 pm
“I would argue that atheism is a religion. It’’s a belief.”
Well, by all means, let’s hear you make that argument. So far as I can tell, lack of belief in the Christian God !=belief.
February 9, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Atheism is a religion? I’ve always found that to be a puzzling comment. Disbelief is a belief?
I suppose you could twist it around, so that “I don’t believe in gods” becomes “I believe that gods don’t exist.” (Notice I said “gods,” not “god,” because there are so many to choose from.)
If you’re working from that angle, every theist is a member of at least two religions. A Christian, for instance, is 1) a Christian, and 2) a member of the religion that believes all other gods don’t exist. After all, not believing in Vishnu, Zeus, Osiris, et al is a belief, right? Instead of saying “I don’t believe in Zeus” it becomes “I believe that Zeus doesn’t exist.”
February 9, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Charles, as a former framing contractor, I must protest… We have to fix the design of the architect who draws something that can’t exist in 3-dimensional space, cope with out of square concrete slabs, make the plumber’s mistakes work,…
Thomas Jefferson, to support your point:
Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”
February 9, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Meanwhile, to address the question of the meaning of “Wallbuilders”…
Those under discussion who wish to demolish the Wall of Separation refer to themselves as Wallbuilders. This has reference to the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, as reported in Nehemiah 3 et seq.
By analogy (or metaphor) The Holy City (id est the originally Christian Nation of the United States) has been cruelly demolished by evil occupying powers (i.e. folks such as myself who don’t cleave to late 19th-Century jingoistic revivalism) and must now be rebuilt by dedicated and Holy Men (i.e. Barton & Cie).
HTH.
February 9, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Atheism is, as I’ve always understood it, “There is no god.”
How do you know there is no God?
Ask the atheist that, they say, if they’re honest, “I don’t know that. I just can’t find any evidence to support “God” as I define him/her/it.”
In other words, they believe there is no god.
Personally I believe in uncertainty. I’m sure that exists.
February 9, 2010 at 10:09 pm
I guess the Wallbuilders probably have a bone to pick with the Masons.
February 9, 2010 at 10:10 pm
It does indeed. Thank you, Michael.
February 9, 2010 at 11:00 pm
atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist.
There’s a difference between “I don’t believe in gods” and “There is no god.”
As far as certainty, I hear you. I can’t be certain that Yahweh doesn’t exist, or Zeus, or Osiris, etc.
How do you know Zeus doesn’t exist?
February 9, 2010 at 11:16 pm
There’s a profound difference between the statement “I do not have reason to believe in the existence of a god”
and the statement “No god[s] exist[s] at all”.
That is the difference between “I do not believe that there is a rhinoceros in my parlour (indicated by absence of odd smells, piles of dung, furniture breakage, strange bellowing noises, huge belligerent animal, muddy animal footprints)” and “No rhinoceros exists at all anywhere”.
HTH
February 9, 2010 at 11:17 pm
David, that is a “strong atheist” position, so I grant that one, but I can tell you that very, very few atheists would presume to know that there are no God/gods/supernatural beings. My position, and that of almost every atheist I’ve encountered, is this: I do not believe in the idea of God as defined by Christians, Muslims, or in fact any that have been offered up as praise/worship worthy. Until I have been shown evidence for any of these beings, I do not believe that they exist.
That is not to say that they are definitely proven not to exist. So, no “belief” in the non-existence, just lack of belief in the God that is asserted.
This is an important distinction; If someone tells me that they own a unicorn, saddle and all, my lack of belief in this assertion does not indicate that I have any “beliefs”. I only dis-believe, again, sans evidence.