David Barton

This was the prevalent sentiment across America. In fact, signer of the Declaration Charles Carroll (a Roman Catholic) even declared that the reason that he and many other Founders had entered the Revolution was to ensure that all Christian denominations were placed on an equal footing: To obtain religious as well as civil liberty I entered jealously into the Revolution, and observing the Christian religion divided into many sects, I founded the hope that no one would be so predominant as to become the religion of the State. That hope was thus early entertained, because all of them joined in the same cause, with few exceptions of individuals.

Although this was the tone common among the States, it was not the result of any provision of the federal Constitution. The constitutional prohibition against “an establishment of religion” forbade only the federal establishment of a national denomination.

Earlier generations long understood this, and thus prevented any misapplied enforcements of those constitutional provisions. Notice, for example, Justice Story’s clear articulation: We are not to attribute this [First Amendment] prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence, than the framers of the Constitution. Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State. An attempt to level all religions and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference would have created universal disapprobation disapproval if not universal indignation.

Notice, too, the same clear understanding expressed in the 1853-1854 House and Senate Judiciary Committee reports: House Judiciary Committee: What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the nonconformist.

David Barton – Also, it should be purposeful.  Worship should be purposeful.  And here is the purpose.  Romans 16:6 LB says, “All of us can praise the Lord together with one voice.”

david barton david barton david barton, wallbuilders

It is unconstitutional to present to students the concept of the Creator which is so openly acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence and numerous other Founding writings. EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD, 1987; FREILER v. TANGIPAHOA PARISH BD. OF EDUC., 1999; SELMAN v. COBB COUNTY, 2005; KITZMILLER v. DOVER AREA SCH. DIST., 2005; HURST v. NEWMAN, 2006

It is unconstitutional for a classroom library to contain books that deal with Christianity, or for a teacher to be seen with his personal copy of the Bible at school. ROBERTS v. MADIGAN, 1990 It is unconstitutional for advertisers who purchase advertising space in school settings to include any religious content in their paid advertisement. DILORETO v. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCH. BD. OF EDUC., 1999; 89 ANDERSON v. MEXICO ACADEMY AND CENTRAL SCH., 2002; 90 OXFORD BAPTIST CHURCH v. CATAWBA COUNTY SCH. BD. OF EDUC., 2004 91

It is unconstitutional for a speaker to deliver a secular message to public schools if that expert is also publicly known to be a Christian even if he is a member of the President’s Drug Task Force. ALEXANDER v. NACOGDOCHES SCH. DIST., 1991; 92 CARPENTER v. DILLON ELEMENTARY SCH. DIST. 10, 2005. It is unconstitutional for a kindergarten class to ask whose birthday is celebrated by Christmas. FLOREY v. SIOUX FALLS SCH. DIST., 1979 94

It is constitutional for public schools to display Jewish and Islamic religious holiday symbols but not Christian ones. SKOROS v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 2006 95 There are hundreds of similar rulings. It is therefore not surprising that an independent poll affirmed that 77 percent of the nation believes that “the courts have gone too far in taking religion out of public life,” and that 59 percent believe that judges have singled out Christianity for attack.

Furthermore, as the latter two rulings suggest, Christmas tends to be an especially restrictive time of year, when many schools completely eliminate or severely censor historic holiday words and traditions. For example: • “Christmas Holiday” is frequently changed to “Winter Holiday” or “Winter Break” to avoid using the word “Christmas,” 97 which is offensive because it contains the word “Christ.”

David Barton – There is not a correct style of worship.  Jesus said there were only two qualifications and specifications for worship, “Worship Me in spirit and in truth.”  John 4:24.  That was it.

david barton david barton david barton, wallbuilders

In recent years, clashes over religious expressions have been among the most frequent controversies decided by federal courts, with the U. S. Supreme Court having issued numerous rulings on the subject (a previously unprecedented practice in American history). Consequently, a body of nine unelected Justices now exercises more control over how, when, where, or if public religious activities will occur than any other entity in America. In fact, one Justice describes the Court as “a national theology board.”

The modern Court largely amassed its control over religion first by discarding the traditional limitations of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, and then by adopting the phrase “separation of church and state” as the modern measuring stick for judging the propriety of a challenged religious expression. By imputing a non-historic meaning to this celebrated historic phrase, the modern Court began declaring unconstitutional many long-standing religious practices and expressions.

The subsequent overzealous application by state and local officials of these court decisions (and of the “separation” phrase in general) produced even greater restrictions. Because of the current widespread coupling of “separation of church and state” with First Amendment controversies, many Americans now believe that the phrase is part of the First Amendment. Yet concerning religion, the First Amendment only states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

For generations after its ratification, the courts relied solely on the clear and unambiguous wording of the First Amendment; the reliance on the “separation” metaphor is a recent judicial trend. For example, in the Supreme Court’s first 150 years, the separation idiom was invoked by the Court in only two cases; it has since been cited in seemingly countless cases. In fact, in actual cases filed under the First Amendment’s religion clauses in recent decades, the First Amendment was cited by courts in less than three thousand cases while the separation metaphor was cited in over four thousand. Strikingly, in examining First Amendment controversies, courts are more likely to cite the separation metaphor than they are the First Amendment itself.

That metaphor became the contemporary standard for judicial policy in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education when the Court proclaimed: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. 4 Relying on this phrase rather than the First Amendment, courts began striking down religious activities and expressions that had long been constitutional.

David Barton – The Holy Spirit must be present and the Word must be given in an uncompromising way.  That is it.  The style?  There are thousands of styles to choose from.

david barton david barton david barton, wallbuilders

Another interesting anecdote about President Lincoln involved a Mrs. Carolyn Johnson of Philadelphia, the African American president of an organization to help soldiers. Mrs. Johnson, who had been a slave, wanted to make a gift and give it to President Lincoln for what he had done for black Americans. A Quaker friend of hers wrote a letter introducing Mrs. Johnson to President Lincoln, who agreed to meet with her. When Mrs. Johnson went to meet the President, she brought her Baptist minister with her because she was terrified to speak for fear of embarrassing herself. Her minister spoke with the President and then turned to Mrs. Johnson and asked if she had anything to say. According to Mrs. Johnson’s own account:

I had not a word to say and I cast my eyes upon the floor, when the fire began to burn within me and I tell you it was the Spirit. I looked up and said, “Mr. President, I believe God has hewn you out of the rock for this great and mighty purpose; so many have been led away by bribes, by silver, and gold, but you have stood firm because God was with you and He will be with you if you are faithful unto the end.” To which the President replied, “You must give God the praise, and not man.”

Mrs. Johnson then presented President Lincoln a magnificent basket of wax fruit that she personally had made for him. Returning to 1865, while there were numerous celebrations by black Americans and others at the end of the Civil War, even before the war had come to an end, a vote had been held in Congress on the constitutional amendment to abolish slavery the 13th Amendment. Congress passed that Amendment and a poster was quickly issued to honor the 137 members of Congress who had voted to end slavery. At the time of the vote, there were 118 Republicans in Congress and 82 northern Democrats. Of the 118 Republicans, all 118 voted to abolish slavery; of the 82 Democrats, only 19 voted to end slavery only 23 percent of Democrats and those were the northern Democrats!

When the vote was taken in Congress on the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, the chambers were packed from wall to wall with expectant observers. After the numbers were counted and it was announced that the amendment had passed, a roar erupted from the celebrating the passage of the thirteenth amendment and the end of slavery thousands in the chamber; hats were thrown and voices were raised in exuberant cheers. Congress had voted to end slavery! How something that profound should be celebrated?

Members of the House asked that a sermon be preached to commemorate the event. And whom did they ask to preach the sermon? The Rev. Henry Highland Garnet, who became the first African American to speak in the halls of Congress.

Rev. Garnet preached his sermon on Sunday, February 12, 1865, and it was powerful. His discourse began with a recollection of his own personal experiences: What is slavery? Too well do I know what it is? I was born among the cherished institutions of slavery. My earliest recollections of parents, friends, and the home of my childhood are clouded with its wrongs. The first sight that met my eyes was my Christian mother enslaved. Rev. Henry Garnet Rev. Garnet’s sermon Garnet then reviewed the prominent historical leaders of both church and state who had strongly opposed slavery:

Augustine, Constantine, Ignatius, Polycarp, Maximus, and the most illustrious lights of the ancient church denounced the sin of slaveholding. Thomas Jefferson said – at a period of his life when his judgment was matured and his experience was ripe – “There is preparing, I hope, under the auspices of heaven, a way for a total emancipation.” The sainted Washington said, near the close of his mortal career and when the light of eternity was beaming upon him, “It is among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country shall be abolished by law. I know of but one way by which this can be done, and that is by legislative action; and so far as my vote can go, it shall not be wanting.” Patrick Henry said, “We should transmit to posterity our abhorrence of slavery.” So also thought this Congress.

David Barton – The church I came from had an organ valued at 1.2 million dollars.  The church had a 500 voice choir, a 6,000 seat worship center.

david barton david barton david barton, wallbuilders