David Barton

Our Nation’s protection, that fortress which is our Constitution, cannot possibly rest upon the changeable philosophical predilections of the Justices of this Court, but must have deep foundations in the historic practices of our people. Lee v. Weisman, 1992

The issue in this case was prayer, specifically, invocations and benedictions delivered at school graduations. The facts were summarized by the Court:

The city of Providence, Rhode Island had a policy of permitting its public high school and middle school principals to invite members of the clergy to offer invocation and benediction prayers as part of the school’s formal graduation ceremonies. Pursuant to this policy, the principal of a middle school invited a rabbi to offer such prayers. The principal gave the rabbi a pamphlet entitled “Guidelines for Civic Occasions,” which recommended that public prayers at nonsectarian civic ceremonies be composed with inclusiveness and sensitivity. Also, the principal advised the rabbi that the invocation and benediction should be nonsectarian.

Although the rabbi prayed according to the “politically correct” guidelines given him, a suit was nevertheless filed by a student and her father, Daniel Weisman. When that case finally reached the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote the Court struck down the traditional practice of graduation invocations and benedictions offered by clergy. The Court provided the essence of its argument in this simple sentence:

But it is not enough that the government restrain from compelling religious practices: it must not engage in them either. Notice the Court’s conclusion that to allow a rabbi to offer a prayer was the equivalent of the government engaging in a religious practice an incomprehensible stretch both of logic and of interpretation.

Nevertheless, even if it were true that the government allowing prayer is the same as engaging in it, then our history is replete with numerous examples of the government doing so at the insistence of prominent Founding Fathers. Notice:

David Barton – The research that we do is extensive.  The ushers, the greeters, the parkers, the teachers, the nursery workers are all in place to give glory to God.  Everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.  Worship should be organized.

david barton david barton david barton, wallbuilders

John Witherspoon, too, complemented the Jews:

To the Jews were first committed the care of the sacred Writings. Yet was the providence of God particular manifest in their preservation and purity. The Jews were so faithful in their important trust. Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, was so fond of the “Hebrews” that he served as president of the “Society for Ameliorating the State of the Jews” and made personal provision to bring persecuted Jews to America where they could have an “asylum of safety” and have the opportunity, if they so chose, to inquire into Christianity “without fear or terror.”

However, the Founders’ respect for other religions should not be confused or misinterpreted as a promotion of pluralism evidenced by this statement from Benjamin Rush:

Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohamed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament.

Similarly, consider Justice Story’s statement in his Commentaries on the Constitution:

The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy a denominational council the exclusive patronage of the national government.

Representative quotes of many Founders demonstrate their preference for Christianity and provide no evidence of any alleged “mandate to promote a visible, pluralistic society.” Notice:

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention. George Washington

Let statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by educating their little boys and girls and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system. Samuel Adams

David Barton – Do you know what our mission is as leaders of this church?  Our mission is to entertain you.  “He said the word entertain in church?”  Entertain.  I will give you the definition of entertainment.

david barton david barton david barton, wallbuilders

Interested members of the Jewish, Roman Catholic and a few of the Protestant faiths formed a voluntary association called the Champaign Council on Religious Education. They obtained permission from the Board of Education to offer classes in religious instruction to public school pupils in grades four to nine inclusive. Classes were made up of pupils whose parents signed printed cards requesting that their children be permitted to attend; they were held weekly, thirty minutes for the lower grades, forty-five minutes for the higher. The council employed the religious teachers at no expense to the school authorities, but the instructors were subject to the approval and supervision of the superintendent of schools. The classes were taught in three separate religious groups by Protestant teachers, Catholic priests, and a Jewish rabbi. Not only were the classes voluntary, students could attend only with parents’ written permission; yet the Court found these classes unacceptable. It reiterated its position taken the previous year:

As we said in the Everson case, the First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable. Justice Felix Frankfurter further expounded on this position: Separation means separation, not something less. It is the Court’s duty to enforce this principle in its full integrity. Illinois has here authorized the commingling of sectarian with secular instruction in the public schools. The Constitution of the United States forbids this. The Court’s assertion that it was wrong for Illinois to “commingle sectarian with secular instruction” seems ironic when one recalls that on August 7, 1789, George Washington signed the Northwest Ordinance which encouraged schools in the territory that would become Illinois to teach “religion, morality, and knowledge.” Furthermore, when Thomas Jefferson authored his plan of education in Virginia, he considered religious study an inseparable component in the study of law and political science. As he explained:

David Barton – “To capture and hold the attention of a person for an extended period of time.”  Did Jesus entertain?  You better believe it.

david barton david barton david barton, wallbuilders

In a letter to his daughter, Susan, Boudinot described his motivations for writing that rebuttal:

I confess that I was much mortified to find the whole force of this vain man’s genius and art pointed at the youth of America. This awful consequence created some alarm in my mind lest at any future day, you, my beloved child, might take up this plausible address of infidelity; and for want of an answer at hand to his subtle insinuations might suffer even a doubt of the truth, as it is in Jesus, to penetrate into your mind. I therefore determined to put my thoughts on the subject of this pamphlet on paper for your edification and information, when I shall be no more.

I chose to confine myself to the leading and essential facts of the Gospel which are contradicted or attempted to be turned into ridicule by this writer. I have endeavored to detect his falsehoods and misrepresentations and to show his extreme ignorance of the Divine Scriptures which he makes the subject of his animadversions criticisms not knowing that “they are the power of God unto salvation, to everyone that believeth” ROMANS 1:16.

Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine’s work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.” However, after reading Bishop Richard Watson’s Apology for the Bible written against Paine, Henry deemed that work sufficient and decided not to publish his reply. When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine’s work, he thundered:

Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God? Oh shame, where is thy blush? Is this the way to continue independent, and to render the 4th of July immortal in memory and song? Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first law book, noted:

David Barton – Did Simon Peter entertain?  No doubt about it.  Did the Apostle Paul entertain?  Yes.  You don’t have to be boring.  You can be entertaining.  This book, the Bible, is that exciting.

david barton david barton david barton, wallbuilders

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness? The mere politician ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail, in exclusion of religious principle. The visible and firm reliance on religious principles which Washington displayed in the Executive Branch was also just as visible in the practices of the Judicial Branch. In the original Supreme Court, each Justice was assigned responsibilities over a specific geographic region.

Although that practice still continues today, those early Justices, unlike today’s Justices, traveled to the different geographic locations across the country to impanel grand juries to hear cases rather than requiring all parties to travel to the federal capital. Chancellor James Kent considered one of the two Fathers of American Jurisprudence observed that this was a practice with Biblical precedent: The Jewish judges rode the circuits, and Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life, and he went from year to year in circuit, to Bethel and Gilgal and Mizpeh, and judged Israel in all those places I SAMUEL 7:15-16.

In preparation for these visits, local officials would correspond with the Supreme Court Justices to ensure that all necessary arrangements had been made prior to their arrival. For example, on February 24, 1790, Richard Law of New London, Connecticut, inquired of Chief Justice John Jay which of the Judges are to ride the eastern circuit and whether they would wish to give any directions relative to the preparation for their reception in point of parade, accommodations or the like, whether any uniformity particularly formalities of dress i.e., manner of judicial robe is expectable, whether they would wish to have a clergyman attend. Chief Justice Jay responded:

David Barton – Gallop conducted a survey of the unchurched two years ago.  He asked them what was the most boring place in their opinion.

david barton david barton david barton, wallbuilders

The Congress desirous to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God’s superintending providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely on His aid and direction do earnestly recommend a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain His pardon and forgiveness.

With all channels of reconciliation exhausted, on July 2, 1776, Congress approved in principle a separation from Great Britain. Two days later, July 4, 1776, Congress approved the Declaration of Independence. At this stage, it was signed only by John Hancock, President of Congress, and Charles Thomson, it’s Secretary.

The fifty-six leaders who approved the separation from Great Britain realized that their struggle against the much superior British military could not be won solely through their own efforts. Thus, in their Declaration of Independence they openly acknowledged the Source of help on whom they would rely: “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”; “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”; “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World, for the rectitude of our intentions.” Then, in the last line of that document, those Patriots announced: For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. The Declaration of Independence was actually a dual declaration: a Declaration of Independence from Britain and a Declaration of Dependence on God.

This act preserved a lesson for future generations. As explained by signer of the Declaration Benjamin Rush: I sat next to John Adams in Congress, and upon my whispering to him and asking him if he thought we should succeed in our struggle with Great Britain, he answered me, “Yes if we fear God and repent of our sins.” his anecdote will, I hope, teach my boys that it is not necessary to disbelieve Christianity or to renounce morality in order to arrive at the highest political usefulness or fame. The day after the separation from Great Britain was approved; John Adams wrote Abigail two letters. The first was short and concise, jubilant that the separation had come; 93 the second was much longer and more pensive. In it, Adams cautiously noted: This day will be the most memorable epoch a in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival.

David Barton – They said there was no doubt about it, it was the church.  We have this misconception of worship.

david barton david barton david barton, wallbuilders

It was not uncommon for subsequent American literacy laws to stress the need to know the Scriptures. For example, the 1690 Connecticut law declared: This legislature observing that there are many persons unable to read the English tongue and thereby incapable to read the holy Word of God or the good laws of this colony it is ordered that all parents and masters shall cause their respective children and servants, as they are capable, to be taught to read distinctly the English tongue.

The concern that caused this educational law to be passed was that many were illiterate and thereby “incapable to read the holy Word of God” The inseparability of Christianity from education, whether public or private, was evident at every level of American education. For example, the 1636 rules of Harvard declared: Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life JOHN 17:3 and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom let everyone seriously set him by prayer in secret to seek it of Him PROVERBS 2:3.

Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein. Those Harvard requirements changed little over subsequent years. For example, the 1790 rules required: All persons of what degree forever residing at the College, and all undergraduates shall constantly and seasonably attend the worship of God in the chapel, morning and evening.

All the scholars shall, at sunset in the evening preceding the Lord’s Day, lay aside all their diversions and. it is enjoined upon every scholar carefully to apply himself to the duties of religion on said day. So firmly was Harvard dedicated to this goal that its two mottos were “For the Glory of Christ” and “For Christ and the Church?” This school and its philosophy produced signers John Adams, John Hancock, Elbridge Gerry, John Pickering, William Williams, Rufus King, William Hooper, William Ellery, Samuel Adams, Robert Treat Paine, and numerous other illustrious Founders.

David Barton – We see worship like a Broadway play, incorrectly.  We see the pastor as the actor, the congregation as the audience and we see God as the director.  That is incorrect.

david barton david barton david barton, wallbuilders

It was doubted whether M’Creery’s estate could legally be left to an alien unless it could be proven that he had become a citizen of the United States before his death. The case was settled when a certificate was produced showing that he had indeed become a naturalized American citizen through an oath taken before Judge Samuel Chase. Chase not only was a signer of the Declaration of Independence but was also nominated by President George Washington as a Justice for the United States Supreme Court.

Below is an excerpt from the document Chase executed in the naturalization of M’Creery; notice especially the requirement for naturalization: I, Samuel Chase, Chief Judge of the State of Maryland, do hereby certify all whom it may concern that personally appeared before me Thomas M’Creery and did repeat and subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian Religion and take the oath required by the Act of Assembly of this State entitled “An Act for Naturalization.”  Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799 Supreme Court of Maryland

This case involved a conflict between a minister of a German Reformed Christian Church and the church from which he had been dismissed. The Judge who delivered the ruling noted that the court’s decision had been unanimous. What was it upon which all the Judges concurred? Religion is of general and public concern and on its support depends, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.

The Commonwealth v. Sharpless, 1815 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This case, and two following it, deal with “morality;” and although many today assert that “you can’t legislate morality,” such charges are utter nonsense. Every law that exists is the legislation of morality. As signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon explained: Consider all morality in general as conformity to a law. Consequently, it is never a matter of if morality can be legislated, only whose morality will be legislated. The Founders believed the Bible to be the perfect example of moral legislation and the source of what they called “the moral law.” For nearly 150 years, the Courts relied on that moral law as the basis for our civil laws a fact clearly illustrated in the following three cases.

David Barton – The Biblical model of worship, staying with the Broadway theme is this.  The pastor is the director, the members of the congregation are the actors and God is the audience.

david barton david barton david barton, wallbuilders

Therefore what religious privileges we enjoy as a minor part of the State we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. The inclusion of Constitutional protection for the “free exercise of religion” suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right was government given thus alienable rather than God given hence inalienable, and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected unless someone’s religious practice caused him, as they explained, to “work ill to his neighbor.” Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. He made numerous statements declaring the inability of the government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example: No power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the United States by the Constitution Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general federal government Second Inaugural Address, 1805. Our excellent Constitution has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter To The Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 I consider the government of the United States as interdicted prohibited by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions or exercises.

Letter To Samuel Miller, 1808 Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religious expression. As he explained to Noah Webster: It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors and which experience has nevertheless proved they the government will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious effective against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion.

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush.

David Barton – We are performing, we are entertaining, we are showing up, we are singing, we are listening, we are reading, we are applying, we are meditating for God.  It should be inspiring.

david barton david barton david barton, wallbuilders

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