Church and State — Founding Fathers: Deists or Christians?
Posted on January 4, 2007
If you haven’t heard of David Barton’s Wallbuilders you need to. The video above is long, if you don’t have time to listen now, you should bookmark and listen to the entire thing. Keep in mind that David Barton has made some questionable quotes that many try to disqualify him with while ignoring the overall evidence. David admits that he has made some mistakes and the claims that he has purposefully exaggerated things is without merit. It is always good to do our own research. This video is a refreshing perspective from the fabrications of the left.
Research by David Barton, founder of Wallbuilders, Inc. exposes the alleged separation of church and state for the myth that it really is. The words separation of church and state don’t appear in any official government documents authored by the founding fathers. This concept and these particular words were fabricated by an ACLU attorney named Leo Pfeffer in 1947 in the Supreme Court case of Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing Township. That liberal supreme court imposed it on the nation by a 5 to 4 vote. The ACLU and other anti-Christian organizations and individuals have used it to harass Christians with ever since. It is also used by evolutionists to try to keep a theistic explanation of origins out of the public schools. Many young people today are not aware of the fact that this concept is an ACLU invention, and that it is a concept our founding fathers would have been appalled at.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
38 Responses to “Church and State — Founding Fathers: Deists or Christians?”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
The left is incorrect to state that separation of church and state as a phrase, however, it should also be stated that it was an explicit goal of the founding fathers to keep the federal government a puralistic enterprise that was not beholden to any particular religion. As for the states, well, they pretty much let them decide what they wanted to do.
That is just plain false. Theistic explanations of origins are more than welcome in public schools if they are presented in a philosophy type class. The conflict comes in when someone tries to force them into a science class. The word “science” loses all meaning the second you introduce a supernatural being.
Jeff, Please watch the video. After you watch the video then I will be interested in your comments.
The Mayflower Compact is a pretty good example of how we strip religion from public life?
How in the world does the fact that 100 immigrants formed a religious government have anything to do with the extent to which our government should be involved in religious matters?
I’m 7 minutes in and I can’t take much more. He cited 4 court cases before quoting even a single sentence of the rulings. That’s not the kind of depth required to convince a thinking man of anything.
He’s just getting warmed up at the 7 min mark.
That is a blatant strawman. I’ll be my last dollar that the rulings say “The law demands it.” It is completely undisputed that our government have indeed been involved in religious matters in the past.
That has no bearing on whether or not it should have been or should continue to do so.
Most of the rest of his argument seems to be following the same logic: “We’ve always done it, therefore we should continue to do it.”
More poor logic:
- Governor Morris penned the constitution
- Governor Morris spoke a lot at the convention
- Therefore the intent and beliefs of Governor Morris match those of the convention as a whole.
It is well within the realm of possibility that Governor Morris spoke so much because the other 54 delegates disagreed with him on key points.
More accurately…he is arguing that “We’ve always done it, therefore we shouldn’t be restricted from continuing to do so.” I’ve heard so many times that the majority of our founding fathers were not Christian…completely false.
You pick out that he cites Governor Morris as if that is the only founding father he cites. Indeed he points out a huge group of the founding fathers that said similar things. If you watch the entire video you will see that the other delegates did not disagree with him. They opened the convention with a three hour prayer and Bible study!
I’ll concede your correction. How well did that logic apply to slavery and poll taxes?
You won’t hear it from me. I don’t dispute that the vast majority of the people at that time were deeply religious and the founders were no exception.
On what subject? The speaker hops around between many. He brought up Morris to “demonstrate” that the founders wanted public education to spread the Word of God. Show me 27 more delegates that clearly believed that and we’ll talk.
Actually, I should probably insist on 41 more delegates.
I think one great example is that Congress published Bibles for schools.
Congress is not the Constitutional Convention. Had the Constitutional Convention done something similar, it would definitely speak to the intent of that body and their chief product. However, it is very possible for Congress to violate the constitution, so you cannot defend a position on a constitutional issue by simply pointing to a past act of Congress.
Jeff-There is nothing-0, not one single document that prohibits ANYONE from expressing their religion of choice and this INCLUDES government officials and public institutions
The simple fact is that the far left doesn’t want to admit this and will twist everything they can to make a case that government is banned from expressing their right to freely express any religion they so choose to. The far left grasps at notions such as rulings citing that there ’shall be no religious test’ when being sworn into office in an attempt to prove there must be a separation of church and state- yet NOWHERE is there a ‘test of religion’ when asking a public official to swear before God- It is a blatant lie to even suggest that it is a test. A person need not believe in God in order to serve, and therefore NO test of religion has been given to determine their eligibility. A person even need not believe in God to agree to swear before God. So please- tell me where this ‘test of religion’ argument comes into play legally? A TRUE test of religion would be when an agency REQUIRES a person to believe in God before they can be considered for employment.
President Roosevelt led our country in prayer every single day on his radio address, and guess what? That was neither an attempt to force religion on anyone, nor was it an endorsement of one religion over another- it was FREEDOM of expression.
Jefferson, in a PERSONAL opinion unrelated to our constitution said that he felt that governments should not FORCE people to accept any one religion- last I checked NO governmental person has EVER forced anyone to accept any religion- when that happens- then please- come and cry about governmental endorsements of religion to me, and perhaps I’ll start taking you seriously! http://sacredscoop.com
The attempt by some to prevent our government from their right to freedom of expression of religion is a deceitful maneuver that is NOT upheld in our courts. The establishment clause of the first amendment states that the government shall make no law that aids religion. Nor shall the government force a person to attend or refrain from attending a church of their choice. If you are going to argue our government is doing something illegal and against our constitution by exercising their right to freely express their religious beliefs, then you will absolutely need to show that there have been LAWS passed that either aid religion or prevent or force people to either attend or refrain from attending a church. Even President Bush’s entitlement program that gives money to faith based organizations is NOT a LAW passed by our government.
Some have argued that if a school allows an individual student to express their religion, then that would be perceived as ‘endorsement by the school’ however, courts are now just discovering that #1 there is NO law or constitutional merit that prevents an institution from endorsing anything of the like, but alas that it is in fact, illegal, as outlined in the constitution and it’s clauses, to prevent an individual from expressing their religion of choice.
There has been a hateful and deceitful move in this country to prevent Christians from enjoying the same freedoms as everyone else, but the tide is turning as the lies of the far left are exposed through sound court findings- which I’m sure pisses off the far left who can’t stand the fact that Christians have equal rights in this great nation of ours.
10 Commandments are the Foundation of American Law, Right?
You shall have no other gods before Me. - It is illegal in the US to worship anyone but JHWH.
You shall not make for yourself an idol. - Oral Roberts was executed for building his 94′ tall Jesus statue.
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God. - Say “g*dd*m* and spend 1 year in jail.
Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy. - Sell gas on Sunday and face a big fine.
Honor your father and your mother. - Unfortunately, the US is still not as strict as they were in Calvin’s Geneva. They beheaded an eight-year old for being sassy to her parents.
You shall not murder. - Check. Unfortunately every govt has made laws against this. Nothing special.
You shall not commit adultery. - Unless you are running for Republican presidential nomination (Gingrich, Guilianni, McCain)
You shall not steal. - Check. Unfortunately every govt has made laws against this. Nothing special.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.- Unless you are a US President.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. - (See adultery)
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. - Still not illegal somehow.
Tea pot- you are arguing that CULTURAL laws that were in place in the old testament and no longer relevant due to cultural changes are somehow a villification of Christians today? Stoning people who sassed their folks was NOT in the ten commandments- it was however in the culture of the time and God was telling His people that they must obey their cultural laws as well as informing them that some sins mentioned will be judged by God on judgment day- Seriously- your argument shows a lack of understanding and a vitriolic loathing of Christians that you try to back up with false accusations. It is a ridiculous argument and a deceitful one- The constitution is NOT based on the Ten Commandments contrary to your deceitful attempt to state that it is.
The words separation of church and state don’t appear in any official government documents authored by the founding fathers. This concept and these particular words were fabricated by an ACLU attorney named Leo Pfeffer in 1947 in the Supreme Court case of Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing Township.
The words “separation of church and state” don’t appear in official documents, they do appear in other writings by more than one founding father. The 1947 court opinion quoted Jefferson. So these particular words” were not “fabricated by an ACLU attorney.” The first sentence is deceptive, the second an outright lie.
Paul Yanna,
Barton supplies plenty of facts as evidence. If you can refute them, do so, instead of the ad hominem.
Jesus Frigging Christ
You redneck people simply have to be bone-bustingly stupid to believe Barton.
Last warning… start demonstrating some intelligence or be stupid somewhere else.
Show me 27 more delegates that clearly believed that and we’ll talk.
The Founders And Public Religious Expressions
The only reason those self proclaimed scholars laugh is because they can’t mount a defense Yanna- & nice to see childish comments from you- pretty much sums up the only defense the left can mount- when in doubt act like a child I guess- the only one acting like a douche here is you
Of course. I never claimed otherwise.
I disagree with you here. There are many who interpret the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” to mean that public institutions, who derive all of their power from congressional legislation, may not express a bias for or against any particular religion.
I don’t see evidence of 27 delegates wishing to teach religion in the public school system.
I don’t see evidence of 27 delegates wishing to teach religion in the public school system.
That would be due to the fact that “public education” did not fall under the purview of the federal government.
Nevertheless, most of the framers would not likely have had a problem with it simply because they were educated in that type of environment, taught the same as teachers, and some started Universities all of which were religious. ALL schools were religious.
It is telling, to me anyway, that our Constitutional framers had no problem with our schools being religious nor did the government, courts or people for at least 160 years after the Constitutional ratification.
Yet you would have me believe that a modern, liberal, biased court would know more of what the Framers believed and intended than the framers themselves?
I’ll do the research later.
Let me note that, it’s not just “secular” scholars in the academic community who shun Barton; informed religious conservative scholars don’t take Barton seriosly either. If you want to get a balanced view on the “Christian Nation” thesis, I suggest reading this link by Joe Carter, who now works for the Family Research Council.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003358.html
What do you mean by Activist Judges? Are activist judges defined as those who won’t display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom? And by the way, the ACLU has been the target of many organizations over its long history. One often makes many enemies in defending the rights of disenfranchised political or religious minorities.
“Democracy ….is not worth a damn if it is not partnered with liberalism. Democracy and liberalism are a squabbling pair; they each locate power in a different place—democracy in the people, liberalism in the law—and they aim for different goods.”
John McGowan, The Republican Assault on Democracy
I’m sorry Jeff- but there may be some that have interpreted it that way but it is a WRONG interpretation legally- there have no LAWS established expressing a bias for religion in Schools- an elective is NOT a law no matter how you try to spin it- just as teaching history or any other subject is NOT LAW (Not yelling- just using caps to stress the key important words) If you are going to argue the point about law- then you absolutely must stick to law and not a biased OPINION- You CAN state an opinion on the law- but the law is an absolute that is free from opinion (not that an opinion can’t further either define or change a law- but the opinion NEEDS to be grounded in legalese as well.
Jon- you can cite as many individuals as you like- it STILL doesn’t change the FACTS now does it? Aspirin gets rid of headaches- but I can cite just as many people as you are citing that claim it doesn’t- that still won’t change that fact that aspirin relives headaches. If you have some PROOF that Barton is lying- then present it- otherwise you have no valid argument- our early founders were steeped in religion for the most part, and they integrated into the daily government as well JUST as Barton has said- there are PLENTY of historical works that back this up- saying ’so and so said Barton is full of it’ does NOT counter those facts-
Yanna how old are you? Seriously fella- grow up- only little kids who can’t argue facts intelligently talk like that- no one here on the left has posted anything factual concerning the law which is the issue here- not your factless hate-filled rantings
“Jon- you can cite as many individuals as you like- it STILL doesn’t change the FACTS now does it?”
I don’t need to regurgitate everything I know on the Founding and Religion here. My blogs duly catalogue “the facts” So I would suggest that if you want to see “the facts” spend some time studying my blogs.
Besides the one I linked to above I also blog at http://positiveliberty.com, with Dr. Jason Kuznicki, a Ph.D. from John Hopkins who works at the CATO Institute. And Timothy Sandefur, one of the nation’s leading property rights attorney’s who published a book with CATO. Ed Brayton also blogs with us (I think you know who he is).
And I myself have published nationally on the subject of George Washington’s religion.
As I said Jon- you can keep citing individuals but the facts still remain- our early fathers were deeply rooted in religion - Even George Washington- Much has been written about his faith and religion is evidenced in his writings as well- you can try to show that he wasn’t a saint if you like- but I assure you that he had a deep faith in God- You seem I guess to be under the mistaken impression that a person needs to be spotless I guess in order to wear the religious label and be considered a person who valued religion and God’s edicts in their life- But the great thing about being saved and relying on God is that Christians are JUST like everyone else- sinners- who happen to be freed from the penalty of sin through the redemption garnered by Christ’s shed blood- that doesn’t make them perfect- or even outwardly pious- but George Washington’s inner heart and love and reverence for God came through in his own writings and feelings about this country as did the feelings and wishes of many early founders of our government- Keep insisting the writings aren’t out there- but fact is, religion has always been a big part of our government DESPITE the fact that Yes, there were those who didn’t think it should be- that argument in no way shape or form undermines the facts that the founders DID feel strongly that God was the God of this nation and should be honored and revered in our society.
Much of what Barton states is true- no matter how many times you insist it isn’t- Your same tactic can be found in the debate over evolution or creation science- the opposing side tried unsuccessfully to discredit creation science by stating ‘many people think they are nuts- and so it must be so’ Sorry- but although many with agendas did in fact think that- Creation sciences facts stood the test- it is NO argument to at all citing agendists who oppose an issue or person and try to play it off as fact because ‘many’ might think something- facts don’t lie.
Now- this doesn’t even address the issue of law- which you seem to be ignoring in your argument that this is a Christian nation and our government can and should seek higher moral grounds by protecting freedom of expression- but then again, that’s how these arguments usually go- those who oppose God being allowed in government sidestep the facts and law issues and argue that our forefathers didn’t mean this or didn’t mean that- but fact is- the law is the law, and our constitution was written to protect EVERYONE’s Right to freely practice any religion they so choose- and that means that those protections ALSO extend to our government officials
Jon If you’re going to insist on arguing religion shouldn’t be in government solely based on opinion, and ignoring the law facts, then you’re going to have to explain away these statements and MANY more like them from our founding fathers and explain that they didn’t consider religion an important part of both society and government, then you’re going to have to explain away. But again- this is nothing but a rabbit trail meant to distract from the facts of the law.
“(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; …the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained…” George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
“Political interest [can] never be separated in the long run from moral right”
“Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God? Thomas Jefferson
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” Thomas Jefferson
“but George Washington’s inner heart and love and reverence for God came through in his own writings and feelings about this country as did the feelings and wishes of many early founders of our government- Keep insisting the writings aren’t out there.”
Unlike you, I’ve meticulously studied the primary sources and know that not only did George Washingotn never confirm that he believed in the tenets of orthodox Christianity, but when pious ministers trid to pin him down, he categorically refused to give the specifics of his religious creed. And his own ministers called him a deist because he systematically refused to take communion which is what devout Episcopalians did not do.
I don’t know why Barton would cite Governor Morris so much. Not only was the man not a Christian, but he was an avid adulterer and fornicator. And Morris testified to Thomas Jefferson that neither he nor George Washington believed in the Christian religion. Morris claimed to be in on Washington’s “secrets.”
BTW: I’ve dealt with all of those quotations on my blog(s) which I suggest you read in more detail. Our key Founders believed that “religion” always generically defined was necessary to support morality. They also believed that all world religions with which they were familiar (including Protestant and Catholic Christianity, Deism, Unitarianism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Native American Spirituality, and even Pagan Greco Romanism qualified as such “sound religion”) taught the same truth as Christianity and were thus valid way to God and could also provide the necessary moral support for society. They may have been wrong; but it IS what they believed. If you want proof, study my blogs.
well that’s funny because according to those who weren’t trying to impune his character- nothing could be further from the truth- And I want to point out that communion is a VERY personal issue and if he felt he was unworthy, then of course he wouldn’t have partaken in it- the bible said to examine your heart before undertaking communion- and gives warnings to those who partake unworthily- So instead of jumping to the conclusion that he wasn’t a Christian because he didn’t partake- consider the fact that perhaps he was so serious about his walk with God that he felt uneasy about partaking in the communion due to an inner struggle- God’s warnings aren’t something to be taken lightly & many church’s don’t take it seriously and think nothing of partaking in it unworthily (although they are loathe to admit that they are)- Besides- Communion does NOT save a person- Nor is it a requirement for continued salvation- Salvation is an eternal condition that can never be lost regardless of a person’s actions in life.
God warns us that we are to be devout to Him- NOT to men, nor are we to be devout for the purpose of ’showing others how devout we are’ - Actions not words prove a man’s heart- but you seem to be able to do what no one else can- look into his heart and judge him on outward appearances? You knew his heart? His actions belie your assertions/accusations, and those who knew him best knew he was a fiercely private individual concerning his faith which is exactly as it should be- This link isn’t long but it gives just a few of the many examples and testimonies of Washington’s devout faith http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html Be careful when judging others to impune their character- you haven’t the slightest inkling of what his heart condition was- but yet you make a decision based on the fact that he wouldn’t make a show of his faith in front of men? Me thinks George knew that it was MORE important to be true to God than it was to man’s judgment of his faith.
“those who knew him best knew he was a fiercely private individual concerning his faith which is exactly as it should be….”
Those who knew him best also included his own ministers who called him a deist for refusing to take communion, and Jefferson, Morris and Madison, who all testified that he wasn’t a Christian, at least not in the orthodox sense.
Jared Sparks and Nelly Custis may have defended him as a Christian, but there were just as many if not more who knew him just as well who disagreed.
“you haven’t the slightest inkling of what his heart condition was.”
And neither do you. And Washington, by hiding in a religious closet on his specific beliefs, refusing to identify as a Christian or affirm the tenets of orthodox Christianity, never mentioning Jesus Christ save on two occasions (which speeches weren’t even written in his own hand) and otherwise only speaking of God in a generic monothesitic sense, gave no evidence by his “actions or words” that he was a Christian.
And the following from the “Christian Answers” has no basis in the primary sources:
‘It seems proper to subjoin to this letter what was told to me by Mr. Robert Lewis, at Fredricksburg, in the year 1827. Being a nephew of Washington, and his private secretary during the first part of his presidency, Mr. Lewis lived with him on terms of intimacy, and had the best opportunity for observing his habits. Mr. Lewis said that he had accidentally witnessed his private devotions in his library both morning and evening; that on those occasions he had seen him in a kneeling posture with a Bible open before him, and that he believed such to have been his daily practice.’
First of all- not really sure why it is so important to you to take the side of judgmental people who asserted that they knew his heart and accused him of not being a Christian despite those who knew him saying otherwise? Second- MANY people are VERY personal about their Christianity- they don’t wear their religion on their sleeves for the world to see and pat them on the back for as I explained about above- you keep referring to communion and the heresay of a couple of people as your ‘proof’? Does it bother you that he was saved? What is the real goal here Jon? Surely it can’t be the refuting of the salvation of one man? What kind of hollow victory is that? You have falsely said that he only spoke of God in a detached manner- He explicitly stated that the Indians should raise their children in the Religion of Jesus Christ.
He made it his daily practice to start the day in prayer- Yup- that right there proves he was not a Christian- geez dude- Have you nothing better to do than to call those who testified to his faith all liars? Is it so important an issue to you that you judge the man without knowing his heart and call him a heathen despite the fact that he was instrumental in establishing churches, and advancing a religion he obviously felt strongly about? What’s the deal Jon? Does his religion or lack thereof have some other alternative motive for you? What then? What about the other founders of our democracy who WERE absolutely religious, and publicly expressed their faith? I suppose you’ll have to discount all those in your quest to somehow beat the odds and prove this country is not a nation that values Christ’s influence on us.
Several presidents are/were Christian yet never showed it much before the public- Shall you judge their hearts and declare them guilty of secularism as well?
‘George Washington showed no hope of eternal salvation on his death bed’ Gasp- well there ya go- that obviously means he didn’t revere God in his heart and didn’t accept Christ as Savior- Whoops- no it doesn’t- Several people I knew were very serious about their faith yet didn’t discuss it in public much and a couple didn’t even declare a ‘hope in eternal life’ on their death bed- YET the evidence of the Holy Spirit in their lives was VERY evident- they went to God like they lived their lives- Quietly. If you wish to judge his heart- and feel comfortable that he wasn’t saved- then swell- I fail to even see the significance of such a hollow sense of vindication is it? Right after Steve Irwin’s death- internet searches went wild looking for whether or not he was saved- one person gave some sound advice- whether he was or not is for God to judge- there was little evidence he may have been, but whether he was or not does nothing for our own spiritual condition To prove one way or the other is of little value for either side. Good luck on your crusade though- I’ll trust those who DID state he was reverent and saved, and trust that his actions and words were from his heart- beyond that, it really isn’t important in the long run except to him who went home to meet the maker now is it?
“Does it bother you that he was saved? What is the real goal here Jon?”
I’ll turn the question around on you. What does it mean if George Washington died a theological unitarian and a theological universalist who never professed being “born again” or accepting Jesus as his personal savior? Does that mean George Washington is in Hell for eternity? Is that thought just unbearable to you?
“You have falsely said that he only spoke of God in a detached manner- He explicitly stated that the Indians should raise their children in the Religion of Jesus Christ.”
And that was done in the context of suggesting the Indians assimilate into American culture. Moreover, there is only one instance of this language and the “religion of Jesus Christ” in America at that time encompassed a very broad tradition including unitarian doctrines which you would regard as “heresy” and “infidelity.”
And I have on record an instance where when he spoke to the Indians and referred to God as “the Great Spirit” exactly as they did, suggesting that Native American spirituality is just as valid a way to God as Christianity.
Finally, there is no credible historical evidence that Washington “made it his daily practice to start the day in prayer” if you are referring to the supposed testimony of “Mr. Robert Lewis.” Though, he did pray to his generic unitarian/universalist God.
“I’ll trust those who DID state he was reverent and saved….”
And I’ll trust Thomas Jefferson, Gouverneur Morris, and Washington’s own ministers who testified that he wasn’t an orthodox Trinitarian Christan.
In fact, I’ll trust Washington himself who never explicitly testified to believing in orthodox Christian doctrines.
FYI. I doubt it’s one of your favorite blogs (too lefty for my libertarian taste) by my blogpost on George Washington and Religion was linked to by Crooks and Liars.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/08/mikes-blog-roundup-57/
Jon- you can’t turn it around to me- because I don’t have the agenda- you do- George Washington’s eternity does nothing one way or the other for the argument here- you seem to think it might I guess- because apparently it’s become a mission of yours to try to prove through hearsay that he wasn’t (although you’re picking and choosing what you believe and calling others who knew him liars- and discounting testimony and the fact that some Christians are NOT overt about their religion) . I certainly do hope sincerely that he was saved- for his sake, but if not- then he is suffering- something you I guess hope in?
Nice attempt at discounting the fact that he spoke to the chiefs about raising the kids in the Christian religion by pointing out America had other standards as well- the line of your argument is losing credibility Jon- and gosh- speaking in terms that indians understand when describing God to them was proof indeed- boy ya got me there.
No credible evidence? Oh that’s right- those who knew him and said such things were liars- i forgot-