David Barton Fails To Recognize Separation Of God And State In U.s. Constitution

David Barton Fails To Recognize Separation Of God And State In U.s. Constitution

By:


In spite of its title, David Barton's book fails to grasp the Original Intent of the Constitution regarding separation of church and state. Original Intent was published by WallBuilders of Alemedo, Texas in 2000.

David Barton Argues Constitution Did Not Separate Church and State

The author focuses on the religious facets of the Constitution, in particular the concept of separation of church and state. He tries to prove that it was not the intent of the founders to set up such a separation.

The author discusses eight landmark Supreme Court religious liberty cases which followed the 1947 Everson case. The latter introduced the "wall of separation" terminology. In these he claims the Supreme Court rewrote the original intent of the founders.

Thesis Is Flawed

However, the thesis of the book is flawed because the founders were in fact intent on separating the new nation from any obligation to the law of God. To that end they established a secular government in which officeholders were not required to swear allegiance to God. Incredibly, Christian author, David Barton actually endorses this decision, as shown below.

First Mr. Barton states that there is "no historical foundation for the proposition that the Founders intended to build the 'wall of separation'..." (p.179). The actual words, "wall of separation" do not appear in the Constitution, but the wall is nonetheless set in place by Article VI, Section 3.

The little known requirement of this section sets up an inviolable wall of separation between the legal system and the law of God: "no religious test shall ever be required for any office...," This section outlawed the so-called religious test oath that was found in most of the colonial charters and constitutions. These required the prospective officeholder to swear by oath to govern according to the law of God. The ban on the religious test oath thus opened the door for any belief system to compete with God for supremacy in the nation.

David Barton thinks this arrangement is just fine: "...it was therefore not within the federal government's authority to examine the religious beliefs of any candidate" (p.34). In his discussion of Article VI, Section 3, he agrees with the founders that "the investigation of the religious views of a candidate should not be conducted by the federal government..."

Religious Neutrality Condemned

This assertion of religious neutrality lies at the heart of our national rebellion from God. It would be like Moses descending from Mt. Sinai with the declaration that he would remain officially neutral at the "Sinai level," and leave religious matters to the preference of the individual tribes.

God forbid! It is the first and ultimate duty of civil government to maintain its allegiance to the law of God pure and inviolable. It can only do this as it requires all aspiring officeholders to swear allegiance to uphold that law in the pursuit of justice. God's law alone defines true justice and to reject it is to embrace injustice and commit cultural suicide. David Barton fails this most basic test in a proper understanding of Biblical government.

And so the great need of the hour is not a return to the original intent of the founders, but rather an official repudiation of that intent. We must recognize and root out the humanistic seeds of religious neutrality that were planted in the Constitution from the beginning.

About the Author:
Oliver Woods is author of books and video on the anti-Christian features of the U S Constitution at the America Betrayed website. He also serves as headmaster at King's Way Classical Academy an online classical, Christian school for grades 7-12.



Article Originally Published On: http://www.articlesnatch.com


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

|

Loading...
Related....
Videos...

Recent Book-Reviews Articles

Comments

Still can't find what you are looking for? Search for it!

Loading

Site Navigation:

Copyright 2005-2011 ArticleSnatch, LLC - All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service.