Barber’s Nonsense on Church/State Separation

The latest column from Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel accuses “lying secularists” of distorting the truth about separation of church and state. I’m sure it will come as no surprise that he’s pretty much completely wrong on all of his claims and arguments.

Anti-Christian extremist groups like the ACLU, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and People for the American Way hate God.

They also hate America.

True America.

*yawn*

To know the hearts, minds and collective will of our Founding Fathers and American pioneers, one need only look to what they wrote in their respective state constitutions. Most will be amazed to learn that all 50 state constitutions explicitly and unequivocally thank God for his benevolence and acknowledge that we as a nation are dependent upon Him – that He is the sole source of our freedoms. This is true, not just for the “red states,” but for the bluest of the blue.

Uh, he does realize that the founding fathers had nothing to do with the writing of nearly all of those constitutions, right? And that, despite such language, the original states that they did have influence under quickly began disestablishing their official churches around the time of the constitution? And that this very fact shows how unique the constitution was because it didn’t include such language. And it isn’t as if they didn’t have that option. In fact, there were many attempts to add in such language at the state ratifying conventions and they all failed. This is why Christian Reconstructionist Gary North argues that the constitution was a radical break with previous founding documents because it did not include such covenantal language.

What do you suppose the framers of the U.S. Constitution – a document specifically designed to limit the powers of federal government – intended with the word “Congress”? Did they mean state government, municipal government, your local school board or third-grade teacher?

Of course not. They meant exactly what they said: Congress – as in the United States Congress.

Of course that is what they meant. But Barber conveniently ignores the 14th Amendment, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states. He knows this, of course, because he is an enthusiastic fan of applying the 14th Amendment to the states when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause. If a state violates someone’s religious liberty, Barber would cheer if the federal courts came in and applied the First Amendment to prevent them from doing so (if they’re Christian, of course; if not, screw them). And the last thing you’d hear from him is, “But the First Amendment only applies to Congress!” He just doesn’t want the Establishment Clause applied because it interferes with his desire to impose his religion on others.

Now what did they mean by “… shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?”

Well, in a letter to Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson – often touted by the left as the great church-state separationist – answered this question. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was simply intended to restrict Congress from affirmatively “establishing,” through federal legislation, a national Christian denomination (similar to the Anglican Church of England).

As Jefferson put it: “[T]he clause of the Constitution” covering “freedom of religion” was intended to necessarily preclude “an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States.”

Now that’s a clever use of ellipses and out of context quotes to distort the meaning of what Jefferson said. Now let’s look at the entire quote in context:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.

Page 1 of 2 | Next page