The Myth of Separation: What Is the Correct Relationship Between Church and State?

Rating:
Summary: Exposing the Great Lie of Liberals
Review: Barton's first attempt to clarify Jefferson's true meaning behind the statesman's call to maintain "a wall of separation between church and state" and the twisted interpretation of his phrase (nowhere to be found in the Constitution by the way) by twentieth century courts is admirable, if a bit hastily put together. Finally, someone willing to show us how WE can determine the truth about Americas foundational principles and the liberal attempts to take advantage of our freedoms, and seek their own political ends. Barton gives all American's the keys they are denied by public education, and shows how these keys, found by researching original documents, are available to all American's to research for themselves and make their own determination about the Original Intent our forefathers died to preserve. Jefferson himself, according to Barton, and according to Jefferson's voluminous writings, would take a bullet to protect American's freedom to practice any religion, any way they wish. His desire was to separate the Anglican church and her huge financial power from influence over the government of Great Britain. That church controlled the worship practices and titheing of all other denominations and thus denied the freedoms of Baptists, Presbyters, and all other religions. The founders, and Jefferson, were profoundly religious people, as they all (with the exception of two out of 200, Franklin converting later in his life) recognized that rights come not from men or governments, but from our Creator. Jefferson wanted to keep the government away from religion, not free expression of religion away from those that govern. Barton shows how this common-sense distinction has been perverted by twentieth century courts, and he does so (a process perfected in his latest work "Original Intent")by encouraging you and I to search the documents of our forefathers and modern (post-1945)court documents to determine for ourselves if we have been duped by those who would take the founders words out of context so as to impose increasing government restrictions on Americas originally inclusive policy of total freedom from oppressive governing bodies. Barton demonstrates, much more clearly in his later work "Original Intent," that the founders, particularly Jefferson and Washington, intended for government to be a strictly limited tool of the people, and that religion was to continue as the totally free moral foundation upon which American's would enact and abide by a moral form of self-government. Barton shows how modern courts have misrepresented, rather successfully,the Original Intent so as to put the State in an advisory,paternalistic, and ultimately hostile role over the practice of religion, when the true Original Intent was to let the moral decency of all, shaped by their devotion to God and God's expectations of civil behavior, to determine the healthy, limited size and shape of our government. I recommend this book if you can't find Barton's "Original Intent," and encourage those who wish to know the truth about what our country's forefathers said to dare to read the documents for themselves. The Library of Congress' huge site on Religious Freedom is a great place to start.

Rating:
Summary: FINALLY THE TRUTH IS SPOKEN
Review: I have read David Barton's book and found it very informative and well written. He carefully documents what he has written.
He shows what the founding fathers said not what some said they said.

Mr. Barton has show beyond a reasonable doubt that the current interpretation by the Supreme Court is not a reasonable interpreation of the constitution which they are sworn to uphold, but a cleaverly disguised attempt by the Court to establish a state religion which congress is prohibited from doing.

By removing Christianity from the social and political life of the nation the Supreme court has established Humanism and it's origins doctrine of Evolution as the state religion. This is not the religion of the people but the religion of the Supreme Court.

David Bartion shows the historical context and intent of the founders regarding there attitude about religion. (When the founding fathers used the term religion they meant Christianity because all else was false religion.) The intent was to keep the government from establishing any sect of Christianity from being made the state religion and from compelling anyone to worship as the state dictated. The First Amendment is to prohibit congress from establishing a state religion and to keep them from telling you and me how we can worship. The constitution does not say anything about prohibiting you or me from worshiping or practicing our religion as we please. The Supreme Court has over stepped it's boundaries by making law where none exists. (If congress can make no law on this issue then no law can exist on this issue.)

Anyone who would review this book and not understand the true history it reveals must have prejudice and bias against God and Christianity which is beyond reasoning with.

Rating:
Summary: As a Christian, I object to these distortions
Review: This book by David Barton is full of distortions that I could not possibly use the book for any research. Small "quote-lets" are constantly taken out of context and used to say the *opposite* of what the original authors intended. Barton makes several lists of people who "support" ideas by taking small quotes out of context that sound good, when the Barton is really stretching their use.

One small example, Barton uses the quote from James Madison saying "Religion...[is] the basis and foundation of government," which I happen to agree with. But he uses this quote in a different context to say that Madison would support the cooperation of church and state. This could NOT be farther from the truth. Madison was raised in a Christian home and attended a Presbyterian seminary, but his first initiative as a freshman lawmaker was legislation that protected the rights of religious minorities. He was perhaps the most decisive force shaping the First Amendment's religion clauses. Madison dedicated his life to separating church and state.

Barton even uses the ridiculous assertion that the 1st Amendment is in common with article 52 of the former Soviet Union, thus painting it Communist, when in fact, this document was drafted over a century AFTER the U.S. Constitution was written!

I also agree with this: "Religious Right propagandist David Burton claimed in his self-published 1989 book The Myth of Separation that later in the [Danbury] letter Jefferson wrote that the wall of separation was meant to be 'one directional,' protecting the church from the state but not the other way around. Barton also alleged that Jefferson added that 'Christian principles' should always guide government. These assertions appear nowhere in the letter, and Barton corrected the errors in later editions-although he continues to dismiss the letter as unimportant and distort its contents and meaning in other ways.

"One scholar who has studied Jefferson and church-state separation says Religious Right leaders fail to grasp the significance of the Danbury letter because they don't understand or will not acknowledge its historical context."

* As a Christian, I MUST ask my fellow Christians: If our Founding Fathers believed that religion has a role in government, then why doesn't the Constitution mention God anywhere? The only place religion is mentioned is in the negative, that religion cannot be a test of public office.

My fellow Christians, it IS true that most of the Colonies were established as Christian colonies, but let us NOT be ignorant of the historical results. The fact is that persecution resulted and the majority in society abhored the power-hungry churches. Guess what happened as a result? Our founders established a secular government that "deregulated" religion and created a free market of religious ideas. Even the Preamble to the Constitution states that the authority of the government rests in the people, like a social contract, rather than deriving its authority from God.

My fellow Christians, why do we need to rely on civil power to encourage morality? I get suspicious of other churches when they become power-hungry. Why must we entangle ourselves in the domain of government? At a critical time in the formation of Christianity as a growing movement, neither Jesus nor his apostles relied on civic power. In fact, the church grew *despite* opposition and persecution from government.

My fellow Christians, why must the church seek to coerce the moral decision-making of others? Why must we rely on government-instituted schools to teach morality, enforce prayer and indoctrinate religious teachings? The very people who tout the importance of "family" are passing off their responsibilities. Shouldn't the "family" be responsible for moral training? Isn't it "legalistic" to resort to political power and legislation to enforce morality? My humble opinion.