By: Bill Fortenberry

Bill Fortenberry — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:59:53 +0000

After reading the Everson decision, it seems that I must agree with Tom on this point. The Court’s ruling on the separation of church and state was based primarily on a statement from the Court of Appeals of South Carolina in the case of Harmon v. Dreher, and Jefferson’s statement regarding the wall of separation was provided to lend credence to this. Moreover, even when the Court cited Madison’s role in forming the First Amendment, it was quick to claim that Jefferson also played a leading role in its drafting and adoption.
The most interesting thing about the Everson decision, however, is the irony that the Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty which the Court cites with great approval would actually be in violation of the Court’s decision if it were passed today. According to the Court:
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which … prefer one religion over another.
The Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, however, grants specific preference for the Christian religion in its opening statement of:
Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either.
According to this statute, the freedom of religion is itself a uniquely Christian doctrine, and thus, by the reasoning of the Everson Court, this freedom should not be accepted in our nation. In fact, we could carry the argument even further and show that religious freedom is not just a Christian doctrine in general but, particularly, a Baptist doctrine which was introduced into England (and from thence into America) by the Baptist minister Thomas Helwys in his 1611 book A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity. As far as I’ve been able to determine, this book contains the first argument for religious freedom ever recorded in the English language. Here is a brief excerpt:
“And we bow ourselves to the earth before our lord the king in greatest humbleness, beseeching the king to judge righteous judgement herein, whether there be so unjust a thing and of so great cruel tyranny under the sun as to force men’s consciences in their religion to God, seeing that if they err, they must pay the price of their transgressions with the loss of their souls. Oh, let the king judge is it not most equal that men should choose their religion themselves, seeing they only must stand themselves before the judgement seat of God to answer for themselves, when it shall be no excuse for them to say we were commanded or compelled to be of this religion by the king or by them that had authority from him? And let our lord the king that is a man of knowledge yet further consider that if the king should by his power bring his people to the truth, and they walk in the truth and die in the profession of it in obedience to the king’s power, either for fear or love, shall they be saved? The king knows they shall not. But they that obey the truth in love, whoom the love of God constrains, their obedience only shall be acceptable to God. (I Corinthians 13) Thus may our lord the king see that by his kingly power he cannot cause or make men bring an acceptable sacrifice to God. And will the king make men (whether they will or no) bring an unacceptable sacrifice to God? And shall the king herein think he does please God? God forbid. If the king will please God in such service, then must he seek to ‘convert sinners from going astray,’ (James 5:20) ‘and turn men to righteousness,’ (Daniel 12:3) not with his sword of justice but ‘by the foolishness of preaching.’ For that is the means whereby God has appointed to save them that believe. (I Corinthians 1:21, 27) … And let the king call to mind that which no doubt the king has often read in the Gospel According to Luke (9:52, 56), that when the Samaritans would not receive Christ, and that his disciples said, ‘Will you that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them,’ Jesus rebuked them and said, ‘You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.’ Whereby the king does see that Christ will have no man’s life touched for his cause. If the Samaritans will not receive him, he passes them by. If the Gadarenes pray him to depart, he leaves them. If any refuse to receive his disciples, he only bids them ‘shake off the dust of their feet for a witness against them.’ Here is no sword of justice at all required or permitted to smite any for refusing Christ … Let not our lord the king suffer this sword to be used to rule and keep in obedience the people of God and of the king to the laws, statutes, and ordinances of Christ, which appertain to the well-governing and ruling of the kingdom of Christ, which is heavenly and endures forever, the sword of whose kingdom is spiritual, by the power of which sword only Christ’s subjects are to be ruled and kept in obedience to himself, by the which sword our lord the king must be kept in obedience himself, if he be a disciple of Christ and subject of Christ’s kingdom. And this takes away (without gainsaying) all the kingly power and authority of our lord the king in the kingdom of Christ. For he cannot be both a king and a subject in one and the same kingdom.”
If I had the money to spend, I would love the opportunity to sue federal government for violating my religious liberty by passing such an overtly Christian law as the First Amendment. I’m certain that I would lose, but it would be very interesting to see how the Court would handle its own contradictions.
____________________
Source: Helwys, Thomas, A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity, Mercer University Press, GA, 1998, pg 37-38 (http://books.google.com/books?id=_fGP4RgBUQYC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false)

By: James Ferguson

James Ferguson — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:11:53 +0000

Jefferson is on record in stating his Deist and later Unitarian beliefs. He did not believe in the miraculous nature of Jesus or the Holy Trinity. That pretty much scotches any notion of he being an Orthodox Christian. He actually felt that Unitarianism would one day overshadow the other religions in America, but then this was before the Second Awakening, which provided the ferment for modern-day Evangelicalism.
As for the First amendment, Tom, it specifically states that Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of a religion. In other words, no state religion. One can argue both ways in terms of separation of church of state, but in reading the Federalist Papers, it is pretty clear this is what Madison had in mind, and was fully supported by Hamilton in this regard. Jefferson didn’t have much of a hand in the Federal Constitution, but the Virginia State Constitution, which you dismiss, he did very adamantly state that government would play no role in establishing religion or compelling citizens to abide by any one religion. This was very much in response to the role religion played in colonial governments and in the UK.
If any conclusions can be drawn it is that Jefferson believed in religious tolerance. Whether he imagined the secular state like we have today is anyone’s guess, but interpretations, like the Constitution itself, have evolved over the years as society itself has become increasingly more secular.
This is what upsets Barton most, so like other polemicists, he goes back and tries to make a case that the Founding Fathers supported his belief in a religious state. He also singles out Washington in another book. He even goes further to say that Jefferson imagined UVA as a faith-based university, not a secular one. It was probably neither one nor the other that Jefferson imagined, but he certainly didn’t mean it in the same way Oral Roberts Univ. was established, which Barton got his BA in religious education.

By: James Ferguson

James Ferguson — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:11:53 +0000

Seems you enjoy being elusive, Tom. What’s your stake in all this? Your “defense” of Barton sounds very disingenuous.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:11:51 +0000

It is for you, perhaps, Warren. Not for the people who use you as a cudgel against Barton. The same people use Gregg Frazer’s arguments from normative theology ala John MacArthur, that unless one accepts Jesus as divine, died for our sins, etc., one is not a “real” Christian. Find a Founder with unitarian sympathies, and bingo! we are not a “Christian” nation. [Whatever that means.]
The game is much bigger than your part in it.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:11:51 +0000

Tom – Sincere people can disagree about the proper role of religion and government. You keep wanting to make the Barton thing about that. It is not. It is primarily about bad history in the name of God.

Comments on: David Barton Controversy: Gregg Frazer Weighs In on Jefferson and Christianity; Barton Responds

By: Bill Fortenberry

By: James Ferguson

By: James Ferguson

By: Tom Van Dyke

By: Warren