Reading Senator Ted Cruz’s endorsement of David Barton in Monday’s edition of Politico brought to mind Barton’s narrow reading of the First Amendment. First, let’s note again Cruz remarks:
David’s historical research has helped millions rediscover the founding principles of our nation and the incredible sacrifices that men and women of faith made to bequeath to us the freest and most prosperous nation in the world.
One founding principle Barton has written about is the freedom of religion and First Amendment. What does Barton believe about the First Amendment?
In a 2010 Amicus brief filed in McCollum v. CA Dept. of Corrections, Barton argued that the word religion in the First Amendment meant monotheism. The case involved Wiccan minister Patrick McCollum who was excluded from a job in the CA prison system since he was not one of the five faiths allowed to be a prison chaplain in CA: Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Native American.
In his brief, Barton wrote that the framers defined religion to exclude any religion which is not monotheistic. Thus, the First Amendment should not apply to religions which are not monotheistic.
Whether “religion” meant monotheism or some subset of it, such as Christianity, then whatever the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses address, they do not address paganism or witchcraft. In reality, research shows that “religion” was sometimes used as a synonym for Christianity, but that it was also used for monotheism. But that still excludes paganism and witchcraft. (p. 9)
The true historic meaning of “religion” excludes paganism and witchcraft…(p. 7)
…your Amicus will briefly survey the diversity of opinions held by the Framers to demonstrate that paganism and witchcraft were never intended to receive the protections of the Religion Clauses. (p. 9)
The Founders did not intend to extend the protection of the Religion Clauses to paganism and witchcraft as eight of the then-sitting nine Justices of the Supreme Court have recently acknowledged. (pp. 17-18)
I wonder if Sen. Cruz also believes this way. He also said in Politico that he isn’t “in a position to opine on academic disputes between historians,” but he may soon run for a position — the GOP presidential nomination — where his views on such disputes will garner intense scrutiny. Since Cruz thinks so highly of Barton’s views on the founding principles, it is a fair question to ask what he believes about the First Amendment. Are all religions covered? Just some? Which ones?
Barton’s position raises some important questions about application of the First Amendment in the present day. If we are to understand the definition of religion now in terms of the religions extant at the time of the framers, then what is the Constitutional status of religions developed since then? Take, for example, the Latter Day Saint church established in 1820s.
Furthermore, if the protection of the religion clauses only extend to monotheistic religions then what about religions which hold that there is more than one god? Take, for example, the Latter Day Saints.
While LDS apologists would deny they are polytheistic, at the same time, they do not believe monotheism describes them or most Christians well. They don’t hold to the trinity as most Christians do and they do believe that men may someday become gods, and even if not worshiped in this dispensation, may be elsewhere. Surely, this process has been taking place throughout the universe; thus there would have to be multiple gods.
By Barton’s logic, the LDS church would be a questionable Constitutional case. However, as I have established before several times, the framers envisioned First Amendment protections for freedom of conscience, whether no god, one god or several are involved.
Back to Ted Cruz; what does he believe? If he believes Barton’s history lessons have helped millions rediscover the founding principles, then presumably he is one of those millions. I certainly want to know if he believes all religions and people of all faiths have First Amendment protections.
I was impressed when I heard Ted Cruz on C-Span for the first time last week during a republican fund raiser in New Hampshire.
It was an excellent speech on taking back America. Very Reagan like in his ideas.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson# ~ Sep 12, 2013 at 5:34 pm
I have to disagree that David Barton is right about “many” things. Rather, he is demonstrably wrong about many things.
Both are true.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson# ~ Sep 12, 2013 at 5:34 pm
I have to disagree that David Barton is right about “many” things. Rather, he is demonstrably wrong about many things.
Both are true.
HH>”Jefferson was appalled by these attitudes where they existed, stating in his Notes on Virginia…”
—–
Your post is missing a quotation from Barton.
Even if we suppose he was incorrect about Jefferson on some points, your post does not prove he was incorrect about Jefferson on that point.
HH>”Jefferson was appalled by these attitudes where they existed, stating in his Notes on Virginia…”
—–
Your post is missing a quotation from Barton.
Even if we suppose he was incorrect about Jefferson on some points, your post does not prove he was incorrect about Jefferson on that point.
I have to disagree that David Barton is right about “many” things. Rather, he is demonstrably wrong about many things. I suspect a list of things about which he is right would consume very little page space.
As for Colonial attitudes toward other religions, yes, they could be harsh, but not universally, and it is worth noting (because one of the things Barton is wrong about is Thomas Jefferson) that Jefferson was appalled by these attitudes where they existed, stating in his Notes on Virginia:
“By our own act of Assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office or employment, ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second, by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years’ imprisonment without bail. A fathers right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put by the authority of the court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of civil freedom.”
I have to disagree that David Barton is right about “many” things. Rather, he is demonstrably wrong about many things. I suspect a list of things about which he is right would consume very little page space.
As for Colonial attitudes toward other religions, yes, they could be harsh, but not universally, and it is worth noting (because one of the things Barton is wrong about is Thomas Jefferson) that Jefferson was appalled by these attitudes where they existed, stating in his Notes on Virginia:
“By our own act of Assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office or employment, ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second, by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years’ imprisonment without bail. A fathers right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put by the authority of the court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of civil freedom.”
jimmiraybob# ~ Sep 12, 2013 at 1:36 pm
“RE: Cruz “It was an excellent speech on taking back America.”
Did he happen to mention to which century?” 🙂
I’m more curious as to whom he is planning on taking it back from. I thought Cruz was canadian, not native american.
HH>”Jefferson was appalled by these attitudes where they existed, stating in his Notes on Virginia…”
—–
Your post is missing a quotation from Barton.
Even if we suppose he was incorrect about Jefferson on some points, your post does not prove he was incorrect about Jefferson on that point.
HH>”Jefferson was appalled by these attitudes where they existed, stating in his Notes on Virginia…”
—–
Your post is missing a quotation from Barton.
Even if we suppose he was incorrect about Jefferson on some points, your post does not prove he was incorrect about Jefferson on that point.
RE: Cruz “It was an excellent speech on taking back America.”
Did he happen to mention to which century?
I have to disagree that David Barton is right about “many” things. Rather, he is demonstrably wrong about many things. I suspect a list of things about which he is right would consume very little page space.
As for Colonial attitudes toward other religions, yes, they could be harsh, but not universally, and it is worth noting (because one of the things Barton is wrong about is Thomas Jefferson) that Jefferson was appalled by these attitudes where they existed, stating in his Notes on Virginia:
“By our own act of Assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office or employment, ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second, by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years’ imprisonment without bail. A fathers right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put by the authority of the court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of civil freedom.”
I have to disagree that David Barton is right about “many” things. Rather, he is demonstrably wrong about many things. I suspect a list of things about which he is right would consume very little page space.
As for Colonial attitudes toward other religions, yes, they could be harsh, but not universally, and it is worth noting (because one of the things Barton is wrong about is Thomas Jefferson) that Jefferson was appalled by these attitudes where they existed, stating in his Notes on Virginia:
“By our own act of Assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office or employment, ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second, by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years’ imprisonment without bail. A fathers right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put by the authority of the court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of civil freedom.”
I was impressed when I heard Ted Cruz on C-Span for the first time last week during a republican fund raiser in New Hampshire.
It was an excellent speech on taking back America. Very Reagan like in his ideas.
jimmiraybob# ~ Sep 12, 2013 at 1:36 pm
“RE: Cruz “It was an excellent speech on taking back America.”
Did he happen to mention to which century?” 🙂
I’m more curious as to whom he is planning on taking it back from. I thought Cruz was canadian, not native american.
Like all self-serving and presidential political wannabees, Ted Cruz will say anything anytime to any audience willing to cast votes his way. But Ted’s “fifteen minutes of fame” will soon wither away when the man’s hollowness becomes more transparent.
RE: Cruz “It was an excellent speech on taking back America.”
Did he happen to mention to which century?
RE: Cruz “It was an excellent speech on taking back America.”
Did he happen to mention to which century?
Like all self-serving and presidential political wannabees, Ted Cruz will say anything anytime to any audience willing to cast votes his way. But Ted’s “fifteen minutes of fame” will soon wither away when the man’s hollowness becomes more transparent.
Like all self-serving and presidential political wannabees, Ted Cruz will say anything anytime to any audience willing to cast votes his way. But Ted’s “fifteen minutes of fame” will soon wither away when the man’s hollowness becomes more transparent.
LD>”Sure it would bar him – in part. Story’s interpretation – his “probably” – has not prevailed. Nor was it what Jefferson himself intended (despite the prevarication on that point by Barton).”
—-
You say Justice Story’s interpretation has not “prevailed.”
That sounds similar to David Barton’s statement in the court brief,
and this,
Thus, in a sense, Barton would agree with you that Justice Story’s view has not “prevailed.”
However, it begs the question whether Justice Story’s interpretation was historically correct.
At this point in the discussion you have not provided evidence that would prove otherwise.
Your mention of Jefferson is not “evidence” because you did not quote anything specific or explain why it would specifically contradict Justice Story on this or that point.
Your dialog on “principle” is not evidence either. Indeed, I think it can be argued from a secular perspective that our Constitutional form of government has a vital interest in the well being of Christianity. If Islam became dominant, for example, there would be no Constitution as we know it.
Without a robust Christian population, secular government lacks the moral authority to resist the spread of Islam, a fact that Europe is now finding out.
Your appeal to principle seems debatable, therefore, especially given Barton’s argument from Justice Rehnquist that the Religion Clauses do not…
It sounds like Justice Rehnquist might not make your list of advisors either!
Perhaps your reference to Jefferson will prove correct, but since Justice Story and Justice Rehnquist view history differently than you do, it sounds like your Jefferson reference will be open to interpretation.
Warren# ~ Sep 11, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Tom – What exactly is Barton correct about? I know what the First Amendment says; I was talking about the federal government. Is it your opinion that religion as used in the First Amendment meant only monotheism?
That it permitted discrimination on the part of the states in favor of monotheism is simply a fact.
What Barton is “saying” I have no idea. I don’t read him–the only time I do is to check out the claims of his critics. But as a matter of historical record, he’s correct*.
As you saw from the previous link, historians John Fea and Mark David Hall signed onto Ray Soller’s research that even New York permitted religious tests. But here we are in 2013, where that comes as a great surprise to our “common knowledge” such as this post, and perhaps 9 out of 10 of the people who read it.
___________
* As a matter of post-14th Amendment law, preferences for monotheism [or any theism] don’t hold for individuals, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins
However, as a matter of historical record, there are still [unenforced] religious test laws on the books of some states, and of course virtually every one of the 50 state constitutions makes a reference to the monotheistic God.
http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html
David Barton is right about many things, even if only by accident.
However, as I have established before several times, the framers envisioned First Amendment protections for freedom of conscience, whether no god, one god or several are involved.
Not really. It reads “Congress shall make no law…”
Religion was left to the states–some states had official churches [Massachusetts until 1833!] and 12 of the original 13 states had religious tests for statewide office.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/01/ray-soller-on-new-yorks-religious-test.html
David Barton is sometimes correct.
Tom – What exactly is Barton correct about? I know what the First Amendment says; I was talking about the federal government. Is it your opinion that religion as used in the First Amendment meant only monotheism?
Sure it would bar him – in part. Story’s interpretation – his “probably” – has not prevailed. Nor was it what Jefferson himself intended (despite the prevarication on that point by Barton).
But government does support religion with all sorts of tax breaks with good reason. Religion provides social support for the populace in an area. From the Amish with their Amish Aid to Catholics with their extensive systems of orphanages, hospitals and urban ministries among the poor.
Story simply fails in recognizing that government can show no favoritism to any religion in its dealings. He makes the mistake that so many Christians make. They think the country is all for them simply because Christian religions have been so prevalent.
Such an interpretation also is in complete disagreement with the principle that while the Constitution provides majority rule through a republican form a government that the Bill of RIghts should protect those rights and liberties of minorities extant in the country. True, our country has in the past played the bully – especially in religion when it comes to those of the Mormon faith. However, the Constitution has always stood as The Ideal for which we must strive. Barton and is followers (and perhaps even Story) would seek to sully that Constitutional Ideal.
It appears your “logic” would also bar Justice Story from the list of competent advisors, which implies a fundamental mistake in your “logic.”
Here are some excerpts compiled from Justice Story’s famous commentary on the Constitution:
Barton seems to say the same thing Justice Story said, which puts Barton in good company, contra your claim.
LD>”Sure it would bar him – in part. Story’s interpretation – his “probably” – has not prevailed. Nor was it what Jefferson himself intended (despite the prevarication on that point by Barton).”
—-
You say Justice Story’s interpretation has not “prevailed.”
That sounds similar to David Barton’s statement in the court brief,
and this,
Thus, in a sense, Barton would agree with you that Justice Story’s view has not “prevailed.”
However, it begs the question whether Justice Story’s interpretation was historically correct.
At this point in the discussion you have not provided evidence that would prove otherwise.
Your mention of Jefferson is not “evidence” because you did not quote anything specific or explain why it would specifically contradict Justice Story on this or that point.
Your dialog on “principle” is not evidence either. Indeed, I think it can be argued from a secular perspective that our Constitutional form of government has a vital interest in the well being of Christianity. If Islam became dominant, for example, there would be no Constitution as we know it.
Without a robust Christian population, secular government lacks the moral authority to resist the spread of Islam, a fact that Europe is now finding out.
Your appeal to principle seems debatable, therefore, especially given Barton’s argument from Justice Rehnquist that the Religion Clauses do not…
It sounds like Justice Rehnquist might not make your list of advisors either!
Perhaps your reference to Jefferson will prove correct, but since Justice Story and Justice Rehnquist view history differently than you do, it sounds like your Jefferson reference will be open to interpretation.
Warren# ~ Sep 11, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Tom – What exactly is Barton correct about? I know what the First Amendment says; I was talking about the federal government. Is it your opinion that religion as used in the First Amendment meant only monotheism?
That it permitted discrimination on the part of the states in favor of monotheism is simply a fact.
What Barton is “saying” I have no idea. I don’t read him–the only time I do is to check out the claims of his critics. But as a matter of historical record, he’s correct*.
As you saw from the previous link, historians John Fea and Mark David Hall signed onto Ray Soller’s research that even New York permitted religious tests. But here we are in 2013, where that comes as a great surprise to our “common knowledge” such as this post, and perhaps 9 out of 10 of the people who read it.
___________
* As a matter of post-14th Amendment law, preferences for monotheism [or any theism] don’t hold for individuals, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins
However, as a matter of historical record, there are still [unenforced] religious test laws on the books of some states, and of course virtually every one of the 50 state constitutions makes a reference to the monotheistic God.
http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html
David Barton is right about many things, even if only by accident.
Barton makes a fundamental mistake in determining which religions are ‘authorized’ by the 1st Amendment. And that mistake is that the 1st Amendment may speak to the authority of a religion. It cannot. The 1st Amendment grants that freedom to the people; and therefore, any person’s freedom of conscience may give rise to religious thought and expression that may be unique only to themselves.
That Barton makes such a fundamental mistake in his interpretation of history and the constitution based in his own religious biases should bar him from anyone’s list of competent advisors.
However, as I have established before several times, the framers envisioned First Amendment protections for freedom of conscience, whether no god, one god or several are involved.
Not really. It reads “Congress shall make no law…”
Religion was left to the states–some states had official churches [Massachusetts until 1833!] and 12 of the original 13 states had religious tests for statewide office.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/01/ray-soller-on-new-yorks-religious-test.html
David Barton is sometimes correct.
However, as I have established before several times, the framers envisioned First Amendment protections for freedom of conscience, whether no god, one god or several are involved.
Not really. It reads “Congress shall make no law…”
Religion was left to the states–some states had official churches [Massachusetts until 1833!] and 12 of the original 13 states had religious tests for statewide office.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/01/ray-soller-on-new-yorks-religious-test.html
David Barton is sometimes correct.
Tom – What exactly is Barton correct about? I know what the First Amendment says; I was talking about the federal government. Is it your opinion that religion as used in the First Amendment meant only monotheism?
Sure it would bar him – in part. Story’s interpretation – his “probably” – has not prevailed. Nor was it what Jefferson himself intended (despite the prevarication on that point by Barton).
But government does support religion with all sorts of tax breaks with good reason. Religion provides social support for the populace in an area. From the Amish with their Amish Aid to Catholics with their extensive systems of orphanages, hospitals and urban ministries among the poor.
Story simply fails in recognizing that government can show no favoritism to any religion in its dealings. He makes the mistake that so many Christians make. They think the country is all for them simply because Christian religions have been so prevalent.
Such an interpretation also is in complete disagreement with the principle that while the Constitution provides majority rule through a republican form a government that the Bill of RIghts should protect those rights and liberties of minorities extant in the country. True, our country has in the past played the bully – especially in religion when it comes to those of the Mormon faith. However, the Constitution has always stood as The Ideal for which we must strive. Barton and is followers (and perhaps even Story) would seek to sully that Constitutional Ideal.
Sure it would bar him – in part. Story’s interpretation – his “probably” – has not prevailed. Nor was it what Jefferson himself intended (despite the prevarication on that point by Barton).
But government does support religion with all sorts of tax breaks with good reason. Religion provides social support for the populace in an area. From the Amish with their Amish Aid to Catholics with their extensive systems of orphanages, hospitals and urban ministries among the poor.
Story simply fails in recognizing that government can show no favoritism to any religion in its dealings. He makes the mistake that so many Christians make. They think the country is all for them simply because Christian religions have been so prevalent.
Such an interpretation also is in complete disagreement with the principle that while the Constitution provides majority rule through a republican form a government that the Bill of RIghts should protect those rights and liberties of minorities extant in the country. True, our country has in the past played the bully – especially in religion when it comes to those of the Mormon faith. However, the Constitution has always stood as The Ideal for which we must strive. Barton and is followers (and perhaps even Story) would seek to sully that Constitutional Ideal.
It appears your “logic” would also bar Justice Story from the list of competent advisors, which implies a fundamental mistake in your “logic.”
Here are some excerpts compiled from Justice Story’s famous commentary on the Constitution:
Barton seems to say the same thing Justice Story said, which puts Barton in good company, contra your claim.
It appears your “logic” would also bar Justice Story from the list of competent advisors, which implies a fundamental mistake in your “logic.”
Here are some excerpts compiled from Justice Story’s famous commentary on the Constitution:
Barton seems to say the same thing Justice Story said, which puts Barton in good company, contra your claim.
Barton makes a fundamental mistake in determining which religions are ‘authorized’ by the 1st Amendment. And that mistake is that the 1st Amendment may speak to the authority of a religion. It cannot. The 1st Amendment grants that freedom to the people; and therefore, any person’s freedom of conscience may give rise to religious thought and expression that may be unique only to themselves.
That Barton makes such a fundamental mistake in his interpretation of history and the constitution based in his own religious biases should bar him from anyone’s list of competent advisors.