Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Someone named Nathan Bradfield just linked to my post about STACLU promoting David Barton’s work and to Joe Carter’s recent essay on the subject in a post that also spreads some atrocious nonsense about the founding fathers, religion and church/state separation. Nathan is one of those folks who uses inflated and breathless rhetoric; liberals are “Christophobes” who want to “obliterate anything Christian that enters the public.” You’ve heard this one many times.

David Barton of Wallbuilders provides a slightly opposing point of view. Keep in mind that David Barton has made some questionable quotes that many try to disqualify him with while ignoring the overall evidence. David admits that he has made some mistakes and the claims that he has purposefully exaggerated things is without merit. But the Christophobes cannot dismiss everything as they attempt to.

I love how he includes me as a “Christophobe.” I’m not exactly a strict separationist, of course. I have written many times that accommodationism is a legitimate interpretation of the first amendment religion clauses and I’ve opposed the strict separationists in cases like the Brittany McCombs graduation speech case as well as on issues like the constitutionality of school voucher programs. But why let little details like that get in the way of painting with the widest possible brush?

Barton is guilty of far more than just passing on a bunch of false quotes, though he certainly is guilty of that. He’s guilty of introducing a huge number of false and illogical arguments into the church/state debate. Indeed, Nathan goes on to quote one of the silliest arguments Barton makes:

Research by David Barton, founder of Wallbuilders, Inc. exposes the alleged separation of church and state for the myth that it really is. The words separation of church and state don’t appear in any official government documents authored by the founding fathers.

No kidding. The terms “checks and balances” and “separation of powers” also don’t appear in the Constitution of any “official government document” authored by the founding fathers. Does that mean those concepts are not clearly a part of the Constitution? Of course not. These phrases are descriptions of constitutional provisions and the concepts that those provisions are intended to establish and protect. And just as they used “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” to describe those provisions that divided power between the three branches of government, they used the phrase “separation of church and state” to describe the first amendment religion clauses – contrary to this immense lie:

This concept and these particular words were fabricated by an ACLU attorney named Leo Pfeffer in 1947 in the Supreme Court case of Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing Township. That liberal supreme court imposed it on the nation by a 5 to 4 vote…Many young people today are not aware of the fact that this concept is an ACLU invention, and that it is a concept our founding fathers would have been appalled at.

Well yes, many young people are unaware of that; good thing too, since it’s a blatant lie. Those particular words and the concept were fabricated by Leo Pfeffer? Seriously, how ignorant does one have to be of history to make a claim that stupid? The phrase “separation of church and state” traces originally to Roger Williams, a Christian clergyman and founder of the Rhode Island colony. It was also used by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, two of the 5 or 6 most important and influential founding fathers, as a description of the purpose of the first amendment’s religion clauses (an amendment that was written primarily by Madison himself, I might add).

Indeed, Madison argued that the separation of church and state should be so complete that it forbid even Congressional and military chaplaincies, a position that goes beyond even what the ACLU argues today. They certainly would not be “appalled” at the concept; they argued strenuously in favor of it. Now, that was not the only view among the founders. You had founders like Washington and Adams who argued that the government could and should provide general support for religion in the form of declarations of thanksgiving and days of prayer, as long as those declarations were non-coercive in nature. That is the accommodationist position.

There were also some, like Patrick Henry, who argued that the government should use tax money to support churches, but they were on the losing end of history and their ideas were dismissed (as they should be). One can reasonably argue for accommodationism or separationism, but one cannot reasonably claim, as Barton and Bradfield do, that the concept was “invented by the ACLU” in 1947 (especially since they seem blissfully unaware of the fact that the court in Everson actually upheld a state law that used tax dollars to bus students to and from a Catholic school).

The key here is this: While we Christians can claim only some founding fathers as fellow believers, the humanist secularist can claim none. Not one of the significant leaders was an atheist, much less subscribed to the modern idea of secularism and “separation of church and state.”

No, that isn’t the key to anything. Atheism was virtually unheard of at the time, but that hardly disqualifies founders like Jefferson, Madison, Paine and Franklin from being humanists or secularists. The religious beliefs of any particular founder had nothing to do with their view on separation of church and state. Many of the most outspoken advocates of strict separation at the time were devout Christians, particularly Baptists, who often found themselves jailed by the Anglicans and Puritans who ran the colonies in which they lived.

Indeed, that is how Roger Williams came to the concept. He was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for being the wrong brand of Christian, which is what spurred him to advocate the complete separation of church and state. His legacy continued at the time of the founding with prominent preachers like John Leland and Isaac Backus. So the fact is that claiming that this or that founder was a Christian tells us nothing whatsoever about their position on church and state matters.


  1. #1 Skip Evans
    January 11, 2007

    The key here is this: While we Christians can claim only some founding fathers as fellow believers, the humanist secularist can claim none.

    As an atheist myself, this only makes me feel better about separation of church and state. If these devout and holy Christan men, our founders, found wisdom in the principal, it should be obvious to Bradfield that he is a way offtrack siding with David Barton.

  2. #2 Daniel Morgan
    January 11, 2007

    A good take-down of Barton can be found here.

  3. #3 Royale
    January 11, 2007

    “The key here is this: While we Christians can claim only some founding fathers as fellow believers, the humanist secularist can claim none.”

    I second the notion that the statement really is completely irrelevant, but what troubles me is what the #$% does “humanist secularist” even mean? and why is it bad?

    I see it a lot in Religious Right propoganda, but to me it’s an empty phrase that’s casually thrown around to basically mean “anyone who disagrees with me.”

  4. #4 J-Dog
    January 11, 2007

    As I interpret the constitution, David Barton should be separated from the state. I have been told that there are numerous letters where Jefferson referred to Barton as “that confounded idiot”, and of course Washington, in private communication, said that he “wished only for the try, on past reflection, to chop hard, not at the blameless cheery tree, but at the legs of all total knuckleheads like David Barton”.

    Daniel Morgan – Good link, and congrats for your Gators!

  5. #5 Daniel Morgan
    January 11, 2007


    Thanks, and thanks!

  6. #6 Roger Albin
    January 11, 2007

    Ed, correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding of Madison’s views on Military and Congressional Chaplains is that it was improper for their salaries to be paid by the Federal Government. If a company of soldiers wished to hire a chaplain, this would be OK. I think this is the version stated in Wills’ recent brief bio of Madison as President.

  7. #7 Nathan Bradfield
    January 11, 2007
  8. #8 kehrsam
    January 11, 2007

    This Baptist had never even suspected that I might be a Christophobe. I guess this is the same notion as a self-hating Jew.

  9. #9 Skemono
    January 11, 2007

    Oh boy, he continues to dig!

    An accurate definition [of humanist secularist] might read, “anyone who disagrees with the Bible.” Don’t shoot the messenger because you don’t like what’s in the envelope.

    So according to this definition, how many of the founding fathers were secular humanists? Clearly Jefferson was. Others?

  10. #10 Dave S.
    January 11, 2007

    From the link …

    How else can you explain various rights we enjoy being directly dirived from scripture?

    Which rights are those I wonder? Life? Liberty? The pursuit of happiness? Sadly, he does not give examples of these various rights derived from Scripture.

  11. #11 Halcyon
    January 11, 2007

    Wait, ANYONE who disagrees with the bible is a Secular Humanist? Wow, so because I’m a Jew and reject the whole New Testament I’m a secular humanist?

  12. #12 James
    January 12, 2007

    From the link …

    “How else can you explain various rights we enjoy being directly dirived from scripture?”

    What you mean like the way the First Commandment contradicts the First Ammendment? Its not like its even an obscure reference or anything.

  13. #13 Alan
    January 12, 2007

    Nathan is being more than a bit disingenuous. Having read his blog for a while (trust me, it’s almost as funny as the Onion) his real definition of “secular humanist” is not just someone who “disagrees with the Bible.” I’m a Christian, and am probably far more orthodox in my beliefs that most of the deist Founding Fathers, yet Nathan has called me a secular humanist more times than I can count ….. because I disagree with *him.* Don’t go looking for any sort of reason or rationality at his blog, but it’s great for the entertainment value. 🙂

  14. #14 Mark
    January 15, 2007

    >Many of the most outspoken advocates of strict separation at the time were devout Christians

    I would have added “(as is still the case today)”.

New comments have been disabled.