How to Disprove David Barton: Let Me Count the Ways

David Barton is a conservative historian who argues primarily against the separation of church and state. His credentials consist of a B.A. from Oral Roberts University and an honorary doctorate in Letters from Pensecola Christian College. He has published many books and articles – today’s focus is on his “Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant.”
Aside from Barton’s obviously missing education in History and his consistently quoting and citing himself, his arguments themselves leave me wondering if he actually read the texts he's quoting. I don't have a ton of time, so I'll have to follow this post up with a more complete refutation of Barton's multiple errors (in my opinion). But for now, I'll bullet list some for now:

– In his 20 page discussion of separation of church and state, Barton devotes pages 5-6 to an extensive straw man with his find of the perfect liberal idiot. Apparently, Barton found a US Congressman and former lawyer (unnamed, conveniently) who not only had no clue that the phrase “separation of church and state” was not actually quoted from the Constitution but also had never read the Constitution. All right, some Congressmen may be…dumb (?), but this is not a fair representation of his opposition.

– Barton mentions that during debate on wording for the Bill of Rights, Congress went through many drafts with much debate on the First Amendment’s wording. All previous drafts used the word “denomination” instead of the word “religion.” Based on this, Barton argues that they were synonymous. Really? They debated heavily and on the last day decided to just change the wording for no reason? Instead, it would be logical to assume that after all the debate and discussion, the Framers decided that freedom of religion was more comprehensive than mere freedom of denomination.

– Barton argues that the freedom of religion as described in the First Amendment was really meant to promote religion in the government, governmental functions, and subsequent branches. Why then did Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, and many others seem allergic to the idea that religion would run the government? It was not simply the prospect of government controlling religion that scared them; inherently included in this justified fear was that religion would overtake government. Governmental religion or religion-run government are really the same thing – religion and government mixing.
MORE TO COME!!!

THE SUPREME COURT v. THE PEOPLE

America faces enough poverty, job scarcity, and general economic struggles to cripple the best of nations. Amidst our struggles, a new crisis approaches, and is upon us. The Supreme Court, last week, decided to allow corporations to use their treasury funds to run political influence campaigns through mailings, TV ads, and numerous other avenues, opening wide the gates for corporate manipulation of federal elections. Now democracy can be bought and sold with even greater alacrity than ever before – a feat hitherto thought impossible. This scary proposition will become a reality now as large companies start shoveling money towards the upcoming May Colorado elections. Special interest groups with billions of dollars are now encouraged to heavily advertise and promote to their advantage. But in spite of the Supreme Court’s insistence that their decision upheld free speech, the voice of the individual, and therefore the voice of the people, can and will be smothered, successfully eliminating freedom of speech itself.


But in the end, it’s really not even about your preferences or mine. This decision affects the very freedom of speech the Supreme Court claimed to defend. With this decision, your freedom of speech is now limited by the fact that you’re only an individual. You’re still allowed to speak, but it's roughly the equivalent of telling you that you're allowed to voice your opinion – and then turning music up to 300 decibels and starting the vacuum! Your voice, albeit free to speak, carries no weight and therefore cannot affect any change because it cannot be heard. So all of a sudden the corporations’ "freedom of speech" (run by a select few with the power, control, and money) carries 1,000,000 times more weight (in American dollars) than does the average person’s freedom. So by multiplying the effect of the corporations’ “free” speech, the Court has divided the individual’s by the same number, seriously diminishing his ability to have any effect at all.


Aside from freedom of speech issues, this should be a cause of great concern to the people of the United States. Most of us have heard the old saying that “politics follows the Golden Rule...those who have the gold, rule,” but this decision by our Supreme Court takes it to a whole new level. Allowing corporations, usually owned and run by one person or one small group of persons, to spend however much they want essentially allows them to buy votes. The riches of these corporations, derived from the public’s pockets, can now be spent to further the interests of big business and big government. Consumers, who must spend their money to buy necessities like food and clothing, now must stand helplessly watching as those corporations use their money funding political campaigns the consumers may or may not favor. In effect, with our money go our vote and our voice, exiting the hands of the people and landing squarely in the lap of the executive upper class on Wall Street.


Therefore, while claiming to defend free speech, this Supreme Court decision has upended the balance of free speech in favor of Wall Street and the big corporations who run it. The Supreme Court has missed the point by deciding that corporations’ voices should be allowed to drown out the people’s voice. This decision reeks of oligarchy, promises even more future political greed, and guarantees that politicians and votes will be bought and pocketed like never before.