“Original Intent” is a book by David Barton about Supreme Court rulings that have stripped the Constitution of the founders’ original meaning.  It was published in 2000 by WallBuilders of Alemedo, Texas.

<b>David Barton Argues Against<br>

Separation of Church and State</b>

The book emphasizes religious aspects of the Constitution, especially the doctrine of separation of church and state.  Mr. Barton attempts to show this was not part of the original intent of the founding fathers.  

The author discusses eight Supreme Court landmark religious liberty cases which followed the 1947 Everson case.  The latter introduced the “wall of separation” terminology.  In these he claims the Supreme Court rewrote the original intent of the founders. 

Later chapters demonstrate how the new subjective standard of judicial opinion is altering the Constitution and Constitutional law in fundamental ways. The law is in a state of flux because the Constitution has become whatever the justices say it is. This new era of positivistic law began in the 1930s and 1940s.

<b>Thesis Is Flawed</b>

The problem with the book is a flawed thesis. The founders did in fact intend to separate the new government from the authority of biblical law.  Surprisingly, David Barton actually applauds this.

David Barton states that “there is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Founders intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson…” (p.179).  The actual words, “wall of separation” do not appear, but the wall is nonetheless set in place by Article VI, Section 3.

This provision disestablishes Christianity as the “coin of the realm” so to speak.  When the Constitution says that “no religious test shall ever be required for any office…,” it makes it illegal to require an officeholder to swear to govern by the Bible.  It thus established the U.S. Constitution as a pluralistic and secular document.  This is clearly a “wall of separation,” divorcing the legal system from its religious foundation.

David Barton alludes to Article VI, but praises its effect. He asserts that, “…it was therefore not within the federal government’s authority to examine the religious beliefs of any candidate” (p.34). He adds with approval that “The Founders believed that the investigation of the religious views of a candidate should not be conducted by the federal government, but rather by the voters in each state.”

That is the heart of our problem. A declaration of religious neutrality by the Federal government. This would be like Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai and declaring that he wasn’t going to favor any particular religion, but would leave it to the tribes.

On the contrary, it is the primary duty of government to require that its officials are committed to Christ and the Christian religion.  It is cultural suicide to neglect this duty.  The law of God is the only source of justice, and God expects the officeholder to swear to uphold it.  David Barton fails to grasp this most basic biblical principle of civil government.

<b>Innocuous Civil Religion</b>

David Barton and the founders prefer a milquetoast civil religion, rather than undiluted Christianity.  To quote the author, “I agree fully to what is beautifully and appropriately said in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth… — Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law: ‘not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets’ …(p.70)”

“The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as ‘enlightened,’ by John Quincy Adams as ‘civilized,’ and by John Adams as ‘rational.'” (p.127).  As long as Christianity remains a toothless, feel-good religion, devoid of doctrine, David Barton and the founding fathers are apparently happy with it.

And this leads to another root problem.  David Barton virtually always refers to civil government in terms of what it must not do respecting separation of church and state.  He ignores the responsibility government has to govern pro-actively in submission to Biblical law.  As noted above, his Christianity is toothless when it comes to obligations for the civil magistrate.

This rejection of God and Biblical law as the basis for the new government leads inevitably to disregard for the Constitution we see today.  When they rejected the absolute standard, the founders guaranteed that their posterity would end up adrift in a sea of subjectivity and oppression.

In the end, Mr. Barton calls for a return to the “original intent” of the founders to create a limited government based on Christian principles. But the flaw in his thesis makes this impossible.

Departure from the original intent of the Constitution is not our problem. Rather, our problem lies in the seeds of humanism and religious neutrality that were planted originally in the Constitution and are bearing their evil fruit today.