Limbaugh misquotes the establishment clause and declares: "Only a lawyer could claim not to understand the plain meaning of those words. The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, . . . but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion" (p. 281).
Obviously, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says no such thing. The plain words of the First Amendment say exactly what the First Congress meant for them to say. Limbaugh changes the words, which is the only way he can make the Establishment Clause say what he wants it to say. The words "a state" are not in the wording of the Establishment Clause. It is "religion" which shall not be established by law or government, not just "a state" religion. If the meaning is plain, why add "a state"?
If the writers in the First Congress had meant to say "a state" religion, they would have written those words into the sentence. James Madison and the other five congressmen on the committee which drafted the final wording of the First Amendment knew the difference, and they wrote what they meant.
Limbaugh also molests the Free Exercise Clause. The word "thereof" in the Free Exercise Clause gets its entire meaning from the meaning of the Establishment Clause. If the Establishment Clause means "a state" religion, "thereof" must also mean "a state" religion, which would make the Free Exercise Clause read "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise of "a state religion." Yet, "a state religion" is just exactly what Limbaugh says the Establishment Clause prohibits! And, will someone tell the Mormons (Reynolds v. U.S., 1879) and Native Americans (Smith, 1990) Limbaugh has rescinded the Court's barriers against the practice of their religion?
Do not confuse them with the facts; they have already made up their minds.
There is abundant evidence that book writing Christian apologists do not need fact with which to write or sell their books. Please, understand, it is okay to be Christian and an apologist. The objection is to careless use of historical facts which eagerly get repeated by mindless or uncritical zealots and devotees.
Again, it is okay to be religious. The argument is with historical fiction being printed and sold as if it were scholarly fact.
Rush Limbaugh is a confused and misled constitutional revisionist, a writer of fiction.
1.
"Any law which contradicts biblical revelation is illegitimate" (p. 74). Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, believes in a "higher" law: "The higher law is clearly expressed in God's revelation as ultimately found in the Bible. . . . The higher law values of the Declaration [of Independence] are incorporated into the Constitution by its preamble. If we recognize that the Constitution presupposes the Declaration and the higher, fundamental law to which the Declaration witnessed, then we will understand the Constitution. . . . If we see the Constitution as standing alone, and forget or deny that it presupposes the Declaration, we will misunderstand the Constitution" (p. 75). Whitehead cannot accept the words of the First Amendment as written by the First Congress and approved by the states. Therefore, says Whitehead, the religion clauses should be revised as follows: "The federal government shall make no law having anything to do with supporting a national denominational church, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion" (p. 98). Whitehead's revision of the words of history makes him a history revisionist.
2.
The only comment necessary to describe this book is written by the
distinguished constitutional historian
3.
In May 1789
4.
Hart declares the Declaration of Independence as "America's
founding document" (p. 13). As everyone--except Hart and
Whitehead--knows, the Declaration was signed by representatives from
colonies which were declaring themselves independent states. The
founding document of the United States of America is its Constitution,
not the Declaration of Independence or the Mayflower Compact. Hart
quotes (without citation) Washington saying, "It is impossible to
rightly govern . . . without God and the Bible" (p. 13). Washington
never said it. Hart quotes
5. Limbaugh, Rush. See, I Told You So.1993.
On page 73, Limbaugh incorrectly defines the "Founding Fathers" as the men "who crafted the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution." Limbaugh confuses the writers (representatives from the various colonies or states which were declaring independence) of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, which has no legal standing in any court of law, with the "Founding Fathers" (capital Fs, see Webster's Dictionary), the fifty-five men in Philadelphia in 1787 who wrote the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the supreme law of the land. The two documents are not the same and have completely different purposes. The Founding Fathers wrote the basis of American law and government in the Constitution and are not the same group of Americans who wrote the Declaration.
Then, Limbaugh, on the same page 73, reprints the bogus James Madison quotation which has Madison making a statement about the "Ten Commandments of God." Madison made no such statement. This false quote is being passed around by gullible constitutional revisionists and undereducated religion zealots, but it is not in the Writings or Papers of James Madison. Rush did not do his homework. In other words, it is Rush Limbaugh who is promoting "social studies claptrap" (page 73). Claptrap is defined by Webster's as pretentious nonsense.
6.
At least twice Barton repeats the bogus Washington quote (pp. 113, 150). Barton's source is Halley's Bible Handbook. At least twice he repeats the bogus Madison quote (pp. 120, 155). Barton's source is a "Tractarian Society" publication.
7.
Journalist Evans' revision of the Establishment Clause from "religion" to "an official church" (p. 275) is unacceptable, unscholarly, and illustrative of a book which lacks significant "historical fact and relevant citation" (p. xvi).
8. Dreisbach, Daniel L. Real Threat and Mere Shadow. Westchester, Il., Crossway Books, 1987.
On page xiv, Dreisbach implies that President Thomas Jefferson's (1802) "wall of separation," upon which the Everson (1947) and McCollum (1948) courts stood when documenting the historical definition of the Establishment Clause, "was constructed to delineate jurisdictional lines of authority between the federal and state governments." This a lucid example of "history by omission" and "the intellectually dishonest practice of selectively recounting only those historical facts which could be read" to support a history revisionist's effort to misuse history by using only a part of the historical record and then finishing the sentence with words which do not exist in the document from which he quotes. Let it be clearly noted, for the record, that President Jefferson, in his letterto the Danbury Baptists, deliberately described the "wall of separation" as "between Church & State"--not "between the federal and state governments," as Dreisbach writes. The simple problem is that to Dreisbach "the meaning of the First Amendment is ambiguous" (p.22) --obviously. Now an example of how Dreisbach would reword the First Amendment: he says (p. 69) that to nonpreferentialists--such as he is--the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to "prohibit the establishment of a national (or federal) church and implicitly to restrict Congress from granting any religious sect or denomination a preferred legal status." Again, for the record, let it be clearly noted that the word following "establishment of" in the Establishment Clause is "religion"--not "national (or federal) church . . . religious sect or denomination," as Driesbach prefers. The solution, then, is to understand the "voice of the framers," in the terms in which the Establishment Clause is written, as well as in historical context. Everyone agrees that the Bill of Rights restricted the power of the federal government. The Establishment Clause restricted Congress in terms of an establishment of "religion"--just as it is written. For example, from history, in Virginia on October 25, 1779, James Henry
presented the conservative demands in his bill "concerning religion." This bill . . . marks the great effort of the conservative party to re-establish . . . a general assessment and a regulation of religion. . . . The bill reads: . . .
The Christian Religion shall in all times coming be deemed and held to be the established Religion of this Commonwealth; and all Denominations of Christians demeaning themselves peaceable and faithfully, shall enjoy equal privileges, civil and Religious. . . .
Whenever free male Persons not under twenty one Years of Age, professing the Christian Religion, shall agree to unite themselves in a Society for the purpose of Religious Worship, they shall be constituted a Church, and esteemed and regarded in Law as of the established Religion of this Commonwealth, . . .
Every Society so formed . . . shall entitle them to be incorporated and esteemed as a Church of the Established Religion of this Commonwealth.
The above example is quoted from pages 58-59 of a history first published by the Virginia State Library in 1910 as written by H. J. Eckenrode in the book Separation of Church and State in Virginia, (reprinted in 1971 by Da Capo Press). It is a clear illustration that "in the minds of the framers," like James Madison, there was the idea of an "Established Religion" which was defined in terms of all Christian churches, not just one, single, official, national denomination or church. The James Henry idea of establishing Christianity as the state religion was rejected in Virginia, and Dreisbach is wrong when he writes (p. 74) that "the final draft [of the Establishment Clause] fulfilled Madison's objective to proscribe . . . a federal church." James Madison never used the words "a federal church," and there is no mention of "Christianity" in the Constitution for the United States of America. That which is prohibited in the Establishment Clause is an establishment of "religion"--religion is what it says, religion is what it means, religion is the only word which is compatible with thereof in the free exercise clause, and it does not take a Rhodes scholar to understand it. President Madison understood it when in February 1811 he vetoed bills relating to an Episcopal and a Baptist church as violations of the Establishment Clause.
9.
One of the good things about history revisionist radio and TV theocrats is the ease with which they can be rebutted, once they give you a chance to speak without butting in before you can finish a sentence. The reason why rebuttal is so easy is because, since the history revisionist mind is already made up, they do not understand any need to read or listen to what their strict constructionist opponents write or say--they refuse to be confused by the facts.
Sean Hannity is another fluently impressive but undereducated news personality who must have missed history class on the day they were teaching about the Constitution. On page 134 he writes: "the Founding Document of the United States of America" is the Declaration of Independence. No, it is not. The founding document for the United States of America (the legal entity which exists today) is the 1788 Constitution for the United States of America.
The Continental Congress of 1774 and 1775 was simply a convention of delegates from British colonies. The 1776 Declaration of Independence was merely a declaration by those colonies to become individual states independent from Great Britain, with the Continental Congress assuming a role of government loosely directed by delegates from those independent states. In 1781 delegates from the independent states agreed to Articles of Confederation which authorized a new Congress, known as the Congress of the Confederation, and which Articles were the basic law of the United States of America until 1789 when the Constitution for the United States of America came into existence as "the supreme law of the land." The Declaration of Independence is a significant document of American history, but neither it nor the Articles of Confederation are now a part of law of the land and neither have legal standing, status, or significance in any court of law under the existing Constitution for the United States of America.
So much for the history lesson. It is Hannityıs revision of the wording of the First Amendment which is unacceptable on its face. On page 128 he writes: "The Establishment Clause was intended merely as a prohibition against the Federal Government establishing a national religion." The word "national" is not in the Establishment Clause and makes nonsense out of the Free Exercise Clause word "thereof," which gets its entire meaning from that to which it refers: "or prohibiting the free exercise" of a national religion? Hello? Anybody home?
The Constitution means what it says and says what it means. It is "religion" which shall not be established by law or Congress, and it is the exercise thereof (of "religion") which shall not be totally prohibited, which is what "prohibiting" means--totally. Revisionist Hannity is in error about the founding document of the existing United States of America and is wrong about the Establishment Clause. He is a liberal revisionist when he adds, injects, and inserts the word "national" into the Establishment Clause.
Conservative strict constructionists accept the wording of the Constitution as it is written. The Establishment Clause is a clearly stated constitutional commandment, and it is "religion" which shall not be established by law or Congress. Hannity is no strict constructionist.
10. Sean Hannity, Deliver Us From Evil, Regan Books, 2004.
Sean Hannity says, "our founding principles" are expressed in "our Judeo-Christian roots" (p. 4). Sean Hannity is an historian? Excuse me, but Hannity either ignored the Age of Reason, or it was not taught where he went to school. Fortunately, the influence of the Enlightenment was not missed by the likes of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Allow Websterıs Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary to explain the point. Enlightenment: "A philosophic movement of the 18th century [the 1700s] marked by a rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas and an emphasis on rationalism."
Moreover, Sean Hannity must have missed the American history class which discussed the Continental Congress and its authorization of the 1776 Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, a declaration by which the colonies declared themselves free and independent states. Obviously, he also missed the political science class which discussed the distinctly different 1787 document known as the Constitution for the United States of America, upon which a new government was established, with the Constitution, as ratified by "we the people" of the independent states, as being "the supreme law of the land" (Article 6., Section 2.), not the Declaration of Independence--which Declaration has no legal standing in any American court of law.
Furthermore, Sean Hannity would have his readers believe the United States of America is a theocracy, not a secular republic. On page 10 he says Americaıs "traditional moral values" are the "foundation of our constitutional liberties" and we have "God given natural rights." Mr. Hannity, those quotes are your words, not the words of the Constitution. Then, on page 12 Hannity sets the basis for his Orwellian fiction using "doublespeak" in abuse of the terms "liberal" and "conservative": A liberal revisionist sees words which are not in the Constitution and changes those which are. A conservative strict constructionist accepts the words of the Constitution as written. As the above examples demonstrate, Sean Hannity is a flaming liberal revisionist who says our rights are "derived from God" (p. 58), even though those words are not in the Constitution, which is the 1788 founding document of the government of the United States of America. In America, it is the words of the Constitution alone which are "the supreme law of the land" and the source of our rights as Americans.
Deliver us from Sean Hannity.
11. Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot's History of the United States, Penguin Group, 2004.
The two following fraudulent assertions, in quotations, are found on page 125 of this shallow and scholastically challenged book, which proclaims:
The Founding Fathers did not (1) "embrace separation of church and state, a buzz phrase that never appears in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights." The Founders (2) "intended no such separation."
Allow James Madison, Jr., "Father of the Constitution," to respond. Founding Father James Madison, in 1822, specifically wrote about his days as a patriot in"Virginia when religious liberty was a Legislative topic, to its broadest principle." And, earlier Madison (c.1817) wrote about the same principle as it applied to the United States of America under the Constitution:
"Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right and necessary.... The examples of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely and advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a further confirmation of the truth could we wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia where it is impossible to deny that Religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronised by Public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth that Governments do better without Kings and Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government" (Writings of James Madison, 9:101-103).
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (James Madison, "Detached Memoranda," William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555).
Now, read again the two assertions made above in the second paragraph by history revisionists Schweikart and Allen. The only fact about which they are correct is the words "church and state" never appear in the Constitution. No real historian says the words "church and state" are in the Constitution. Such wording is indeed inaccurate and a distortion of what the Constitution says. However, a proper understanding of American history and the Constitution is not based upon obvious distortions, as scholarly historians would admit. The religion commandments of the Constitution are about "religion," not church. The Founding Fathers commanded a "religious" test shall not be required (Art. 6., Sec. 3.), not a church test; and the First Congress commanded "religion" shall not be established by law or Congress (First Amendment), not a church or a religion. It is "religion" which shall not be established by law or Congress or government at any level. The essence of the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government is government-free voluntarism in matters of religion. Government is the essence of coercion. Patriot James Madison personally helped write the Constitution's religion commandments, and he understood the words he used. It is dishonest to change his words or revise the words of the Constitution.
Schweikart and Allen, in slanting their so-called "history" to their revisionist agenda, are dishonest historians who obviously pick and choose which words of history they want to use. They ignore James Madison and the words he wrote, as quoted above. Madison helped write both the Constitution of 1787 and the First Amendment of 1789. He is a primary source authority as to the meaning of the words of the Constitution. Madison clearly understood the words he wrote, and he says the words of the Constitution establish a principle of "separation between Religion and Government."
12. Ann Coulter, How To Talk To A Liberal, 2004, page 236.
Coulter uses the same deceptive revision of the Constitution's wording as used by Schweikart and Allen. Coulter writes about "the nonexistent 'separation of church and state' they claim is in the Constitution." Real historians and constitutionalists make no such claim. Coulter uses the obvious strawman or "bait and switch" argument. Coulter denies the existence of a word ("church") which is not in the Constitution. Hello? Coulter fails to quote James Madisonıs commentary about "separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution" ("Detached Memoranda," William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555), which word "religion" is in the Constitution.
Ann Coulter fails to mention that the Constitutionıs religion commandments obviously separate religion and government: The Founding Fathers commanded, "no religious test shall ever be required," (Constitution, Art. 6., Sec. 3.). The First Congress commanded, "no law respecting an establishment of religion," (First Amendment). Those commandments clearly separate religion and government: "no ... test" and "no law."
Conservative strict constructionists accept the wording of the Constitution as written. Writers who change the word "religion" to "church" are not "strict constructionists," they are liberals. Writers like Ann Coulter are flaming liberal constitutional revisionists who refuse to accept the word "religion" as written. Liberals change and revise the wording of the Constitution to suit themselves, like the revisionist Justice William H. Rehnquist, who, to fit his agenda, changed the word "religion" in the First Amendment to "church" in his 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree dissent.
Perhaps I should write a book about "How To Talk To A Revisionist (Ann Coulter)." Ann, if you happen to read this, the word in the Constitution is "religion," not church. Do not deny it. Do not revise it. Just accept, believe, and behold the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution's religion commandments. Then, go out into America and proclaim freedom as written in the supreme law of the land. Let your light shine as a beacon of understanding to those who dwell in the darkness of theocracy. Convert misguided revisionists into strict constructionists. The Age of Reason will welcome you, and so will I.
13. Bill O'Reilly, Culture Warrior, Broadway Books, New York, 2006.
On page 78, O'Reilly writes: "The 'separation' argument is one big lie."
James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," who personally helped write all three of the Constitution's religion commandments, wrote: "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" ("Detached Memoranda," William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555).
Who is the liar, James Madison or Bill O'Reilly?
On pages 78-79, quotes Texas Senator John Cornyn who said: "The First Amendment clearly provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor interfering with the free exercise thereof."
Cornyn is a revisionist who conveniently rewrites the First Amendment to suit himself. The word "interfering" is not in the Free Exercise Commandment. Hello? The word in the Free Exercise Commandment is "prohibiting," not "interfering." Bill O'Reilly did not do his homework.
In other words, the free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited, which means totally forbidden. Look up "prohibit" in the Oxford English Dictionary or in a Webster's Dictionary. The six man Senate-House conference committee which drafted the First Amendment in 1789, after much debate, used words carefully and understood the meaning of the words they wrote. The Free Exercise Commandment says the exercise of religion shall not be totally forbidden (which is what prohibit means--totally forbidden). The word prohibit is not the same word as "abridging" which relates to speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition and means reducing. A different word, "prohibiting," is used in regard to the exercise of religion and means what is says: Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting [totally forbidding] the free exercise of religion. All actions are subject to the laws of the land, regardless of religion. It is opinion only which is above the law. The "Free Exercise" Clause is not a license for anarchy.
On page 79 O'Reilly again quoted revisionist Cornyn: "We should, by right, be free to exercise our religious beliefs openly and to celebrate those beliefs as we choose."
Neither American citizens nor foreigners are free to violate the laws of the land "as we choose." O'Reilly revises and distorts the Constitution and advocates anarchy. No one, in the name of religion or not, has a constitutional freedom to disobey the laws of the land. Religion is not above the law; it's exercise simply cannot be prohibited, which means totally forbidden. The word "abridging," which means reducing, is not used in relation to the exercise of religion. The exercise of religion can be reduced, in conformity with the laws of the land. O'Reilly needs a dictionary and an English lesson.
Copyright 1995, 1998, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Click here to review list of other essays by Gene
Garman.