The Question No One Asks David Barton

Jason Pitzl-Waters —  May 9, 2011 — 33 Comments

This past week saw a flood of new coverage and commentary concerning Christian pseudo-historian David Barton thanks to a New York Times profile and a much-discussed appearance on The Daily Show. The wave of media attention is due to his standing with three possible Republican presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and Representative Michele Bachmann. While I appreciate the various examinations and criticisms about Barton that have popped up as a result, none have broached one of the most troubling views Barton peddles to his admirers and followers.

“The true historic meaning of “religion” excludes paganism and witchcraft, and thus, does not compel a conclusion that McCollum has state taxpayer standing … paganism and witchcraft were never intended to receive the protections of the Religion Clauses. Thus, in the present case there can be no violation of those clauses … Should this Court conclude that McCollum has taxpayer standing … this Court should at least acknowledge that its conclusion is compelled by Supreme Court precedent, not by history or the intent of the Framers.”

That quote is from an amicus brief written by Barton in the case of Patrick M. McCollum; et al., v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, currently before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. McCollum v. CDCR centers on the state of California’s discriminatory “five faiths” policy, which limits the hiring of paid chaplains to Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Native American adherents. Right there, on the record, Barton straight-up denies Pagans equal religious protections under the law. This is why I become concerned when politicians say his views should be taught in public schools. Not because he’s Christian, or a bad historian, but because he flatly denies minority faiths equal treatment under the constitution. If the mainstream media had any teeth, they would be pressing Barton, and any politician who seeks his approval, on this issue.

The fact is that early Americans did indeed consider the issue of non-Christians gaining equal rights under the constitution, and spoke (and debated) at great length on the subject. The idea that the Free Exercise Clause doesn’t apply to non-Christians is dangerous, ahistorical, and stupid. That Barton is preaching this lie weakens the very foundations he claims to revere. The fact is that the Founders were educated and far-sighted men who understood quite well what they were constructing and its implications. Barton would have them be short-sighted dolts. So long as the depth of Barton’s extremism is glossed over, we’ll never get a chance to pin him down on this very, very important issue.

In Paganism, Religion , , , , , ,
permalink

Jason Pitzl-Waters

Posts

  • http://www.bryonmorrigan.com BryonMorrigan

    That was one of the things that disappointed me about Jon Stewart's interview. He should've been way harder on him, and pressed him on religious freedom for minorities, and his use of now-debunked fake quotations. They're treating him like a mildly controversial Conservative voice…when he SHOULD be treated with the same disdain as a Holocaust Denier.

  • http://blog.dianarajchel.com Diana

    I think it's well worth pointing out that more than one signatory on the Declaration of Independence considered himself an agnostic or atheist. This was just as much about non-believers protecting their interests as it was protecting the interests of people cleaving to faiths common in the late 1700s.

    • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

      The word "agnostic" had not been coined at the time, and I seriously doubt that there is any convincing evidence that anyone who signed the Declaration was as an atheist.

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    In practice, Americans have often (most of the time, actually) acted as if "freedom of religion" is the freedom to choose the Protestant church of one's choice. At one point (during the 20th century!) the Supreme Court upheld a ruling that "Hindoos" cannot become naturalized citizens, and if they did should have their citizenship revoked. That dark episode in American legal history also highlights how race and religion are tightly interwoven in the American and European psyches, since "Hindoos" were explicitly barred from becoming citizens because they were not "Caucasians"!

    This is not a settled issue, even in principle, let alone in practice. The courts do have the authority to determine what is and what is not to be considered "a religion."

    • Ralph

      I'm an attorney and am not aware of this case. Do you have the name and a citation?

      • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

        It is quite a well known case, actually. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it:

        U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923). And here is a web page that talks about it: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076/

        Some excerpts from Justice George Sutherland's decision:

        "If the applicant is a white person within the meaning of this section he is entitled to naturalization; otherwise not."

        "We are unable to agree with the District Court, or with other lower federal courts in the conclusion that a native Hindu is eligible for naturalization …"

        "What, if any, people of primarily Asiatic stock come within the words of the section we do not deem it necessary now to decide. There is much in the origin and historic development of the statute to suggest that no Asiatic whatever was included."

        "It is not without significance in this connection that Congress, by the Act of February 5, 1917 . . . has now excluded from admission into this country all natives of Asia within designated limits of latitude and longitude, including the whole of India. This not only constitutes conclusive evidence of the congressional attitude of opposition to Asiatic immigration generally, but is persuasive of a similar attitude toward Asiatic naturalization as well, since it is not likely that Congress would be willing to accept as citizens a class of persons whom it rejects as immigrants."

        And here is the case at FindLaw.Com:
        U.S. v. BHAGAT SINGH THIND, 261 U.S. 204 (1923)

        • embreis

          This is an interesting and instructive case if you're interested in the language of institutional racism, but it should be noted that the Court was not ruling on the power of Congress to make discriminatory laws, because the plaintiff, Bhagat Singh Thind, didn't challenge the law on the basis that discrimination is wrong. He was asking the Court to declare that he, as "Caucasian" and an "Aryan," was white. Presumably, he had no problem with discrimination against non-whites, as long as he was defined on the white side of the line.

        • Ralph

          I never had heard of it. Thanks for the cite. I skimmed the decision. It appears it revolves around the Chinese Exclusion Act which was a racist statute, not an explicitly religious discriminatory statute. One of the good things I guess about WWII was that the Nazi horrors finally got our jurists to condemn race based statutes…eventually.

  • http://www.hecatedemetersdatter.blogpsot.com Hecate

    Interesting order out of the 9th Circuit today in Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Geithner, a case that challenges the federal "parsonage exemption" in sections 107 and 265(a)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 107 provides:
    "In the case of a minister of the gospel, gross income does not include— (1) the rental value of a home furnished to him as part of his compensation; or (2) the rental allowance paid to him as part of his compensation, to the extent used by him to rent or provide a home and to the extent such allowance does not exceed the fair rental value of the home, including furnishings and appurtenances such as a garage, plus the cost of utilities." It also challenges a similar California law. Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of a minister of the gospel who wanted to intervene. I guess we've still got a long way to go. My preference would be to see this give-away of tax dollars to religions eliminated. But if some religions get it, all should, not just those based upon "the gospel."

  • Galina Krasskova

    'true historic meaning' of the word 'religion'? Firstly, there is no one, neat, universally accepted definition of religion. that was the first thing that I learned, literally in the first class I took when doing my graduate work in religious studies. Secondly, monotheism and the Christianity he espouses are both fairly young blips on the radar of the religious history. Thirdly, our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing and fully intended, as even a cursory overview of their writings will clearly show, to be as inclusive as possible on the subject of religion.

    I agree with BryonMorrigan, this man should be treated like a 'Holocaust denier." I think it's the same hatred and prejudice that's fueling his far flung claims. I can't say I'm surprised that the media has not drilled him harder on the issue of minority religions though it sickens me to say that. There is still a tremendous amount of hostility toward non-Christian religions out there.

  • Bill Wheaton

    Wait. "The Question No One Asks David Barton"…. what is the question? I didn't see one in the article. I saw an indictment of Barton, I agree with the summary. But… whats the question no one asks? "Why do you believe in Christian Theocracy instead of what the founders of and the current vast majority of Americans believe in"?

    Did I miss it? Can you be more exact?
    -Bill

    • Khryseis_Astra

      I believe the questions that many of us would have liked to have been asked were "Do you truly believe the religious freedom of the First Amendment applies to only a handful out of the thousands of faiths practiced in this country? Do you truly think some faiths are 'more equal' than others?"

      I really expected Jon Stewart to pounce on this one, but it's possible he's unaware of just how deep this particular rabbit hole goes…

      • Bill Wheaton

        both good questions.

    • grimmorrigan

      Possible questions are: " What medications are you not taking?" " Do you know Jesus is shaking his head disapprovingly at you?" " What do Domionists do for fun?" What is it like balancing lies, misinformation, and hate with the messge of your Lord?" " So how do you keep your crazy from tearing a hole in reality?" " Were you not loved enough as a child….were you loved too much?" "So…are their vitamin suppliments you use to stay so full of hate?" " Would you like a Dr. Pepper and B***J**? It might settle you down a notch."

      • Bill Wheaton

        I love snark. vitamin suppliments… bwaaah!

    • harmonyfb

      "The Question No One Asks David Barton"…. what is the question?

      "Mr. Barton, what the hell is WRONG with you?" would be my guess.

  • Random Asatruar

    While I agree that his bigotry should be a primary concern, his bad history should be a close second.
    Especially with public schools.

  • Sehnga

    Being concerned about equal rights is critical, I agree, but this is merely a blip inside the bigger picture, whch is the pseudo-xtian Right Wing slowly taking over and changing the very fundamentals of this country – as Barton's views so aptly illustrate his ilk. As we speak, they are purchasing universities (and have been for decades) – to eliminate liberal 'agenda's' being taught. We are truly headed for serious trouble if this continues; and they've made huge progress since the 70's. They have enormous monies behind them, and in 53 years, I haven't seen their agenda change; I've only seen it progressing; sometimes more slowly, sometimes more quickly. Bad, bad times.

  • Vanye

    I still find it sad, and terrifying, that our most potent journalist is nominally a comedian and satirist.
    Thank gods the old ways still live on…

  • Baruch Dreamstalker

    The mainstream media don't ask Barton this question for the same reason they didn't go after Jim Tohey (sp?) in the early Bush II administration for saying that Pagans don't have good enough hearts to support charities. It doesn't sell papers.

  • Tony

    "True historic meaning" of any word is a nonsense to any linguist. Words change meaning over the years, and you can either trace the changing meaning of the word, or what it means in context today. But there is no Platonic "absolute" meaning, even if some people try to suggest that the original meaning of a word is it's "true" meaning. It's not, any more than a newborn baby is the "true" human being. I suggest he reads a good popular linguist like Steven Pinker (Words and Rules)

  • Crystal7431

    He wouldn't bother because it doesn't support his dominionist ideology. These people very much know they are lying, but they have to sell their garbage to the masses somehow.

  • badocelot

    I disagree: what the Framers meant by a word or phrase is important. No one actually thinks the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to have the arms of bears, for instance, but you can read it that way if you ignore the context.

    However, even if the Framers didn't considered indigenous religions to be religions (to say nothing of religions that didn't exist yet), we now know they were simply wrong about that. To argue otherwise requires you argue that when they talked about "religion" they weren't talking about the same thing we are.

    Which is maybe what Barton is doing, but then he's wrong, too.

  • chuck_cosimano

    And that is why linguists are not taken very seriously by any historian.

  • Khryseis_Astra

    I think there's plenty of evidence that the Founders meant religious freedom to be applied across the board, to believer and non-believers alike. Just a sampling:

    "…an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ…the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'"

    "No man [should] be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor [should he] be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor … otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief … All men [should] be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and … the same [should] in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

    "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."

    Of course, such words are why so many of the Far Right want all mention of Thomas Jefferson stricken from public school textbooks. *sigh*

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    The Founders were divided on this issue. Remember that the Constitution originally contained no enumeration of individual rights at all. Patrick Henry was one of the leaders of the movement for what came to be known as the "Bill of Rights", but Henry went on to then lead a campaign in Virginia for publicly subsidizing "teachers of the Christian religion". In Virginia, Henry was opposed by Jefferson and Adams, who eventually prevailed but it was a bitter fight lasting several years.

  • Shawn McNulty

    Do you have a citation for that quote? I'd love to use it.

  • embreis

    Actually, it doesn't, although it does implicitly accept the validity of the statute it's been asked to construe. That may seem like a fine distinction to non-lawyers, but it reflects the way appellate cases are actually made: the Court doesn't generally rule on matters it isn't asked to consider, and comments in opinions that aren't germane to the question before the court are obiter dicta.
    That's not to say the 1923 Supreme Court would not have upheld Congress' right to set racial quotas: likely it would have if the case had come up.
    The Court's approach to race changed radically in the last 80 years, beginning in the 1930s. Consider that one of the principal architects of the more "liberal" approach to minority rights, Hugo Black, was still a member of the Ku Klux Klan in 1923.

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    The language of the ruling leaves no doubt as to the unquestioning support of the justices for the use of race as a criterion for who is eligible for becoming a naturalized citizen. In fact, the court goes out of its way to do this, since strictly speaking they are not asked to rule on the legitimacy of race as a criterion, only on the correct application of that criterion.

    The ruling not only legitimizes the racial test for naturalized citizenship, but matter-of-factly seeks to facilitate the implementation of this test. The court also broadcasts its approval for recent (at the time) congressional action to block "Asiatic" immigrants, and makes use of this political incident to end the opinion on a smugly and openly racist note.

    Justices can, and frequently do, express their opinions in ways that go beyond what they narrowly "rule on". This is a case in point. In their opinion on U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind, (1) the Supreme Court actively engaged in apologetics on behalf of racism, and (2) the justices demonstrated their eagerness to provide as firm a legal basis as possible for openly racist legislation.

  • Khryseis_Astra

    The first comes from Jefferson's Autobiography. The second comes from the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom. The third comes from Jefferson's Notes on Virginia.

  • Chris

    As a historian, I beg to differ. I take linguists and the fluidity of language very seriously in my work. Any serious study of Constitutional law must consider not only the meaning the Framers intended, but also the entire history of judicial interpretation. It must also consider how the context of interpretation has changed. In no case do the words of the Constitution mean for us today exactly what they meant for even individual "Founders" (let alone all the "Founders" collectively).

  • Aristophanes

    You're not looking at the context. Yes, it was a racist. No one is disputing that. But, at the time, there were not "five faiths" to be considered there were "three races". For citizenship purposes in the U.S.A., you had to be categorized as "Caucasian", "African", or "Asian". (There may have been a fourth category that I am forgetting.) Only if you could prove that you were in the first category could you even be considered. What Mr. Thind was trying to prove was that there is a difference between 'Hindu' and 'Asian'. A number of people of Arab extraction also successfully went to court to be "legally White". :)