Yet Even More Evidence That David Barton's History Cannot Be Trusted

Just last month, we wrote a long post exposing the way in which David Barton routinely misrepresents court cases in an effort to support his pseudo-history and promote his cultural and political agenda. Today, we came across another instance of Barton doing the same thing with a different court case while delivering a presentation a few weeks ago at Calvary Chapel in San Jose, California.

Barton was making the case that, until the Supreme Court's decision in Abington Township v. Schempp in 1963 — which Barton also routinely misrepresents — teaching the Bible in public schools had been the norm. To support this point, Barton cited the Supreme Court's 1844 ruling in a case called Vidal v. Girard's Executors, which he claimed declared that no school that refused to teach the Bible could receive public funds:

"We look at Christian schools today," Barton said, "and we think that's alternative education. No, no, no. Christians schools is mainstream education. Secular education is brand new in America. We never had that before. That's the new thing ... In 1844, the U.S. Supreme Court had case called Vidal v. Girard's Executors and what you had was a government-operated school that was not going to teach the Bible and the Supreme Court came back with an unanimous 8-0 decision and the Supreme Court said well, if you don't want to teach the Bible, you don't have to teach the Bible but you do have to become a private school. We're not going to fund any public school that won't teach the Bible.

As usual, if you actually take the time to read this case, the facts in no way support Barton's interpretation.

The case involved an extremely wealthy man named Stephen Girard who, as a childless widower, left in his will large sums of money to the City of Philadelphia for various civic improvements, as well as money to establish a school for "poor male white orphan children."

Among the stipulations Girard placed upon the school was that no religious leader was ever to hold a position there, nor could any specific denominational doctrine be taught:

I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college, nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.

In making this restriction, I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever, but as there is such a multitude of sects and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans who are to derive advantage from this bequest free from the excitement which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce; my desire is that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that, on their entrance into active life, they may, from inclination and habit, evince benevolence towards their fellow creatures and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.

Some of Girard's heirs then sued on various technical grounds that are not germane to Barton's point, as well as by arguing that prohibiting clergy from working or teaching at the school was a violation of both the Constitution and the Common Law because it discriminated against Christianity.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument:

All that we can gather from his language is that he desired to exclude sectarians and sectarianism from the college, leaving the instructors and officers free to teach the purest morality, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, by all appropriate means, and of course including the best, the surest, and the most impressive. The objection, then, in this view, goes to this -- either that the testator has totally omitted to provide for religious instruction in his scheme of education (which, from what has been already said, is an inadmissible interpretation), or that it includes but partial and imperfect instruction in those truths. In either view can it be truly said that it contravenes the known law of Pennsylvania upon the subject of charities, or is not allowable under the article of the bill of rights already cited? Is an omission to provide for instruction in Christianity in any scheme of school or college education a fatal defect, which avoids it according to the law of Pennsylvania? If the instruction provided for is incomplete and imperfect, is it equally fatal? These questions are propounded because we are not aware that anything exists in the Constitution or laws of Pennsylvania or the judicial decisions of its tribunals which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal. Let us take the case of a charitable donation to teach poor orphans reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and navigation, and excluding all other studies and instruction; would the donation be void, as a charity in Pennsylvania, as being deemed derogatory to Christianity? Hitherto it has been supposed that a charity for the instruction of the poor might be good and valid in England even if it did not go beyond the establishment of a grammar school. And in America, it has been thought, in the absence of any express legal prohibitions, that the donor might select the studies, as well as the classes of persons, who were to receive his bounty without being compellable to make religious instruction a necessary part of those studies. It has hitherto been thought sufficient, if he does not require anything to be taught inconsistent with Christianity.

Looking to the objection therefore in a mere juridical view, which is the only one in which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is nothing in the devise establishing the college, or in the regulations and restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian religion or are opposed to any known policy of the State of Pennsylvania.

This view of the whole matter renders it unnecessary for us to examine the other and remaining question, to whom, if the devise were void, the property would belong, whether it would fall into the residue of the estate devised to the city, or become a resulting trust for the heirs at law.

Upon the whole, it is the unanimous opinion of the Court that the decree of the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania dismissing the bill, ought to be affirmed, and it is accordingly.

Barton's representation of this case is entirely false, as it had literally nothing to do with the teaching of the Bible nor any requirement that schools must do so in order to receive public funds.

Despite the fact that his claims are totally false, Barton will nonetheless continue to make them in future presentations, secure in the knowledge that his Religious Right supporters will never hold him accountable for his misinformation and misrepresentations.

AFA Spox Says 'Entitled' Michael Brown Received Justice: 'God Says There Will Be Consequences'

American Family Association news director Fred Jackson spoke today about a St. Louis County grand jury’s decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting of unarmed African American teenager Michael Brown, declaring that Brown had a “mentality of entitlement” and ultimately paid the price for his alleged role in the theft of cigars from a convenience store earlier that day. Apparently stealing cigars comes with the penalty of death!

Jackson made the comments while guest-hosting American Family Radio’s “Sandy Rios in the Morning”:

We have to get back to the reality, there are moral truths and when people break those moral truths and decide to violate them, there are consequences. On that day, August 9th in Ferguson, Missouri, when Michael Brown went into that convenient store and stole that box of cigars, he was making a moral decision. Now no one knows what was in Michael Brown’s head that day but one could speculate that he believed he was above being told he should not steal, he was above getting any consequences for his actions. He went on to assault police officer Darren Wilson. He believed, Michael Brown, apparently, that he was allowed to do that. It is that mentality of entitlement, that mentality that says ‘you have your truth, I have mine,’ that I believe is at the core of this.

Later in the program, Jackson said Brown disobeyed the absolute truths laid out by God and had to face the consequences for his actions because “God says there will be consequences.” He added that Brown’s death was also the result of “the breakdown of the family.”

What we’ve been talking about this morning: the existence of absolute truth, and that is what’s under attack today. Absolute truth is defined by scripture, the Bible, God’s word, that’s how it’s defined and when you violate that, there are consequences. Now you may get away with it for a while, for a period, but God says there will be consequences. Both our callers, I think, addressing the crux of the problem here this morning is the family, is the breakdown of the family. When you do not have a dad figure around there is not someone there in authority to demonstrate there are consequences to violating the rules. If you don’t have that presence in the family, you’re going to have problems.

Pat Robertson: ArcheAge, Dungeons & Dragons Lead To Demonic Possession

Pat Robertson offered a stern warning today against playing games such as ArcheAge and Dungeons & Dragons, insisting that they may lead to demonic possession.

Robertson, who has frequently attacked Dungeons & Dragons, even tying the game to suicide, said on “The 700 Club” this morning that the game led people to do “horrible things and it was almost like an invitation to demonic possession,” while conceding that he has never heard of ArcheAge.

“I think we shouldn’t get ourselves involved in something we are roleplaying a thing having to do with demonic forces,” he said.

Right Wing Round-Up - 11/24/14

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 11/24/14

  • Christian Nationalist David Lane's effort to turn America into a theocracy moves forward as he seeks to recruit 1,000 pastors to run for public office.
  • David Lazarus says that Muslims praying in the National Cathedral "looked like a chilling scene from a Last Days, anti-Christ-takes-over-the-world disaster movie."
  • Here is a helpful tip for the folks over at OneNewsNow: The man in the image featured in this article is not Bishop Harry Jackson, it is E.W. Jackson.
  • Glenn Beck continues to insist that "the AP should be ashamed of themselves" for having "raped" Bill Cosby.
  • True the Vote warns that after Obama’s immigration action "noncitizens numbering in the millions" will cast fraudulent ballots, transforming American citizens from "citizens to subjects."
  • Finally, John Hagee called President Obama "one of the most anti-Semitic presidents in the history of the United States of America."

Rand Paul Fundraises For Personhood Group

Despite claiming that he opposes “changing any of the laws” on abortion rights and birth control, Sen. Rand Paul remains the chief sponsor of the federal personhood bill, the Life at Conception Act, in the U.S. Senate.

In fact, Paul is now signing emails on behalf of a the National Pro-Life Alliance, a group founded with the explicit goal of passing personhood laws banning abortion and common forms of birth control.

In a fundraising email for the group today, the Kentucky senator and likely presidential candidate touts his personhood bill, saying that it would stop “the slaughter” and effectively overturn Roe v. Wade. He adds that now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress, the personhood movement is in “a better than ever position” to force a vote on the bill.

For more than 40 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.

They have invented laws that condemned to painful deaths without trial more than 61 million babies for the crime of being "inconvenient."

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation's throat.

In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there -- passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.

But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won't be offended.

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.

That is why it's so urgent you sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman that I will link to in a moment.

Thanks to the results of the last election, you and I are in a better than ever position to force an up or down roll call vote on the Life at Conception Act.

A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children "persons" as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to "collapse."

By turning up the heat on Congress in 2015 through a massive, national, grass-roots campaign, one of two things will happen.

If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can force politicians from both parties who were elected on pro-life platforms to make good on their promises and ultimately win passage of this bill.

But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn't pass immediately, the public attention will set the stage to defeat radical abortionists in the 2016 elections.

Either way, the unborn win . . . unless you do nothing.

But I'm sure you'll agree pro-lifers cannot just sit by watching the slaughter continue.

The National Pro-Life Alliance's goal is to deliver one million petitions to the House and Senate in support of a Life at Conception Act.

The Supreme Court itself admitted -- if Congress declares unborn children "persons" under the law, the constitutional case for abortion-on-demand "collapses."

Fischer: Banning 'Stop And Frisk' Is 'A Hate Crime Against Black Citizens'

On "Meet The Press" yesterday, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Georgetown University professor Michael Eric Dyson had a heated exchange on the issue of police violence in black communities. On his radio show today, Bryan Fischer predictably sided with Giuliani on the issue, declaring that banning the use of "stop and frisk" policing was committing a hate crime against black people.

Fischer, whose love of black men is well established, asserted that since most of those arrested under "stop and frisk" were black, the people who were most protected by "stop and frisk" were other black people.

"These areas were riven with black-on-black crime," Fischer said. "Stop and frisk started to bring those numbers down. When you go away from stop and frisk ... you are endangering black citizens. It's like a hate crime against black citizens. You are exposing them to risk by removing a law enforcement tool":


The Perfect Ex-Gay Christmas Gift

Unless your family has fallen victim to the War on Christmas, Mission America’s Linda Harvey knows just the thing to get that gay or lesbian friend this year: her new book, “Maybe He’s Not Gay.”

Harvey authored the book to peddle ex-gay pseudo-science and further explain her claim that gay people do not exist, telling listeners of her radio bulletin today that it would make a perfect Christmas gift.

If you were wondering what to get your teen or college student for Christmas, how about giving them the gift of common sense and morality? This is the way many people have described my book, ‘Maybe He’s Not Gay: Another View On Homosexuality,’” she said. “Same-sex relationships are not what anyone was born for yet there are reasons why people get there and even more reasons why they can leave those feelings behind.”

Schlafly On Immigrants: 'The Class Of People Coming In Now' Just Don't Understand America

In an interview with WorldNetDaily published on Friday, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly said that while previous generations of immigrants “became 200 percent Americans,” the “class of people coming in now…don’t really have any comprehension of our system of government and look to big government to be their guide of whatever they want to do.”

Schlafly has previously said that Latino immigrants “don’t understand” the Bill of Rights.

“Obama’s moving ahead with his attempt to do all kinds of illegal things in order to bring in illegal aliens and give the Democrats more votes,” she said. “That’s what it’s for.”

The veteran activist said she has talked to many immigrants who came to the U.S. as teenagers two or three generations ago. Their parents taught them to leave their native ways behind and fully immerse themselves in America.

“Those people came in and became 200 percent Americans,” Schlafly said. “But that’s not the class of people coming in now, who don’t really have any comprehension of our system of government and look to big government to be their guide of whatever they want to do.”

Schlafly also told WND that President Obama is to blame if riots break out after the grand jury verdict in Ferguson, Missouri because he “fomented [unrest] in order to hopefully win the election”:

But conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly believes Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder also used the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, for political purposes.

“I think that Obama and his attorney general really fomented [unrest] in order to hopefully win the election on November 4,” Schlafly said. “They wanted to inflame people in order to get their voters out to vote. I think it was deliberately done, and they weren’t content to just let the process take its course.

“I think it has backfired, and the Republicans won a tremendous victory despite everything,” she added.

A grand jury is deciding the fate of Officer Darren Wilson. An announcement on whether there will be charges could come any day.

Schlafly, whose recently published book “Who Killed the American Family?” came out just days before she turned 90, said Obama and Holder will be culpable if riots break out in Ferguson.

“But whether the public will see it that way, I don’t know,” she said.

'Impeach Or Insurrection': VDARE Writer Calls For Nativist Third Party If GOP Fails To Impeach Obama

James Kirkpatrick, a writer for the white nationalist website VDARE (home of former National Review columnist John Derbyshire and racist conservative strategist Steve Sailer) argued last week that if the GOP fails to impeach President Obama over his executive action on immigration, nativist Republicans should form a third party along the lines of the fiercely anti-immigrant United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).

“The alternatives are clear,” Kirkpatrick wrote on Friday: “impeachment, or insurrection.”

The truth is only real legal weapon the Republican Congress has isimpeachment—a tool that was put in place by the Founders for precisely this kind of situation. If Republicans don’t impeach, it’s hard to see why Republican voters should care about winning them the next election, or indeed any election to come.

For American patriots, the solution then will be political insurrection via a Third Party and/or the c reation of a new political force with the power to cripple the GOP and draw votes from Democrats via the white working class.

This is precisely what is occurring in the even more difficult political environment in Great Britain. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) recently inherited another defector from the Conservative Party, which is also being betrayed by its leadership. Mark Reckless took the honorable route of putting himself up for re-election in his old constituency and has won a crushing victory. This opens the way for UKIP to become a force in Parliament for the first time. [ Rochester: Farage looks to more UKIP gains after success, BBC, November 21, 2014]

And if UKIP can do it in a media climate even worse than that of America, there’s no reason Americans can’t.

Parties die if they don’t respond to changing conditions. The person who can control a thing has a power to destroy it. Immigration patriots have, if not the power to fully control the GOP, at least the power to prevent it from ever winning another election.

The alternatives are clear—impeachment, or insurrection.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious