David Barton: The Constitution Doesn’t Mention God, Which Proves It’s Not a Secular Document May 13, 2017

David Barton: The Constitution Doesn’t Mention God, Which Proves It’s Not a Secular Document

As many atheists will tell you, the word “God” appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Religious appears twice, both times preceded by the word “no.”

Yet Christian pseudo-historian David Barton insists that this is proof the Constitution is not secular. (That’s not a typo.)

This is Barton lying. We know this because his mouth is open.
This is Barton lying. We know this because his mouth is open.

“People say, ‘Well, the word “God” isn’t in the Constitution,’” Barton said. “There’s a reason for that and it doesn’t mean it’s secular, it means just the opposite.”

As Barton sees it, there are four mentions of God in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is really nothing more than “part two of the Declaration,” so the Founding Fathers didn’t need to bother mentioning it again.

“They didn’t feel like they had to say anything in the Constitution because they’ve already said it really strongly in the Declaration,” Barton claimed. “Why repeat it? Because this is just the completion of the Declaration, if you will.”

As if we ought to pay attention to what the document says between the lines when making laws. Curse those activist judges who read only what’s written in the Constitution!

Barton then blamed “brainless kind of professors” for perpetuating the idea that the Constitution is a secular document.

But we don’t even need to blame their interpretations. The First Amendment makes clear there’s to be no government establishment of religion. The Founders didn’t need to use the word “God” to make their point; if they wanted a religious country, they could’ve suggested as much in a variety of ways.

They didn’t.

This is just David Barton attempting to rewrite history because the facts don’t fit his agenda.

What’s sad is how many Christians will fall for his lies.

(via Right Wing Watch)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!