Rewriting Original Intent by David Barton

The legislature used general terms and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts, under those circumstances, to say that, however broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute. Previous courts had long applied this principle to cases on the First Amendment, consistently finding that the Founders’ sole intent was to prevent the federal establishment of a single denomination of Christianity. However, the nation now finds itself under the “absurd results” stemming from the Courts’ ignoring the Founders’ massive documentation concerning the purpose of the First Amendment. Our Founders never envisioned that the First Amendment would become a weapon to excise Christian or traditional religious expressions from the public arena.

Eight of the Supreme Court’s contemporary landmark religious liberty cases will be reviewed in this chapter; each will demonstrate that the absurd results feared by previous Courts have now become commonplace. As the Court’s rulings in these eight cases are reviewed, rebuttals to the Court’s rulings will also be presented. These rebuttals will be taken from two sources: one, the statements and declarations of the Founding Fathers, and two, the dissents of other Justices, thus presenting the other side of the Court’s decision. According to the following proverb, such an examination is vital to determining truth: He who states his case first seems right until his rival comes and cross-examines him. Proverbs 18:17 Amplified Bible

Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight. Proverbs 18:17 Living bible

Through the “cross-examination” provided both by the dissents and by the Founders’ declarations, it will quickly become evident how extensively contemporary Courts not only have abandoned but also have contradicted the original intent of the First Amendment. McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948

This case, decided the year following the Everson decision which introduced the separation phrase, was typical of an issue frequently raised in subsequent cases: can voluntary religious activities be unconstitutional? The controversy in this case was over elective classes offered in Illinois schools. The Court delineated the facts:

David Barton – You invited them and you move the spectators on to being fans, then the fans to the team members, and team members on to the players.