Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution and Religion

Rating:
Summary: A Great Historical Work
Review: David Barton has done an excellent job in factually documenting the faith as well as the opinions of our Founding Fathers regarding the Constitution. He has used first hand documents from the Founders era, not revisionist opinions from the 1900's. This is a must read book for anyone interested in the true intent of the 1st Amendment. One word of caution: This book could depress you once you realize how far we have strayed from the "Original Intent."

Rating:
Summary: All Americans should read this
Review: David Barton has done an excellent job on informing us of what were the original intentions of our Founding Fathers. Many Americans today will not admit that our country was founded upon Christian principles as outlined in the Bible. I believe this is because most text books do not address this topic and the current misconception of seperation of Church and State forbides students from studying this part of history. Barton's book is richly documented with original quotes from a variety of men who helped write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Additionally, he quotes a number of court cases which clearly show how modern day Supreme Court decisions have changed the intent of our Founding Fathers. Regardless of a person's religious beliefs, the historical foundations of our most important documents need to be discussed, not covered up. Every American should read this book and there is not doubt they'll be better informed as to where we started and where we've gone in the last two hundred years.

Rating:
Summary: Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion
Review: David Barton has put together a brilliant compilation of information, and legal decisions that completely shames all those that would lie about our nations true beginnings and heritage.Our country is being systematically dissolved through a court system only interested in furthering a tainted atheistic minority view of our nations forefathers and their original intent, when they drafted our greatest U.S. documents. They were human and imperfect, yet few today, could hope to draft such an eloquent document as the United States Constitution, without divine direction, obviously present in most of these mens lives so long ago. It is books like Mr. Barton's, that gives a normal God loving man hope in such a dark spiritual time for our country.

Rating:
Summary: Barton is Deceitful - This is not Christian philosophy
Review: Have you actually looked up any of the endnotes to this book? Barton based much of this book off of Lutz' The Origins of American Constitutionalism. Interestingly, Lutz devotes a full section of his article to political writings about the Constitution, and these data largely refute Barton's conclusions. Needless to say, Barton doesn't report these data, despite their relevance to his argument. Additionally, Barton attributes to Lutz and Hyneman conclusions they DO NOT reach about the importance of the Bible during the founding period. Barton's treatment of Lutz's data is both selective and dishonest, and sometimes Barton just down right lies!

This is not a Christian author, and shame on you for trying to spread these lies as historical facts. I would refer you to THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT

Exodus 20:16
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
(Goal) - to speak the truth in all things.
Sins - lies, harming the good name of others; rash judgement; detraction; slander (calumny); telling secrets we are bound to keep.

Rating:
Summary: Read the book and its endnotes for yourself
Review: I think the book is great!

One of the reasons why I think the book is great is that David Barton lists lots of references in the
endnote section in the back of the book. If you doubt what he claims the Founding Fathers said, he gives you the means to look up the quote from it's original source so you can read it for yourself.

In rebuttal to some who say that some of the quotes in the former edition of this book, The Myth of Separation, were retracted on Barton's website (www.wallbuilders.org), what those people do NOT say is that Barton withdrew them because he wanted to raise the standard for references and quotations by taking them ONLY from original source materials, not just on the say-so of professors, judges, history professors, legal scholars, and early textbooks. Although using quotations from such sources is acceptable in the acedmic community, Barton often testifies in court, and he wanted to use only the "best evidence."

Here's the web page for you to check Barton's statement of purposefor removing the unconfirmed quotes--
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=20

David Barton always has abundant endnotes in all his books, listing where he found his material.

I was surprised and pleased by his scholarly research that firmly shows that the modern interpretation of the First Amendment was not what the Founding Fathers intended at all!!!

The modern interpretation of "separation of Church and State" generally is that the government should not and cannot abide any Christian religious expression in government, public or private. He points out that the term "separation of Church and State" is not even found in the Declaration of Independence, the US Consitution, or the Bill of Rights, but was taken out of context from a private letter by Thomas Jefferson, who was not even in the country when the Bill of Rights was haggled over and written. In the context in that letter, "separation of Church and State" meant that the US government would never regulate or prohibit religious expression.

Congratulations to David Barton for countering the sloppy decisions of the modern courts, which go against almost 200 years of judicial precedent, including precedents made by Founding Fathers themselves.

As a side note, but related to this subject, if you watched the state funeral of President Reagan, did you notice that one place where services was held was in the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.? National Cathedral is the result of plans of the Founding Fathers, starting in 1792, when the Plan of the Federal City set aside land for a "great church for national purposes." http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc5.htm

Check out Original Intent and its endnotes for yourself!

Rating:
Summary: ORIGINAL INTENT: IT'LL KEEP YOU FROM STEPPING IN IT!
Review: If one was to look through my Amazon reviews they would find that I rarely award 5 Stars to any product, but I would be making a mockery of the grading system if I said that David Barton's, ORIGINAL INTENT was anything less than a 5 Star publication. (And I'm not even a "Christian" by contemporary definition.)

ORIGINAL INTENT played a major role in my self-education (which is the only REAL education. Trust professional educators to direct you to knowledge and you'll get all of the information that seemingly supports their bias, and no more!) ORIGINAL INTENT is a genuine masterpiece of research that meets the stringent standards of scholarship; it will certainly blow the lid off of what you've been conditioned to believe about "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" (it exists neither in word nor concept in ANY Founding Document) and the religious nature of early America and Her Founders.

As the back cover states: "A DIRECT VICTIM OF...JUDICIAL MICROMANAGEMENT HAS BEEN THE RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT...ADDITIONAL CASUALTIES OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM HAVE INCLUDED PROTECTIONS FOR STATE'S RIGHTS, LOCAL CONTROLS, SEPARATION OF POWERS, LEGISLATIVE SUPREMACY, AND NUMEROUS OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. WHY DID EARLIER COURTS PROTECT THESE POWERS FOR GENERATIONS, AND WHAT HAS CAUSED THEIR EROSION BY CONTEMPORARY COURTS? 'ORIGINAL INTENT' ANSWERS THESE QUESTIONS. BY RELYING ON THOUSANDS OF PRIMARY SOURCES, 'ORIGINAL INTENT' DOCUMENTS (IN THE FOUNDING FATHERS' OWN WORDS) NOT ONLY THE PLAN FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT ORIGINALLY SET FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS, BUT HOW THAT VISION CAN ONCE AGAIN BECOME REALITY."

The thesis of this book is supported by an astonishingly extensive array of quotations and judicial citations - over 1,400 footnotes to explore for substantiation. The appendix includes THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and THE U.S. CONSTITUTION in full.

Sure, you'll encounter the occasional mendacious "Historian" and indoctrinated "M.A." who broadly claim that Barton is a liar, but don't expect them to get more specific; they can't! To be sure, there are liars in the house, however, Barton is not amongst them.

Incidentally, regarding "HISTORIAN's" comment about Donald Lutz : Yes, his 'The Origins Of American Constitutionalism' is cited in ORIGINAL INTENT, along with (by my count) 451 other publications. Barton borrows from his book in only one chapter (#11, which accounts for 14 of ORIGINAL INTENT's 346 pages of non-appendix text) in the form of 2 charts isolating our Founding Fathers' most frequently quoted sources. To say that Barton's statistics are distortion is falsehood unless the findings of Lutz et al., were distorted to begin with. Barton relies strictly on the clear meaning of the Founding Fathers as revealed by their own words and official documents. But what he reveals in his masterpiece so unnerves the liberals and/or atheists (read : Socialists and/or Secular Humanists) that these flapjacks will say ANYTHING to dissuade you from reading it!

For a cookie-cutter, milquetoast-looking "Christian", ol' David Barton knows how to linguistically put up his dukes. He's got a strong jab and a knockout "RIGHT" "CROSS". I like that; I like a punishing counter-puncher! To see how Barton counterpunches "Historians", "M.A.s" and other flapjacks, go to his website, www.wallbuilders.com and click on "Issues & Articles" (under the category of "Resources") and read the article, "Taking On The Critics."

If I was your benevolent dictator, nobody would receive a high school diploma until they had demonstrated that they had a comprehensive understanding of the content of the books, 'NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON: 25 YEARS LATER' by John Stormer; 'THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND' by G. Edward Griffin; and 'ORIGINAL INTENT' by David Barton. Read these three and you'll never again slip on the political dog poop that is continually strewn about by your judges, your media, your professors, your politicians, and some of your fellow Amazon reviewers. The TRUTH will not only make you free, but it will keep that smelly stuff off of your shoes and out of your mind!


Rating:
Summary: Relationship of courts, Constitution and religion made clear
Review: This is the single best book on the judiciary and the Constitution I have ever read, and I recommend it without reservation to anyone interested in judicial activism. For those who believe that the courts have way over-stepped their Constitutional limits, this book will provide sources and ammunition to make anyone who thinks different look like an idiot. For those who believe in a "living Constitution" (PC code-word meaning a judge can do anything he wants), you had better read this to understand the strength of the opposition's view point.

Barton explores extensively the role of Christianity in founding this country and devastates the current revisionists who claim the founders were randy, atheistic and selfish. He uses so many quotes and original sources that I sometimes found myself thinking, "Enough already - You've proved the point." He explodes the current myths demonizing Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the like with research rather than misleading rhetoric.

"Original Intent" is especially strong when discussing the title concept. There is no question that the current judicial legislation is directly opposite to what the Constitution intended.

In spite of studying the founding of this country for years, the author finds and quotes so many new sources that I am amazed that I've missed all of these for all these years. Which, of course, fits Barton's broad assertions of a society where truth is ridiculed and censored away from the people so that it is difficult to find the truth even if you try.

Read this if it's the only book on the subject you read.