David Barton—the Newest Anti-Mason
A Critique of David Barton’s Use Washington’s Inaugural Speech
www.PreciousHeart.net/freemasonry
This following is
was clipped from part II, chapter 4 of my book,
The book version
is now condensed, to make room for other more important material.
Second Distraction in Barton’s Original Intent—
His Revisionism of Washington’s Inaugural Speech
The second grossly distracting element in David Barton’s Original Intent is how he himself revises history in his own chapter deriding historical revisionism. Barton does precisely what he laments when he misrepresents and then slices Freemasonry. His Original Intent has been serving as a manifesto of sorts for many innocent of much history for the re-establishing of the United States as a Christian nation, as though that was what the Founders originally intended to do. Many in the Religious Right want to move the USA into a Christian nation more through legislation than through evangelism, more through force than through the attractiveness of the gospel of Christ.
Let me say that in other more positive words. Barton quoted from a host of our Founding Fathers, and Barton’s quotes indicated time and again that they were well educated and rhetorically sophisticated and philosophically astute. Well and fine. Barton even includes copies of the Declaration and the Constitution. He also tries to prove that many of our Founding Fathers were educated and Christian from their own quotes, conveniently leaving Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine on the darker side, subtly downplaying on occasion, and Barton does not know quite what to do with Freemason non-Christian Benjamin Franklin. And the conclusion of his hefty work is that our Founding Fathers did not mean what they wrote and somehow could not write precisely what they intended to write in both the Declaration or our Constitution.
Listen
to them. The original intent of our
Constitution—the 200-year-old ghost of thinking men’s minds before they wrote. Am I a knucklehead
for thinking someone is focusing upon the ghost more than the real article?
Clearly, Barton titled his book Original
Intent and makes that more important than the First Amendment, and then he
calls his business WallBuilders while denying Jefferson’s Wall of Separation.
Barton’s secret business is Wall Moving, not building.
Instead of what they wrote, according to Barton, the Founding Fathers really meant to declare and to constitute this country as an evangelically Christian nation and just forgot to include the words God and Christian. He does not say that, but that is the clear undercurrent of his innuendos, catering to the political Religious Right. Our Founding Fathers’ original intent was just discovered by Barton and the Religious Right 200 years later. What a discovery that is!
And Freemasonry is occulted all along.
But let’s play this out. If Barton’s discovery is not true, we are on the verge of one the greatest deceptions in history—an attempt to rewrite George Washington into an evangelical father-pastor of a new country. A great deception, yes, because Barton is selling this. To how many Christians? Combine Barton with SBC expert Bill Gordon’s miniscule squeaking of Freemasonry; couple those with the mouthings of Christian powerbrokers, and lastly—but not least—lash together all of those with Patterson’s own subtle CEO status of the SBC secret cabal takeover. What do you have?
Viola … you have the makings of another Robert Ludlum world-wide conspiracy takeover by an elite group.[1] Only the SBC and Religious Right’s conspiring lack a lot of luster and finesse. The Religious Right is far more fragmented than they lead people to believe. David Barton, Paige Patterson, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye, and others are not in cahoots in a true take-over conspiracy; they would not even be comfortable having dinner together. Patterson avoids comments on the lack of sophistication of Pat Robertson—except in secret—and Patterson is careful with LaHaye’s popularity. Patterson does not write much serious contemporary theological analysis, in public anyway. But Patterson, et al, are in loose complementing cahoots in occulting Freemasonry and occulting character counting. Barton, LaHaye and others, have their Christian foundationists’ eyes more on marketing more than the Messiah.
After decades of dissatisfaction with U.S. Supreme Court cases that did not yield what Barton and other Religious Right advocates wanted—and demand under God—Barton makes a case that the very structure of the Constitution needs tweaking because the current Supreme Court seems to be out of their bounds. In that subtle case and to support himself, Barton quotes from Freemason George Washington’s inaugural address:
[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect…. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency…. [W]e ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious [favorable] smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.[2] [Ellipses and brackets Barton’s]
That is precious from the George Washington, Father of our country, who led the Revolutionary troops, superintended the constitutional process, was unanimously elected as the first president, and led in leveling the cornerstone of the U.S. Capitol in full Freemasonry regalia. The rest of the story: Barton sees Christian establishment in those third-person references, while the rest of the world see Barton spinning Christian establishment into religiously innocuous words. Between the first ellipsis in the quote above, please see what Washington said that Barton left out:
that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge.[3] [Italics mine]
Washington was talking about his own unworthiness for office and his trust in God for his own human defects. Then, in what Barton leaves out, Washington tells us that God’s own benediction “may consecrate the liberties” of a “Government instituted by themselves.” This was not a support of Barton after all, but Washington was actually affirming the responsibility for the government “instituted by themselves.” After that, Washington reflects on the distinguished task of amending the Constitution.
In between Barton’s second ellipsis, Washington carefully and articulately—even beautifully—outlines clear Freemasonry principles before and after Barton’s quote of “smiles of Heaven”; that is, Barton subtly takes Washington out of context! Later and after more quotes, Barton says, “The visible and firm reliance on religious principles which Washington displayed in the Executive Branch was also just as visible in the practices of the Judicial Branch,” and again, “The practices of the original Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches all repudiate today’s doctrine of ‘separation of church and state’ which purports that our Founding Fathers disapproved of religious activities in official public settings.”[4] So there, thus says David Barton. Barton has made a decent point with his quotes; religion was important in 1789. It still is. But Barton covered over the sweeping beauty, the true meaning, and the Freemasonry overtones of Washington’s inaugural address.
A really harsh person could say Washington used Enlightenment overtones (over Christian ones) to avoid use of Freemasonry, but still would have to deal with Washington’s clearly close ties with Freemasonry. Regardless, Barton covers up a lot. Washington is so much more articulate and cultured in his address than Barton reflects of Washington. The rest of the story resides around Barton’s quoting of Washington’s use of “heaven’s smiles.” Yet the Chancellor of New York and fellow Freemason, Robert R. Livingston, administered Washington’s oath of office, and the Bible on which Washington pledged his presidential oath is owned by New York’s St. John’s Masonic Lodge. Barton also left the following out of Washington’s Inaugural Address:
In these honorable qualifications I behold the surest pledges that as on one side no local prejudices or attachments—no separate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests; so, on another, that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the pre-eminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.[5]
Washington was talking about amending the Constitution, and in that light he asks his audience to consider the Christian and Freemasonry principles of liberty and equality, even the “immutable principles of private morality” and the “indissoluble union between virtue and happiness” as the “eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained” and the preservation of the “sacred fire of liberty … entrusted to the hands of the American people.” Yes, Barton is partially right, religion is important, but there is no evangelical Christian in either inaugural speech. No president in the last twenty years has used language like that (not even their speech writers), and it seems somewhat puffed to us in the 21st century. But it is beautiful and speaks less of fancy rhetoric than of someone clearly able to articulate himself very precisely. Make no mistake, if Washington was as evangelical and non-Masonic as Barton tried to portray him, Washington could have and would have said what he meant in very clear terms. Then Washington deftly closes:
I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the human race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American People with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union, and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.[6]
In this context, the issue of separation of church and state are clearly seen—the principle—brims all over, more especially in the light of Leonard W. Levy and Thomas J. Curry’s overwhelming defense of the establishment’s clause being about governmental limitation and not about government empowerment.[7] Clearly, Washington understands the issues of responsibility and trust under God. Barton and others want to see evangelicalism, but it is not there: smiles of heaven and great Parent are not evangelical at all. And Barton strains to make them so. If radical or strong evangelicalism is not prominent in the life and words of the first president of the United States, who was elected unanimously, then there is no rock-solid case to the founding of this country upon predominantly Christian principles. That is what a good detective would deduce.
However, there were other principles that were more prominent in the foundation, and freedom was tops. Many of the principles of virtue were written and laid in concrete, all without nullifying Christian values. Are there scripture quotes in the Capitol next to the statues of Greek and Roman gods? How can they co-exist if Freemasonry is a religion? They co-exist because Freemasonry is not a religion, and because they are all emblems of character counting and truly eternal principles, and principles that all can agree upon without sacrificing the absolute differences of individual faiths. So Christianity is respected, the Bible can be quoted, and statues symbolizing character counting can co-mingle, supporting Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, deist, and who-knows-what Franklin, just as they did in a Freemason lodge in 1776 and did not in other institution before 1776. And that is still true today. This is a new nation, and Freemasonry still forwards freedom and character counting values more than any other institution, because character counting is what Freemasonry has always been about, then and today.
In Washington’s Inaugural Address, we can see a very educated man and a man thoroughly at home in Freemasonry principles—that “system of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols.”[8] Since Freemasonry was not a religion and supported freedom of conscience more than colonial Christianity ever did, we can see Christianity side by side Freemasonry in Washington’s life, and not a droplet of conflict anywhere in the huge historical record. We do see, without much fluff, that Washington is using Freemasonry principles in his Inaugural Address on purpose, with a clear intent to cater to a new nation that even he sees as a new entity on the world scene, one where freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are supreme values. To that end, they do not try to establish Christianity not even try to establish Freemasonry, but they clear the way for the manner in which the republic ought to conduct itself: character counting all the way, on a few rock-solid notes of the eternal value of justice and God-given rights to self-govern this new freedom. Freedom—what a responsibility under God, even the freedom to choose any God and the freedom of conscience to discern the direction of your own faith. From his speech, you would not know he was an Episcopalian or Catholic (or Muslim), but a Freemason would have the largest affinity of all. Regardless, if from that speech one tried to construct a theology of Washington’s God, that God would be nothing like the Religious Right desire.
If Washington and his original intention were anywhere close to the manner of evangelicalism and Christian foundations that Barton attempted to portray, Washington would have given a clearly evangelical inaugural address. Do you see that? At this point in Washington’s life, he could have been king, feared absolutely no person on earth, had the popularity of the United States like no one ever has in history (and like no one will ever have again), and—true to his character—Washington would have told it precisely as he saw it. One of the great and undisputed testimonies in the historical record is that the character of Washington was such that he said what we meant to say. And unlike the SBC expert Bill Gordon, Ankerberg, and David Barton, George Washington possessed the talent to articulate precisely what he meant.
What is clear—left out by all anti-Masons—is that Washington’s Christian life (proven by Barton a little) never conflicted between his Freemasonry service, never, not a single incompatibility. At the least, David Barton proves that the anti-Masons are so very dead wrong about evil. Between David Barton and Paige Patterson there is a theoretical abyss: they both share a character-slamming view of Freemasonry, but while Barton truly is venerating Freemason Washington as an American icon pretending to value Washington’s character to high heaven—literally—Patterson views Washington’s fraternity was evil. And Barton’s new book on Freemasonry does not help, as we tear into below. What a childish mess that is, and Barton and Patterson are both in Texas. Barton prostitutes Washington’s character to sell a political agenda, and Patterson simply sloshes mud upon Washington’s character. Both Barton and Patterson together do not care about Washington’s true character or the real foundation of our country.
In his Original Intent, Barton is making a case for Christian privilege—subtly—and non-Christian exclusion on the sly. Washington supported our beloved Constitution that—as he said—“smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and destiny” and the providence implied, that nevertheless chose not to inscribe “God” into the Constitution. Open debate in true liberty and equality is part of the “eternal rules of order” and is a lot harder form of government than a government where one certain group has privilege, whether they be true Christians or just opportunistic Christians. None of us should be so naïve as to think that—if Christianity be constituted as Barton and others imply in their ramblings—that there will not be anyone vying for office who will not lie and claim to be Christian merely for the sake of winning an office. Like that has never happened. Who will go to church for the camera and not for Christ. Oh, like that is not happening already today in the 21st century.
There are Christians in office, thankfully, but enforcing that is impossible. And if partisan politics gets into the churches, it will destroy the sincerity of the faith of too many. Too many will use Christianity, and the Christian church will suffer—as it always has when the church and the state get into bed together. There are always crazy kids that result from inbred unions.
Some Christians want to take over the United States government and rewrite the Constitution to insure that true religious liberty really only means Christian religious privilege. That is the subtle message of David Barton’s Original Intent, but there are others no so subtle: like this from The Manifesto of Christian Government: “to live in the liberty of true Christian government … to be free from the tyranny of men who seek to perfect the sin of their father Adam…. it is the Christian’s right and duty to be rid of such tyrants.”[9]
Only God can judge the heart of a man, and though that has been used to justify the sorriest Christian behavior, Our Founding Fathers did the best they could—under God—to create a constitution in which a man’s faith or lack of faith would have little bearing upon that man’s liberty and equality or status in office. Justice is best served cold and blind in a free land, with mercy and Christian redemption on the wings of the dawn. Those are eternal principles, Freemasonry principles, implied in the Scriptures. Freemasonry demands that its members believe in God and a future life—read Washington above—after that, the Freemason worships and learns about his own God at his own church.
With true and significant liberty and equality, each man or woman has to stand on his or her own two feet and make the case plain and simple. Without the favor, each man or woman—as Washington delicately declared—stands under eternal rules and under the smile of heaven on their own merit and their own ability to talk and reason and work the hard work of “deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union, and the advancement of their happiness.”[10]
In many ways, Barton proves our point with his many quotes from the Founding Fathers themselves. The shortcoming in Barton’s Original Intent is precisely where it matters most. The Freemasonry principal values of significant liberty and meaningful equality in the Declaration and the Constitution were precious values held in the heart-of-hearts of the Founding Fathers under God, in the hearts of all of the Founding Fathers—be they Christian, Freemason, Deist, as well as the few who did not fall into either group. But the single most common denominator was Christian Freemason, of that there is no doubt.
And, as Barton quotes from much original source material, our beloved Founding Fathers were guided by God to make a Declaration of Independence. When the Declaration was not addressed and the fight over, they wrote our Constitution and constituted the principal values of significant liberty and meaningful equality. As Barton inculcates a few times, Washington in his inaugural address warned about messing with the Constitution, and if it need be, only then through the amendment process and not by usurpation. Washington’s warning on usurpation is what Barton says the Supreme Court has been doing, and yet makes a subtle case that the Religious Right should usurp, because the original intent was a Christian nation.
The United States of America was established and constituted as a self-governed representative republic—Barton makes that clear, with an especially helpful package on the laments of a pure democracy or “Mobocracy.” Yet the Founding Fathers constituted without the word “God” in the Constitution as a part of the intent, and they amended that with the first amendment insuring that even a Christian mobocracy would not be able establish any religion or restrict any minority religion. That is square and level.
God guided those Founding Fathers to declare the Declaration of Independence, and therein God gave inalienable rights. Our Founding Fathers claimed those rights and gave notice to an Anglican King. Then when sufficient time had passed and more blood had been spilt, they set down the Constitution and by-laws under which they would exercise those inalienable rights for time immemorial, pledging their lives and sacred honor. God led them to constitute those God-ordained inalienable rights as the new law of the land in order that—thereafter—no foreign or domestic religious potentate could remove those rights.
Our Founding Fathers were certainly thinking ahead in 1789, but did not think they could determine forever what lay ahead. They planted a live-oak tree of freedom and nourished its two main branches of liberty and equality. And 200 years later, we are still nourishing and pruning and protecting and defining how that wonderful tree shall prosper and grow.
This following is was clipped from part II, chapter 4 of
my book,
The book version is now condensed,
to make room for other more important material.
By
see much more at
www.PreciousHeart.net/freemasonry