In the wake of David Barton’s appearance on The Daily Show a couple of weeks ago (see our 9-part analysis of the appearance), Jon Stewart invited Richard Beeman, an award-winning history professor at the University of Pennsylvania and an expert on the United States Constitution, to come on the show and talk about what Barton got right and got wrong. Here is the two part interview:
I agree with virtually everything Beeman says in this interview. He is fair and accurate. Readers may recall that I made close to the same argument about the 14th amendment and Sharia law here. He is also right about the “high and impregnable” clause in the 1947 Everson case.
For more on this topic, I would encourage you to get a copy of Was America Founded as a Christian Nation: A Historical Introduction, a book endorsed by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Daniel Walker Howe, Princeton early American history John Murrin, theologian Stanley Hauerwaus, religion scholar Randall Balmer, George Washington/Mt. Vernon scholar Mary V. Thompson, church historian Douglas Sweeney, award-winning historian and writer Thomas Fleming, and early American historian Richard Bushman, to name only a few.
Barton dodged Stewart's question whether Everson was “wrongly decided.” As he's not a lawyer, this was a wise dodge of being dragged into the legal tall weeds, as there may have been a trap waiting. The man learned a few things at the pillory.
However, his thesis is that
“For generations after its ratification, the courts relied solely on the clear and unambiguous wording of the First Amendment; the reliance on the “separation” metaphor is a recent judicial trend. For example, in the Supreme Court’s first 150 years, the separation idiom was invoked by the Court in only two cases; it has since been cited in seemingly countless cases. In fact, in actual cases filed under the First Amendment’s religion clauses in recent decades, the First Amendment was cited by courts in less than three thousand cases while the separation metaphor was cited in over four thousand. Strikingly, in examining First Amendment controversies, courts are more likely to cite the separation metaphor than they are the First Amendment itself.
That metaphor became the contemporary standard for judicial policy in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education when the Court proclaimed: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”
Of course he thinks Everson was wrongly decided, at least per the first 150 years of American [constitutional] custom and practice.
He does, after all, fancy himself an historian.
Now, there are those who argue—and possession is 9/10 of the law—that Everson closed the book on religion and policy, building once and for all a “high and impregnable wall.” Perhaps. But its echoes such as the “Lemon Law” and “ceremonial deism” other such pronouncements are not out of the tall weeds of stare decisis let alone “custom & practice” just yet.
Barton was wise, not stupid or confused, to elide Everson in the Stewart interview. The last thing he needs is to feed “pseudo-lawyer” to his critics.
[Beeman] is also right about the “high and impregnable” clause in the 1947 Everson case.
Acknowledged in his own words [above] by the pseudo-lawyer.
😉
That interview is enough for me to forgive Beeman for giving me a C+ when I was an undergraduate.
Tom: I think you are right. I was amazed at how Barton tried to present himself as an objective and unbiased historian.
Jonathan: Ouch!
I met Beeman a few times while I was a fellow at the McNeil Center at Penn, but he probably doesn't remember me. I think he was a dean at the time. I also thought he was great on Stewart.
Oh, John, I believe Barton believes that he is an objective and unbiased historian.
So do his critics, although they sometimes seem to be goose to his gander.