Taking Back "Religion" from the Far Right

            David Barton, a self-styled historian lauded by the far right, recently made the media rounds for the promotion of his new book The Jefferson Lies.  Barton purports to rehabilitate Thomas Jefferson from his reputation as a Godless secular atheist and claim him for the Christian right.

            Barton is on a mission to convince the nation that far right Christian ideology should dominate American law, politics, and culture.  And diversity-minded Americans, who welcome all Christians and non-Christians into the Great Conversation the Constitution set in motion, are unknowingly giving aid to his cause.  As a result, they are contributing to Barton’s undermining of the legacy of religious pluralism that the founders bequeathed to America.

            In interviews like the one on May 1st with Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show,” Barton outmaneuvers his interviewers when the discussion revolves around religion vs. secularism.  Barton appears credible in his claim that he is for freedom of religion, while he fights against what he sees as the secularizing trends of society.  But what gets missed in the whole religion vs. secularism discussion is that Barton is doing a linguistic slight of hand when he uses the word “religion.”  He really means Christianity (with tolerance of Jews)—not religious freedom for all.

            Barton revealed his true hand in McCollum, et al. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., which was about religious rights.  Barton’s Wallbuilders amicus brief argues that the word “religion” means Christianity or at most monotheism.  (The Appellants’ response, to which I contributed based on my America’s Sacred Ground research, counters Barton’s claim.  You can read my Washington Post Op-Ed on the Wallbuilders amicus brief too.)

            You might ask, why does one guy’s opinion matter, especially when respected scholars find his conclusions to be not at all credible. (Take a look at scholars quoted in Hrafnkell Haraldson’s review of Barton’s Lies.)

            Barton matters because his influence is much wider than many think.  He is an influential contributor in the K-12 textbook wars in Texas and California, which shape how American history is portrayed to America’s youth.  He weighs in with amicus (friend-of-the-court) briefs in legal cases like the McCollum case mentioned above where he fights against the religious rights of others.  He has written widely-read books.  And he is a popular guest on widely-viewed programs on Fox News, such as “Hannity” and “Huckabee.”

            David Barton is persuasive to many because he appears to base his views on the American founders.  So, let’s find out: What did the founders mean by the word “religion” in their time?  

            For Jefferson, Madison, and others of the founding generation, “religion” did not mean “Christianity” or even only the Abrahamic religions (i.e., Christianity, Islam, and Judaism).  The word was used with its common meaning at the time: divine worship or practice, faith, or a set of beliefs.  See, for example, the Universal Etymological English Dictionary by Nathan Bailey (1756), which discusses “The diverse Religions of the World,” and under the Guinea-Manomotopa entry refers to “heathenism idolatry” as “religion.” Not only did “religion” include a broad array of beliefs and practices, it did not have the meaning it has taken on in our contemporary discourse—institutionalized organizations with a particular theological dogma. 

            For Jefferson, in particular, “religion” was not the domain of Christianity.  His meaning included non-Christians, even those referred to then as Pagans.  As Jefferson wrote in his Notes on Religion:

 “[Locke] says ‘neither Pagan nor Mahomedan nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.’  Shall we suffer a Pagan to deal with us and not suffer him to pray to his god? . . . It is the refusing toleration to those of different opinion which has produced all the bustles and wars on account of religion.” 

            Words matter, and the word “religion” matters a lot to Americans because it determines who is entitled to the constitutional right to religious liberty. 

            So, let’s not contribute to far right linguistic slights of hand by failing to press Barton and others on the far right on what they are talking about when they say they are for freedom of “religion.”  Let’s not aid Barton in misleading the public into thinking that he and like-minded others are for religious liberty for everyone when they are not. 

            And let’s not be lax about our own word usage.  Let’s make sure that we don’t undermine the voices of religious pluralism or contribute to the dissipation of American rights over time by handing over “religion” to Barton and others like him.  Let’s take back “religion” from the far right.