Ron Paul is by far the most stalwart member of the U.S. Congress and a true American hero. However, his defense of the U.S. Constitution as the bulwark of American liberty in his campaign manifesto, is fatally flawed (“The Revolution”, Grand Central Publishing, 2008).

Because he never casts a vote contrary to the U.S. Constitution, Ron Paul has been dubbed “Dr. No” by his colleagues. The flyleaf of the book describes him as the leading advocate of freedom in our nation’s capital.

Ron Paul Fails To Grasp The Threat

But in the very act of embracing the Constitution Dr. Paul has ironically rejected the true Source of American liberty. He fails to understand why Patrick Henry and other anti-Federalists rejected the Constitution itself as an attack on liberty.

Dr. Paul’s position is that the Constitution was designed to limit the federal government’s range of authority (p.44)(Art. I, Sec. 8). That’s what the founders claimed, but experience has shown that the powers given away in Section 8 have been used to destroy the liberty of the states.

The states were left virtually naked before the monolith of federal power. Henry warned that when the powers of both sword and purse are granted to Congress we have an open invitation to tyranny.

The author explains that “The limitations the Constitution placed on the federal government had to be taken seriously if we expected to maintain a free society” (p45). But as Patrick Henry clearly understood, the limitations were not taken seriously because there were none.

Ron Paul even points out that “Patrick Henry raised precisely this concern…in Virginia.” That is the concern that ‘general welfare’ was a dangerously open-ended phrase that would permit the federal government to do whatever it wanted. But then he simply concludes that the ratifying convention rejected Henry’s objection, as if their wisdom cannot be challenged. But history has proven beyond question that Patrick Henry was right.

Abuse of Power

Given Ron Paul’s suspicion of central government, his endorsement of the Constitution’s power to raise armies is remarkable. He naively asserts it is “not a power to force people into the army” (p57).

Patrick Henry saw through that argument in an instant on June 16, 1788 in the Virginia Ratifying Convention. When the Constitution grants an unlimited authority to raise armies he declared, “It is a government of force, and the genius of despotism expressly.”

Ron Paul fails to understand that the Constitution was a counterfeit from the day it was struck in 1787. It promised liberty at the same time it rejected the fountainhead of liberty.

In conclusion, Ron Paul presents this challenge: “It is not too late to rally and recall our people to the constitution, the rule of law, and our traditional American republic” (p67). But notice the humanistic thrust of this call to action.

There is no word of an offended God or the need to return to His law. Only to that document which declared itself to be the “supreme law of the land” and thus rejected God’s law in the first place.

Oliver Woods is a born-again anti-Federalist, whose books and video expose the anti-Christian nature of the U S Constitution at the America Betrayed website. He also serves as headmaster at King’s Way Classical Academy an online, classical, Christian academy for grades 7-12.

The debate over the reality of George Washington’s Christianity and that of other founding fathers will probably go on forever. We would be better off analyzing the documents they actually gave us.

Why is this important?

Nonetheless, we will go ahead and indulge in a favorite evangelical pastime. That is, debating about whether or not President Washington was a Christian. The assumption of the “pro” side is that if we can prove the founders were Christians, we thereby prove that the U.S. Constitution is Christian. The “con” side responds that the Constitution is not a Christian document and Christians are better off admitting it.

Most Christians are firmly convinced that Washington was a true blue, born-again, evangelical Christian. Others have their doubts.

A Study Of Source Documents

There are a lot of unanswered questions. Why are the references to Jesus Christ almost non-existent in Washington’ voluminous private and public correspondence? Why did Washington’s pastor state unequivocally that he doubted Washington’s Christianity? Why was Washington a high-ranking leader and faithful adherent in the cultish, Masonic Lodge?

The problem with trying to make any sense of Washington’s life is that it is shrouded in myth and legend. We have to be willing to wade through all of that and accept as evidence only primary source data. One man who did just that was Professor Paul Boller, who wrote a book called “George Washington & Religion” (SMU Press, 1963) based on direct testimony of contemporaries and extensive research in Washington’s public and private utterances.

The picture that emerged from these primary sources is far different from the vast body of myth and legend that had been built up by a succession of pietistic biographers. The latter popularized an encyclopedia of stories about Washington’s religiosity based on hearsay and scanty evidence that could never hold up in a court of law.

The Real Washington

Besides Washington’s own direct testimony the real picture is fleshed out by people who knew Washington well, most notably his pastor during the eight years of his Presidency. Dr. James Abercrombie questioned the sincerity of Washington’s faith. He noted that while Martha Washington always knelt with the communicants on communion Sunday, Washington invariably walked out.

Dr. Abercrombie concluded, “That Washington was a professing Christian, is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace.”

It cannot be denied that Washington hired chaplains to serve in the Continental Army. And it would be futile to deny that Washington made statements about the benefits of religion in society or that he attended church occasionally and served as a vestryman. But “Churchianity” is not Christianity and there is much evidence to indicate that Washington was possessed of the former and not the latter.

Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams were typical of others who denied the Divinity of Christ and therefore also denied his Kingship in the realm of civil government. Thus it is probably more accurate to describe the key founders as “unitarian” rather than Deistic. Most contemporary Christian historians are quick to deny the latter at the same time they ignore the former. But the implications for subsequent American history cannot be ignored and they have been devastating.

Oliver Woods is author of books and video on the anti-Christian features of the U S Constitution at the America Betrayed website. He also serves as headmaster at King’s Way Classical Academy an online classical, Christian school for grades 7-12.

Original Intent by David Barton sets forth the mistaken notion that America’s founders did not intend to separate church and state. The book was published by WallBuilders of Alemedo, Texas in 2000.

David Barton Argues Constitution Did Not Separate Church and State

This book focuses on the religious question of the separation of church and state. Mr. Barton attempts to prove from Supreme Court cases that it was not the intent of the founding fathers to erect a wall of separation between church and state.

The author discusses eight landmark Supreme Court religious liberty cases which followed the 1947 Everson case. The latter introduced the “wall of separation” terminology. In these he claims the Supreme Court rewrote the original intent of the founders.

Thesis Is Flawed

The problem with the book is a flawed thesis. The founders did in fact intend to separate the new government from the authority of biblical law. Surprisingly, David Barton actually applauds this, as we shall see below.

First Mr. Barton states that there is “no historical foundation for the proposition that the Founders intended to build the ‘wall of separation’…” (p.179). The actual words, “wall of separation” do not appear in the Constitution, but the wall is nonetheless set in place by Article VI, Section 3.

The little known requirement of this section sets up an inviolable wall of separation between the legal system and the law of God: “no religious test shall ever be required for any office…,” This section outlawed the so-called religious test oath that was found in most of the colonial charters and constitutions. These required the prospective officeholder to swear by oath to govern according to the law of God. The ban on the religious test oath thus opened the door for any belief system to compete with God for supremacy in the nation.

David Barton actually lauds the Article VI declaration of independence from God: “…it was therefore not within the federal government’s authority to examine the religious beliefs of any candidate” (p.34). He goes on to assert that the founders did a good thing by rejecting the requirements of the Christian religion as criteria for holding public office: “the investigation of the religious views of a candidate should not be conducted by the federal government…”

Religious Neutrality Condemned

And therein lies our great dilemma. We assume that this declaration of religious neutrality is somehow going to pass muster with God. It is as absurd as Moses descending from Mt Sinai and stating that we was going to leave religious matters to majority opinion within the tribes, while he remained officially neutral at the “Sinai level.”

On the contrary, it is the primary duty of government to require that its officials are committed to Christ and the Christian religion (not a particular denomination). It is cultural suicide to neglect this duty. The law of God is the only source of justice, and God expects the officeholder to swear to uphold it. David Barton fails to grasp this most basic biblical principle of civil government.

Departure from the original intent of the Constitution is not our problem. Rather, our problem lies in the seeds of humanism and religious neutrality that were planted originally in the Constitution and are bearing their evil fruit today.

Oliver Woods is author of books and video on the anti-Christian features of the U S Constitution at the America Betrayed website. He also serves as headmaster at King’s Way Classical Academy an online classical, Christian school for grades 7-12.