Disputed Historical Claims by Christian Nationalist Figures at Florida Summit
Last month, Christian nationalist figures David and Tim Barton delivered a presentation at the TPUSA Faith’s “Believers’ Summit” in Florida. The father-son duo reiterated several debunked claims, such as the assertion that the Bible was the most cited source by the Founding Fathers, the idea that the Due Process clause originated from the Bible, and the false statement that John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Civil Government” contained over 1,500 Bible references.
Tim Barton, in particular, made a claim regarding an 1844 Supreme Court case, Vidal v. Girard’s Executors. According to Barton, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that public schools receiving government funding could not prohibit the Bible, gospel ministers, or evangelism on campus. “If you tried to hinder those things,” Barton said, “you would lose your government funding because one of the things we were going to make sure our schools did in America was emphasize religion and morality, was teach the Bible.”
This description, however, does not align with the actual decision of the case. As detailed by Right Wing Watch, the case centered around Stephen Girard, a wealthy man who left funds in his will to establish a school with specific stipulations, including that no religious leader could hold a position there or teach denominational doctrine.
Girard’s heirs argued that this prohibition violated the Constitution and Common Law by discriminating against Christianity. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument:
Looking to the objection therefore in a mere juridical view, which is the only one in which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is nothing in the devise establishing the college, or in the regulations and restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian religion or are opposed to any known policy of the State of Pennsylvania.
This view of the whole matter renders it unnecessary for us to examine the other and remaining question, to whom, if the devise were void, the property would belong, whether it would fall into the residue of the estate devised to the city, or become a resulting trust for the heirs at law.
Upon the whole, it is the unanimous opinion of the Court that the decree of the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania dismissing the bill, ought to be affirmed, and it is accordingly.
Contrary to Barton’s assertion, the Supreme Court upheld the stipulation that “no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college, nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.”
Given this context, it appears Barton’s claim is not based on ignorance but rather a deliberate misrepresentation, similar to other myths propagated by Christian nationalists to support their political agendas.
