I’m pretty sure this is at least the one millionth example of David Barton flat out lying about the Constitution in the process of making an astonishingly stupid argument about it. He says that the founders included an oath in the Constitution to tie it directly to religion:
On yesterday’s program, Barton explained that that the Constitution’s requirement that members of Congress and the president take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” was the Founding Fathers’ way of infusing religion into the document since an oath is a “direct appeal to God” to hold lawmakers accountable for their actions and “there is no such thing as a secular oath.”
Any oath that is not made to God, Barton said, must instead rely on “the goodness of man and there’s not a whole lot in me that says the goodness of man is great. Just look back across the Twentieth Century and the one hundred and fifty million lives that were lost because Stalin wasn’t good and Hitler wasn’t good and Tojo wasn’t good and Pol Pot wasn’t good.”
The Founders knew this, Barton said, and so they “tied religion to the Constitution to give it strength” through these oath requirements, asserting that any attempt to implement the Constitution without religion is like trying to breathe on the moon.
But the constitution does not require anyone to swear an oath, which is indeed a specifically religious promise. In every single instance in the constitution in which it requires an oath, that terms is followed by “or affirmation,” which is a non-religious promise. Barton doesn’t mention that, of course, because he’s a liar and that is what liars do.