David Barton's appearance at the Army Prayer Breakfast contested

Chris Rodda and company sent a letter to the Army, Secretary of Defense, and Commander-in-Chief protesting the appearance of David Barton at the Army Prayer Breakfast on Thursday.
After his recent prayer breakfast performances, I certainly support the protest.
UPDATE: The St Louis paper picked up on the story.
 

60 thoughts on “David Barton's appearance at the Army Prayer Breakfast contested”

  1. I would say that one thing that motivates people like me (and I presume Warren) to say what we say is that we feel that some of the behaviour of people like Barton helps to bring Christianity ‘into disrepute’. I have many Muslim friends who feel just the same way about their own ‘fundamentalists’.
    For the common good to be served, there must a profound and honest dialogue between those ‘of faith’ and those who believe that a ‘secular’ understanding of life is the way forward. People like Barton do not seem to want to ‘do dialogue’, and this is IMO damaging to all of us. From the perspective of the polity, democratic principles alone can provide the framework for such dialogue.

  2. Ah … I see Tom is reading Major Jonathan Dowty’s blog. Why am I not surprised? LOL

  3. @Chris,
    Thanks for the clarification.
    I rather assumed you must have only just gotten wind of this. I wasn’t trying to imply any lax response on your part. If I came across that way I apologize. I would just hate to see this fail simply due to the short notice. Here’s hoping…
    ’43 soldiers’…’requesting a stop’. That’s not a small number. Is their only recourse reaching out to your organization?

  4. @ Scotty … We didn’t hear about this until the end of last week, so the soonest we could try to do anything was Monday, which may have been too late to stop it, although we have stopped things at the very last minute in the past. We have 43 soldiers, both officers and enlisted, at Fort Leonard Wood who have told MRFF they want it stopped, and we’re trying, even though time is short. And, BTW, 35 of those 43 soldiers are Christians.
    I will be posting a follow-up, whatever the outcome.

  5. I like the idea, but this is basically the 11th hour. Will S.O.D. Hagel even get to the letter before this event? I imagine he gets tons of mail.
    Will you be posting any follow up?

  6. In a sense, I agree, Zoe – it is the Church’s responsibility to get her house in order.

  7. In a sense, I agree, Zoe – it is the Church’s responsibility to get her house in order.

  8. For the common good to be served, there must a profound and honest dialogue between those ‘of faith’ and those who believe that a ‘secular’ understanding of life is the way forward.

    Not gonna happen.
    Those of faith who would be willing to have an honest dialogue aren’t the problem. We might wish that they be a bit more vociferous in condemning the others who claim to speak in God’s Holy Name, but really, that’s up to them, and we have no right to tell them what to do.
    Their own consciences speak to them far more eloquently than we ever could anyway.
    For the Bartons, the Benny Hinns, and all the rest,.. it’s not feasible. Honesty is not something they value, the ends justify the means.

  9. For the common good to be served, there must a profound and honest dialogue between those ‘of faith’ and those who believe that a ‘secular’ understanding of life is the way forward.

    Not gonna happen.
    Those of faith who would be willing to have an honest dialogue aren’t the problem. We might wish that they be a bit more vociferous in condemning the others who claim to speak in God’s Holy Name, but really, that’s up to them, and we have no right to tell them what to do.
    Their own consciences speak to them far more eloquently than we ever could anyway.
    For the Bartons, the Benny Hinns, and all the rest,.. it’s not feasible. Honesty is not something they value, the ends justify the means.

  10. I would say that one thing that motivates people like me (and I presume Warren) to say what we say is that we feel that some of the behaviour of people like Barton helps to bring Christianity ‘into disrepute’. I have many Muslim friends who feel just the same way about their own ‘fundamentalists’.
    For the common good to be served, there must a profound and honest dialogue between those ‘of faith’ and those who believe that a ‘secular’ understanding of life is the way forward. People like Barton do not seem to want to ‘do dialogue’, and this is IMO damaging to all of us. From the perspective of the polity, democratic principles alone can provide the framework for such dialogue.

  11. No, Warren. They’re trying to silence Barton.
    This is how they do things.
    Besides, it is incorrect to say that I was silenced by the activists. They exercised their free speech rights and even though wrong on the facts, they are allowed to speak.
    Thank you sir, may I have another? It’s been 5 years. have you been invited back?
    You were cancelled, you were silenced at and by the American Psychological Association. Heckler’s veto. Now you’re joining the same hypocrisy. Chris Rodda doesn’t know spit about religion and the American Founding outside of stalking David Barton. Mikey Weinstein is wack with his ugly rants against the fundies. It’s like you dissolved yourself in their pool of acid.

    1. Tom – I had stopped responding to you and now I remember why. You’re often caustic and accusatory without adding much substance to the threads you participate in. Your comments come across as angry rants with little substance or respect shown to those you disagree with. Enough.

  12. False equivalence. I was being censored for my viewpoint, which incidentally was being falsely portrayed.
    It is not Barton’s viewpoint that is at issue for me, it is his inability to admit his errors and willingness to mislead people by stating things that are obviously false. While I think it is unsettling that the Army would bring in someone who has been as hostile as Barton to Obama, I would not disqualify him on that basis alone. It is Barton’s mockery of history while being asked to speak on history that should disqualify him. His Christianity or view of religion is not at issue.
    Besides, it is incorrect to say that I was silenced by the activists. They exercised their free speech rights and even though wrong on the facts, they are allowed to speak. Barton is allowed to speak his deceptions as well. However, Weinstein and company are allowed to speak their objection to the Army bringing in Barton.

  13. It’s called the heckler’s veto. Migod, they did it to you, Warren.
    /2008/05/the-apa-symposium-on-homosexuality-therapy-and-religion-has-been-cancelled/
    This is how that side works, silencing all voices but their own. They got you good.
    The attack was launched by the Gay City News publication, which on April 24 denigrated Throckmorton as “a psychologist without state board certification and an advocate for ‘sexual identity therapy’,” and quoted opponents calling him a “spin doctor of the ex-gay myth.”
    The article quoted those warning of the symposium’s “potential harm.”
    The APA statement on the cancellation said the organizer “decided to withdraw because a key participant who would have brought balance to the discussion had withdrawn. In addition, misinformation and rhetoric surrounding this event had risen to a level that would hinder the kind of open dialogue and interaction that was originally anticipated.”
    Throckmorton, on his own blog, expressed doubt.

    The principled thing is not to silence Barton, but support his right to speak–along with your objections, of course. By joining up with the anti-religious bigots like Mr. Weinstein, well, I don’t know what’s happened, man.

  14. Aw … I think little Tommy is trying to hurt my feelings. But, enough of this. Too many threads on Warren’s blog turn into the Grumpy Tom Show. I’m outta here, (unless someone posts a comment on the actual topic, of course).

  15. A petty controversy, ginned up to keep the Mikey Weinstein organization’s donations flowing. Otherwise they’d have to get a real job. If they ever become more than a minor annoyance, it might be worth reading up on them. But in the meantime, people should save their money for something worthwhile.

  16. Weinstein’s salary has nothing to do with the fact that Christians complain to his organization and they intervene on their behalf. Nor does it have anything to do with why Barton’s appearance is being contested. Barton also pays himself and makes millions by misleading the public. Apparently that is ok with Tom.

  17. No, Warren. They’re trying to silence Barton.
    This is how they do things.
    Besides, it is incorrect to say that I was silenced by the activists. They exercised their free speech rights and even though wrong on the facts, they are allowed to speak.
    Thank you sir, may I have another? It’s been 5 years. have you been invited back?
    You were cancelled, you were silenced at and by the American Psychological Association. Heckler’s veto. Now you’re joining the same hypocrisy. Chris Rodda doesn’t know spit about religion and the American Founding outside of stalking David Barton. Mikey Weinstein is wack with his ugly rants against the fundies. It’s like you dissolved yourself in their pool of acid.

    1. Tom – I had stopped responding to you and now I remember why. You’re often caustic and accusatory without adding much substance to the threads you participate in. Your comments come across as angry rants with little substance or respect shown to those you disagree with. Enough.

  18. Ah … I see Tom is reading Major Jonathan Dowty’s blog. Why am I not surprised? LOL

  19. False equivalence. I was being censored for my viewpoint, which incidentally was being falsely portrayed.
    It is not Barton’s viewpoint that is at issue for me, it is his inability to admit his errors and willingness to mislead people by stating things that are obviously false. While I think it is unsettling that the Army would bring in someone who has been as hostile as Barton to Obama, I would not disqualify him on that basis alone. It is Barton’s mockery of history while being asked to speak on history that should disqualify him. His Christianity or view of religion is not at issue.
    Besides, it is incorrect to say that I was silenced by the activists. They exercised their free speech rights and even though wrong on the facts, they are allowed to speak. Barton is allowed to speak his deceptions as well. However, Weinstein and company are allowed to speak their objection to the Army bringing in Barton.

  20. It’s called the heckler’s veto. Migod, they did it to you, Warren.
    /2008/05/the-apa-symposium-on-homosexuality-therapy-and-religion-has-been-cancelled/
    This is how that side works, silencing all voices but their own. They got you good.
    The attack was launched by the Gay City News publication, which on April 24 denigrated Throckmorton as “a psychologist without state board certification and an advocate for ‘sexual identity therapy’,” and quoted opponents calling him a “spin doctor of the ex-gay myth.”
    The article quoted those warning of the symposium’s “potential harm.”
    The APA statement on the cancellation said the organizer “decided to withdraw because a key participant who would have brought balance to the discussion had withdrawn. In addition, misinformation and rhetoric surrounding this event had risen to a level that would hinder the kind of open dialogue and interaction that was originally anticipated.”
    Throckmorton, on his own blog, expressed doubt.

    The principled thing is not to silence Barton, but support his right to speak–along with your objections, of course. By joining up with the anti-religious bigots like Mr. Weinstein, well, I don’t know what’s happened, man.

  21. Aw … I think little Tommy is trying to hurt my feelings. But, enough of this. Too many threads on Warren’s blog turn into the Grumpy Tom Show. I’m outta here, (unless someone posts a comment on the actual topic, of course).

  22. @ Ken … if he is getting paid, which I assume he is at least for expenses, it’s probably coming from the chapel “tithes and offerings” fund or the proceeds of the tickets to the breakfast, so the money isn’t an issue like would be if the funding were coming from a DoD contract like some of the other things MRFF has dealt with.

  23. And “normal” people don’t accomplish much either, so here’s to not being normal! 🙂

  24. A petty controversy, ginned up to keep the Mikey Weinstein organization’s donations flowing. Otherwise they’d have to get a real job. If they ever become more than a minor annoyance, it might be worth reading up on them. But in the meantime, people should save their money for something worthwhile.

  25. Weinstein’s salary has nothing to do with the fact that Christians complain to his organization and they intervene on their behalf. Nor does it have anything to do with why Barton’s appearance is being contested. Barton also pays himself and makes millions by misleading the public. Apparently that is ok with Tom.

  26. Does anyone know if Barton is getting paid for this prayer breakfast (or any of the others)?

  27. Yeah, they come to us because they’re afraid to make official complaints. After speaking to the assistant installation chaplain myself, which I did prior to MRFF taking it to a higher level and sending the letter to Hagel, I can see why. Details of the phone conversation I had with this chaplain will be in my follow-up post.

  28. @Chris,
    Thanks for the clarification.
    I rather assumed you must have only just gotten wind of this. I wasn’t trying to imply any lax response on your part. If I came across that way I apologize. I would just hate to see this fail simply due to the short notice. Here’s hoping…
    ‘43 soldiers’…’requesting a stop’. That’s not a small number. Is their only recourse reaching out to your organization?

  29. @ Warren … that case is resolved. We take care of these little things very quickly, usually without anything being publicly put out about them. Quite often all it takes is a phone call or letter to a commander, and the situation is resolved at that level. The public really only hears about a fraction of what we do because most of our cases are resolved so quickly and don’t require any public or media pressure to get them done.

  30. @ Scotty … We didn’t hear about this until the end of last week, so the soonest we could try to do anything was Monday, which may have been too late to stop it, although we have stopped things at the very last minute in the past. We have 43 soldiers, both officers and enlisted, at Fort Leonard Wood who have told MRFF they want it stopped, and we’re trying, even though time is short. And, BTW, 35 of those 43 soldiers are Christians.
    I will be posting a follow-up, whatever the outcome.

  31. @ Ken … if he is getting paid, which I assume he is at least for expenses, it’s probably coming from the chapel “tithes and offerings” fund or the proceeds of the tickets to the breakfast, so the money isn’t an issue like would be if the funding were coming from a DoD contract like some of the other things MRFF has dealt with.

  32. I like the idea, but this is basically the 11th hour. Will S.O.D. Hagel even get to the letter before this event? I imagine he gets tons of mail.
    Will you be posting any follow up?

  33. And “normal” people don’t accomplish much either, so here’s to not being normal! 🙂

  34. As an example of what MRFF really does:
    You won’t hear from FOX News that MRFF just got the commander of a military base to get an atheist to remove a sticker on their car that had “Satan” inside the Christian fish. Denigrating or mocking an entire religion goes against military regulations, so MRFF went after an atheist’s bumper sticker that was offensive to Christians in exactly the same way we would go after a Christian who had a bumper sticker denigrating all non-believers.

    1. Chris – I think a press release on that case would be good. I am glad you took that on. Is the case resolved or still pending?

  35. MRFF is not anti-religion or anti-Christian! Stop listening to what the right-wing media says about us! 96% of our clients are Christians, for crisakes! All we are doing is trying to get the military to obey their own regulations regarding the proper time and place for religion and religious activities, and to ensure that EVERYBODY in the military is free from religious discrimination and coercion.

  36. Why is standing up against government coercion of religion an anti-religious or bigoted activity? Of course, the answer is that it’s not. Roger Williams, 17th century American ordained Puritan minister said(1),
    “Forced worship stinks in the nostrils of God.”
    and
    “The civil sword may make a nation of hypocrites and anti-Christians, but not one Christian.”
    That pretty much speaks to a central founding tenet; freedom of conscience. When Weinstein, Rodda or MRFF come out against the individual’s right to worship (or not) according to their conscience, or if they come out against the military making reasonable accommodation for worship (or not), then he, she, and/or it will be forging new ground.
    1) http://www.firstbaptistchurchinamerica.org/?page_id=62

  37. Does anyone know if Barton is getting paid for this prayer breakfast (or any of the others)?

  38. JCF says:
    May 1, 2013 at 5:28 am
    “You’re not seriously suggesting, Tom, that Warren is an “anti-religious bigot”?!”
    No, he is simply using a standard ad hominem attack rather than trying to address the issues.
    And it appears to be directed at MRFF rather than Warren. However, Chris has already pointed out that many in the MRFF are actually christian. An inconvenient truth the religious right seems to want to leave out with leveling there “anti-christian” accusations.

  39. Yeah, they come to us because they’re afraid to make official complaints. After speaking to the assistant installation chaplain myself, which I did prior to MRFF taking it to a higher level and sending the letter to Hagel, I can see why. Details of the phone conversation I had with this chaplain will be in my follow-up post.

  40. @ Warren … that case is resolved. We take care of these little things very quickly, usually without anything being publicly put out about them. Quite often all it takes is a phone call or letter to a commander, and the situation is resolved at that level. The public really only hears about a fraction of what we do because most of our cases are resolved so quickly and don’t require any public or media pressure to get them done.

  41. As an example of what MRFF really does:
    You won’t hear from FOX News that MRFF just got the commander of a military base to get an atheist to remove a sticker on their car that had “Satan” inside the Christian fish. Denigrating or mocking an entire religion goes against military regulations, so MRFF went after an atheist’s bumper sticker that was offensive to Christians in exactly the same way we would go after a Christian who had a bumper sticker denigrating all non-believers.

    1. Chris – I think a press release on that case would be good. I am glad you took that on. Is the case resolved or still pending?

  42. MRFF is not anti-religion or anti-Christian! Stop listening to what the right-wing media says about us! 96% of our clients are Christians, for crisakes! All we are doing is trying to get the military to obey their own regulations regarding the proper time and place for religion and religious activities, and to ensure that EVERYBODY in the military is free from religious discrimination and coercion.

  43. Why is standing up against government coercion of religion an anti-religious or bigoted activity? Of course, the answer is that it’s not. Roger Williams, 17th century American ordained Puritan minister said(1),
    “Forced worship stinks in the nostrils of God.”
    and
    “The civil sword may make a nation of hypocrites and anti-Christians, but not one Christian.”
    That pretty much speaks to a central founding tenet; freedom of conscience. When Weinstein, Rodda or MRFF come out against the individual’s right to worship (or not) according to their conscience, or if they come out against the military making reasonable accommodation for worship (or not), then he, she, and/or it will be forging new ground.
    1) http://www.firstbaptistchurchinamerica.org/?page_id=62

  44. You’re not seriously suggesting, Tom, that Warren is an “anti-religious bigot”?!

  45. JCF says:
    May 1, 2013 at 5:28 am
    “You’re not seriously suggesting, Tom, that Warren is an “anti-religious bigot”?!”
    No, he is simply using a standard ad hominem attack rather than trying to address the issues.
    And it appears to be directed at MRFF rather than Warren. However, Chris has already pointed out that many in the MRFF are actually christian. An inconvenient truth the religious right seems to want to leave out with leveling there “anti-christian” accusations.

  46. You’re not seriously suggesting, Tom, that Warren is an “anti-religious bigot”?!

Comments are closed.