Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims About Our Third President

That is the title of an upcoming eBook I am publishing on Amazon.com along with fellow Grove City College professor of political science, Michael Coulter. We are greatly expanding the posts I did here examining and debunking claims by David Barton and others about Thomas Jefferson. Most of the book is new material and examines claims about Jefferson in the areas of church and state relations, education, the Bible, his religious views and current politics. There is an extensive section on the Jefferson Bible and other claims related to the Bible rarely included in any resource on Jefferson. We are including an annotated bibliography of accurate and helpful resources as well.

One book that won’t be on that list but we discuss frequently is David Barton’s new book, The Jefferson Lies, which is now available on Amazon. I’ve read it and we include substantial rebuttals to claims made in the book. In fact, one of the claims I responded to when I wrote about Kirk Cameron’s new movie Monumental which comes out tomorrow. In that post, I noted that Barton misled viewers about a Family Bible and indeed in his book, he identifies it as the Thompson hot press

Bible. In the advanced copy I have, Barton claims that Bible was funded by a dozen signers of the Declaration and Constitution, including Jefferson. Barton says Jefferson “personally helped finance the printing of one of America’s groundbreaking editions of the Bible.” (p. 68). In truth, he bought a Bible from Thompson and Small along with over 1270 other people.  In fact, Jefferson didn’t finish paying for it until after the Bible was printed. It was completed in 1798 and Jefferson didn’t pay his final $10 until early 1799.

A website is in the works and it will be available as an eBook on Amazon in mid-April. Ebooks can be read on any smart phone, IPad, IPod, computer, Kindle or reading device. For now, go Like our Facebook page and and answer a question we deal with in the book. More questions will be added between now and mid-April.

Must Be Spring, Day of Silence Derangement Syndrome is Breaking Out

On April 20, thousands of students will remain silent for part of the school day to call attention to anti-gay bullying and harassment. Called the Day of Silence, the event is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

In 2008, some Christian right organizations called on parents to keep their kids home on the Day of Silence. This is happening again this year.

The Day of Silence brings out some really odd statements from those opposed to it. One would think that sending your kids to school on that day is sinful. Take for instance this exchange, reported on Right Wing Watch, between Linda Harvey and Laurie Higgins:

Higgins: What the Day of Silence does is ask kids to refuse to speak during instructional time in class, that they have no legal right to do and no school has to accommodate that, and so that’s what we’re doing is asking parents to call their school, ask if students are allowed to refuse to speak in instructional time, and if they are, to keep their kids home in protest about the disruption of instructional time for a political purpose.

Harvey: You can keep your kids home that day if you suspect or you find out that teachers are going to accommodate this protest silence in order to honor homosexuality, let’s be clear about what this is, this is a God-dishonoring day that honors sin, sinful, immoral behavior that most parents don’t want their children involved in.

Higgins: Christian teachers out there and if you’re working in a public school plan activities that involve student communications so students are not allowed to do this.

Laurie Higgins says the Day of Silence people promote kids remaining silent in class. While the organizers are fine with teachers who allow this response, GLSEN is clear that students do not have the right to remain silent if the class activities call on them to speak. Here is what the Day of Silence blog says about students and class room communication.

1. You DO have a right to participate in Day of Silence and other expressions of your opinion at a public school during non-instructional time: the breaks between classes, before and after the school day, lunchtime, and any other free times during your day. If your principal or a teacher tells you otherwise, you should contact our office or the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

2. You do NOT have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak. If you want to stay quiet during class on Day of Silence, we recommend that you talk with your teachers ahead of time, tell them that you plan to participate in Day of Silence and why it’s important to you, and ask them if it would be okay for you to communicate in class on that day in writing. Most teachers will probably say yes.

3. Your school is NOT required to “sponsor” Day of Silence. But Day of Silence is rarely a school-sponsored activity to begin with – it’s almost always an activity led by students. So don’t be confused – just because your school isn’t officially sponsoring or participating in Day of Silence doesn’t mean that you can’t participate.

4. Students who oppose Day of Silence DO have the right to express their views, too. Like you, they must do so in a civil, peaceful way and they only have a right to do so during non-instructional time. For example, they don’t have a right to skip school on Day of Silence without any consequences, just as you don’t have a right to skip school just because you don’t like what they think or say.

The irony is that Higgins and Harvey accuse the Day of Silence participants of violating school rules by remaining silent, and then turn around and urge truancy. Higgins and Harvey are fine with skipping an entire day of school, but become unhinged when those opposed to anti-gay bullying want to remain silent during non-instructional times.

I urge parents to resist Day of Silence Derangement Syndrome and send their kids to school on the Day of Silence (and even the misguided Day of Dialogue the day before). Send them to school and encourage them to become part of the solution via opposition to bullying. Students may want to remain silent, or take part in the Golden Rule Pledge which can take place any day of the year.

 

Gay Staffer Says Invisible Children is Not Anti-Gay

In a post dated March 19, Vice-President for Business Operations at Invisible Children, Chris Sarette, says IC is not an anti-gay organization. Sarette has some credibility on this statement since he came out as gay in 2007. In the post, Sarette wrote:

Invisible Children has attracted supporters, employees and board members who otherwise might sit on opposite sides of the aisle. The Invisible Children community’s common conviction that people are people, and the actions that back it up, are one of the reasons that I finally came out as a gay man in 2007.

Invisible Children’s Kony2012 campaign brought international scrutiny recently when they helped make Uganda and Kony trends on Twitter. Just last week, Right Wing Watch wondered aloud about a possible link between Martin Ssempa, infamous anti-gay minister in Uganda, and the Invisible Children organization because of a video posted in 2005 by students at Grove City College (where I teach). As I understand it the visits were not coordinated and there was no connection between IC and Ssempa. However, the RWW piece speculated that such a link might be possible because of the visits.

Without specifically mentioned the false attribution of a connection, Sarette pays tribute to inclusive nature of the IC organization.

Personally, it’s difficult for me to see Invisible Children maligned as anti-gay because it’s simply untrue. This is the group of people that encouraged me to embrace my sexual identity and I have experienced the acceptance, not just tolerance, of everyone in the organization. And having just celebrated my fourth anniversary with my partner, I’m so happy that I did.

I have spoken with the current student leadership of Project Okello here and I am confident that there has never been coordination between Ssempa and IC. Furthermore, when the Project Okello leaders learned of Ssempa’s anti-gay advocacy, they ceased all contact with him.

I see that RWW has posted an update from IC which is a good start. I do hope that the RWW author will take steps to get that word out to the other bloggers who posted on the subject.

Why Santorum can’t win in November

Watch this clip:

Tony Perkins’ pastor, Dennis Terry, brings the Christian nation rhetoric in a large way. Everyone else can just get out.

Can a candidate who wants to unite the nation clap at such rhetoric? Santorum did. He says he didn’t, but he certainly is clapping when the camera moves his way when Terry says the Holy Spirit will “show up” if we elect godly leaders.

I do not believe the electorate will be as forgiving to Santorum as they were to Obama over his pastor issues. I don’t think Obama’s answers about Rev. Wright were satisfactory, and I don’t think Santorum’s mere disagreement is sufficient either. Perhaps I am wrong and Santorum could win the GOP nomination while pandering to Christian nation rhetoric, but I certainly hope he doesn’t.

WND: Lively sued over “biblically based beliefs”

Of course, WorldNetDaily would weigh in on the lawsuit against Scott Lively. As usual, WND slants the matter to misinform their audience. The article by Bob Unruh tells readers that Lively is being sued over

his biblically based religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, and his statements about his beliefs.

If you read the suit, you will find that the other people who went to Uganda with Lively (Don Schmierer and Caleb Brundidge) are not being sued. Those guys put out some misinformation too and indicated their belief that homosexuality is a sin but did not tell the audience that gays animated the Jewish Holocaust and were probably behind the Rwandan genocide as well. Those men did not tell the Ugandan audience that the best way to overcome public sympathy for gays is to portray gays as recruiters and threats to children.

Where does the Bible say that homosexuality is responsible for the Holocaust? For the Rwandan genocide? That gays are pedophiles? Are those Biblically based beliefs?

Even if one disagrees with the suit, the truth is that Lively is not being sued for his beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. There are many evangelicals who believe that in the U.S. and in Uganda who also abhor the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and tell the truth about their GLBT fellow citizens.

Lively is quoted extensively in the article but the bringers of the suit are not interviewed. When the lawsuit is cited, Unruh neglects to cite Lively comments and actions that are the basis of the suit. Here is one sugar coated example:

The lawsuit cites Lively’s visits to Uganda in 2002 to campaign against pornography at a conference to illustrate his responsibility for subsequent violence, as well as the Ugandan proposal to make illegal the publishing of pornography for the purpose of promoting homosexuality.

A WND reader would get the impression that Lively was combating porn in Uganda and/or that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was about stopping gay porn. At the least, WND should link to the suit, but of course, they don’t.

For those interested, the suit is here.