July 15, 2012 at 8:43 pm

“Barton’s main argument, that Jefferson was far less hostile to religion in the public square than modern secularists paint him to be, stands, bloodied but unbowed.”

Once again Tom, who are these “modern secularist” who claim Jefferson was “hostile” to religion? And what did they actually say?

July 16, 2012 at 1:57 pm

“”the treaty paid the salary of a Catholic priest and provided for a church building.”

You distort TJ’s separation doctrine by adding “evangelizing” to the equation. The contention is TJ is interfering with another nations’ religion. U.S. taxpayers paying for a Catholic priest and providing for a church bldg is the final nail in the coffin. TJ was against intermedling with Indians’ affairs, especially intermedling with their religion. ” ”

No, Warren was not claiming Jefferson was trying to convert the native americans to christianty, Barton was attempting to do that. Warren was just pointing out that it was the Kaskaskia tribe (or I suspect the catholic church was negotiating for them) that wanted a church building and priest’s salary, not Jefferson that was offering it to them. As far as Jefferson was concerned, I suspect it wouldn’t have mattered to him if the tribe wanted a church and a priest, a mosque and an imam, a temple and a rabbi, or even a barbecue pit, dance hall and a band to play weekly.

Oh well, I do not anticipate a satisfactory reply, so to cut to the chase, the answer is Everson v. Board, 1947.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2006&month=10

It doesn’t matter. TJ gave them our money for religious purposes: intruding into their internal affairs, of which TJ wrote “for with the religion of other countries, my own forbids intermedling.” That is a contradiction, period. The only explanation is the separation doctrine TJ refers to is not what you, modern secularism, and Warren believe.

I think Barton’s attack on you may have backfired. It appears some of his readers at Wallbuilders have found their way to your blog and are starting to see how he distorts history. How have your book sales been doing since Barton put up his attack page?

Barton’s response reminds me of an old saying:

A wise man makes a mistake and admits it.

A clever man makes a mistake and hopes no one notices it.

A fool makes a mistake and denies it is a mistake.

In response to Tom Van Dyke: I have seen no credible scholar offer the equally unfounded argument that Jefferson was an atheist, or lacked any religious view. Barton’s straw man tactic attempts to justify his absurd argument as a corrective to one never seriously advanced by anyone of merit. I’m thinking of Frank Lambert, Edwin Gaustad, Nathan Hatch, George Marsden, Mark Noll, Stephen Prothero, Jon Butler,…. Where are the legitimate scholars that embrace a godless Jefferson. He was no Christian (by any genuine definition, as he denied the essential tenets of the faith), but he was clearly religious in his own way.

For my two cents, the above quote puts your argument on sinking sand. To divert from the main point of separation doctrine, you claim those Indians were entirely Catholic–which the Treaty specifically says “most”. You distort TJ’s separation doctrine by adding “evangelizing” to the equation. The contention is TJ is interfering with another nations’ religion. U.S. taxpayers paying for a Catholic priest and providing for a church bldg is the final nail in the coffin. TJ was against intermedling with Indians’ affairs, especially intermedling with their religion. You posted this quote:

/2012/01/10/did-thomas-jefferson-found-the-virginia-bible-society/

TJ contradicts your assertion:

” I presume the views of the society are confined to our own country, for with the religion of other countries, my own forbids intermedling. I had not supposed there was a family in this state not possessing a bible and without having the means to procure one. when, in earlier life I was intimate with every class, I think I never was in a house where that was the case. however, circumstances may have changed, and the society I presume have evidence of the fact. I therefore inclose you chearfully an order on Messrs Gibson and Jefferson for 50.D.

–TJ to Samuel Greenhow, January 31, 1814

Which Story did. Your rough paraphrases are as misleading as Barton’s.

Speaking of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, Mr. Lutes claims victory over Daniel Dreisbach without firing a shot. So be it. But he need only google “The Founders were deists” to see the wreckage that 20th century revision hath wrought. Fortunately, there does seem to be some interest in setting the record straight, including Barton critic John Fea, a gentleman of my own acquaintance whom I hold in high regard.

But for some reason, Mr. Lutes seems to think refraining from calling David Barton names—as he does and I don’t—implies agreement with every jog and tittle. Further, he accidentally lights onto my main formal and practical objection to the lion’s share of Barton’s critics—“His truisms are hardly earth shattering.”

INDEED. And by ignoring the parts Barton gets right, they feed his narrative that their agenda is to destroy him and “religious conservatives in general.”

Their vitriol indicates that this is agenda-driven, not a genuine concern for truth. And in my own experience, I find this to be largely correct. People got issues, usually an antipathy for the GOP—the correlation is near perfect.

So you can heed this word up, or continue the counterattack. So far I and Daniel Deisbach have received approximately the same shabby treatment, which furthers the notion that this ain’t really about Barton.