Comments on: My Response to David Barton

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 30 May 2018 21:55:03 +0000

I have trusted Mr. David Barton in the past, but evidence suggests he has not presented the whole truth. That angers me. I am not able to trust him until he presents truth to back up his claims. Further, his insistence that Glenn Beck is a Christian when in fact he is instead a self-professed Mormon, is evidence that Mr. Barton is either lacking in discernment or willfully ignorant in that matter. I am also troubled by Mr. Barton’s affiliation with those who are called “Dominionists”, leaders in the New Apostolic Reformation (see http://herescope(dot)blogspot(dot)com for well-documented analysis of the NAR). I would like Mr. Barton to address these issues in a public forum with Christian men who have challenged him on the facts, men such as Mr. Throckmorton and Mr. Brannon Howse.

By: njean in texas

njean in texas — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:37:32 +0000

sounds like this Barton dude got a good hustle going. you keep it going Trockmorton,all scammers need being exposd. you could use some funding. I’d give you money,if I had it and if you would accept.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:37:32 +0000

Tom Van Dyke says:

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?

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:20:02 +0000

Not only does Barton engage in childish attacks on this critics, but he hides from addressing the most serious criticisms of his work (and hides the fact that there are serious criticisms). Apparently, he does this to make it look like he is the one being attacked. For example, he notes the criticism about his use of the term “American Exceptionalism”. If that were the worst problem with his book, then he would have about you and Micheal attacking him. However, it isn’t. It is only a minor issue compared to what you brought up. And I suspect included more to show the breadth of Barton’s misrepresentations.

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.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:20:02 +0000

oft says:

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.