Part one is here; part two of The Blaze series where Barton answers his critics is more of the same from David Barton’s first response on his Wallbuilders’ website.
The article does not mention that Coulter and I are conservative Christians, both being active in our churches, we are not afraid of religion. We did not write our book to attack Christianity but to be faithful to it. In light of that fact, a reasonable question would have been: why are conservative Christians are also critiquing your work?
Seemingly oblivious to the irony, Barton criticizes me for writing about history since I am a psychologist.
“They don’t attack the facts — they attack the education – and that’s a way to change the topic,” Barton said. “If education really matters, there’s a lot I can point out. Ben Franklin didn’t have an education at all. George Washington didn’t have a military education.”
The historian explained that Americans have traditionally prided themselves “not on the labors you wear, but the fruit you produce.” He took specific aim at Warren Throckmorton, an associate professor of psychology at Grove City College (we mentioned Throckmorton in our original piece).
“The case of Throckmorton is a great example. He’s a psychology guy. Tell me what history experience he has — he has no training in that area at all,” he said, going on to wonder why Throckmorton is permitted to critique him with little scrutiny when he, too, purportedly has little formal history education.
We did attack “the facts.”
Furthermore, do you see what he did there? He said his critics don’t attack the facts but rather his education and then he did the same thing to me (ignoring my co-author, Michael Coulter) in the next paragraph. He didn’t answer our facts (even the ones raised in Part one of the Blaze series), he just criticized my profession and his perception of my training.
The primary question of fact Barton addresses is Jefferson’s faith. He says Jefferson was unorthodox in the last 15 years of his life. Jefferson was unorthodox as an older man but he began his skepticism of the Trinity before 1788 (he died in 1826), if we can believe his letter to J. P. Derieux — a letter that Barton does not cite in The Jefferson Lies.
To be continued, I am sure…
Mr. OFT, my ole pal, the quote seems to refer to Divine Providence, not to natural law, nor to the Declaration. At a quick glance, it does not appear to me to even be from John Adams.
http://books.google.com/books?id=82cUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=we+will+submit+more+willingly+to+them,+accordingly+as+we+shall+perceive+that+the+means+that+God+and+nature+have+put+into+our+hands+are+more+and+more+employed+to+reduce+and+humble+a+haughty+enemy&source=bl&ots=JOULfEvW4-&sig=MVy_ynAQX1f43UIXaITq8ouUK2o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QxsYUI6QBKSU0QGO5YHgDA&ved=0CE4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=we%20will%20submit%20more%20willingly%20to%20them%2C%20accordingly%20as%20we%20shall%20perceive%20that%20the%20means%20that%20God%20and%20nature%20have%20put%20into%20our%20hands%20are%20more%20and%20more%20employed%20to%20reduce%20and%20humble%20a%20haughty%20enemy&f=false
This discussion has ended, I think. Nice to see you again, but our business is finished here.
Tom,
Wilson approved the 3/5 compromise on r7/12/1787 ather than proposed it as I mistakenly thought earlier.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_712.asp
Wilson’s opinion on natural law was outside of the mainstream or the Bill of Rights and Constitution would have contained more Christian specific language.
Before using a quote to support a thesis in historical writing it is necessary to examine the social ,economis and cultural context surroundings the peron being quoted at the time. I am looking purely on who he was at the time he made the quote as well as how he was raised to include his personal belief system. There is no presentism here. I took nothing from thev21st century but simply how society viewed culture and society in the first 20 years of the 20 th century.
I was at the Truman Library and Museum in June. It was during Truman’s administration that we began to start see the massive increase in challenges to the Establishment Clause since its inception in 1791. Our nation did well from 1791-1948 maintaining our support as a nation for a Christian value system. However,it’s no coincidence that the events that followed in the second half of the century had a direct link to forsaking our Christian tradition.
Franklin was raised Puritan later evolving into a very open Deist with a hint of Calvinism mixed in for good measure . (“The Founders on Faith” by Steven Waldman ) it is a GREAT BOOK on the true faith of the founders.
We are much closer in our perspectives than we realized. Have a great day!
Mark
Exactly, Mark. 1947’s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
is seen as the turning point into Strict Separationism.
As for James Wilson and natural law, “the right to have rights” that informed the Bill of Rights is founded in the Declaration of Independence, which is a natural law document, “the laws of nature and of nature’s god.” Wilson [and Hamilton in “The Farmer Refuted”] are quite in the mainstream.
“To him to believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all power Will, discovered by Reason.”
–John Adams, Letter to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794
OFT – The issue you have is not with David Barton. It is the Founding Fathers themselves by incorrectly discerning orthodox Christian terms–’Redeemer’ being the first that is essential to this narrative.”
I’m not sure what you are getting at.
OFT – “…which would give you the victory dance you intently desire. “
And, how do you divine my desires? Do you read bull entrails, chicken bones or use some other technique?
Mark,
discrediting Barton isn’t about a “personal vendetta.” Barton has deceived a lot of people He gets people to believe him by pandering to them (telling them the things they want to hear – and that he wants to believe himself), then attacks his critics by portraying them as the enemy. By discrediting him, I mean not only exposing the misrepresentations and falsehoods he spreads,but also showing that his tactics are wrong as well.
Tom Van Dyke says:
July 30, 2012 at 4:51 pm
“Texas Prof, I’m sorry but I think you crossed a line in condemning David Barton that went beyond mere overheated rhetoric.”
Again, I disagree. TxHistoryProf said himself he worded his statement poorly. And I’ve seen nothing in his posts to make me think it was anything other than that.
“The tactic has been not to correct Barton, but to discredit him,”
Barton should be discredited. He isn’t a historian, despite his claims otherwise. He distorts and fabricates history to serve his own purposes. When faced with criticism of his claims, he attacks his critics rather than address their valid criticisms.
Ken,
I don’t feel he should be the victim of personal vendettas from the Left.he is passionate for Christ which he should be. However Jesus would probably not recommend his methods. Just sayin.
He does attack when criticized. A properly trained historian will not write anything he/she wouldn’t be able to defend when crticized. Barton either does not know how to respond to a peer review ( I use thst term “peer” loosely) or he realizes he is not being honest with his readers and feels the need to attack. He does not need to have anyone else discredit him. His lack of scholarship and peer reviews are doing that for him. Why he chose Jefferson, the most “outside the mainstream ” thinking founder of the period. There is too much scholarship out there by historians who do nothing else but study Thomas Jefferson. This is why when I write I am always thinking a step ahead “How to I rebutt this statement?”
Mark
This time I have to agree with Tom. Some of the critics of Barton are doing what he is guilty of: extending a valid point, and then stretching it beyond the breaking point and exaggerating their target’s faults. Barton’s a poor historian, but he’s no theocrat.
Why Barton picked a fight with Jefferson on his side, is beyond me.
This is what bugs me. Barton could make the same overall points about the foundations of this country and simply show that Jefferson’s views were outside of the mainstream. Then again, perhaps I should be grateful that Barton didn’t take that approach, leaving the field clear for me.
TxHistoryProf, back up your accusation
“Mr. Barton wants a country that forces one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…”
or withdraw it. Sir. Your link to Barton’s wallbuilders.com “overview” doesn’t prove your charge, “oh, look behind that curtain over there.”
Bunk. I don’t care who you are or what your credentials are: unless you back up your accusation with Barton’s exact words, you’re doing bad history—to the point of slander.
You’re held to the same standards as Barton, and at least he has the guts to sign his real name to stuff. Man up, bro.
____________________
See what you get, Warren? This is an improvement? There must be a better way to set the record straight than this. All you’re doing is giving a soapbox to the h8ers and ignoramuses on the other side. Are you going to set them straight? This is your own house and the floor’s dirty.
Tom – Mr. TXHistory is not deceiving millions, he is posting on a blog. You have a strange sense pf proportion.
For the record, I don’t know what Barton wants to do, and I don’t think you do either. I have no evidence that Barton wants to force his view of Christianity on everyone but he has said the Bible’s morality should be the basis for law. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZK6xgNTVtbo
Tom Van Dyke says:
July 29, 2012 at 9:24 pm
“”Mr. Barton wants a country that forces one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…”
That’s a falsehood and you know it, and it’s not right to play Pontius Pilate with “I don’t know what Barton wants to do.” You’ve read plenty enough of him to know that’s a slander.”
I disagree. It might be a bit exaggerated, perhaps hyperbolic. But given Barton’s deceptive methods and statements, it is not unreasonable to say Barton wants christianity elevated above all other religions in the US.
“But Barton is in no way forcing “one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…” ”
who said Barton was “forcing one specific religion on all Americans ….” ?
Is Donald Mann right?
I don’t think so. Barton’s book was a reaction to other books which tried to write evangelical Christianity completely out of American history (as a digression from the Constitution and the American way), making the Founding fathers look like today Liberals. That’s what Teaparty-Grammy refers to.
Barton found some facts to counter that position and then overstated his argument. That could be corrected in a fraternal way (correctio fraternalis).
By the way, I haven’t understood why Dr. Throckmorton calls himself a “conservative Christian”. Does he want to say that he’s not a “liberal” or a “progressive” Christian, or whatever does he want to say (and on what credentials)?
The problem Tom is that Barton is a political operative/activist producing a largely false historical narrative* to advance a political agenda that gives preference to a narrow religious world view. That is how he became a “historian.” He is the one mixing the “culture wars”, fighting the evil secularist agenda, with history.
I think that the participation of conservative and evangelical Christians and academic historians such Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter, as well as John Fea (Was America founded as a Christian Nation?) and Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden (The Search for Christian America) in addition to more secular non-academic historians such as Chris Rodda (Liars for Jesus), shows that Barton’s failings cross the lines of ideology and religious conviction.
Also too, you can’t slam Zinn on ideological “culture war” grounds in one venue and then lament the same when it comes to Barton in another. Well, I guess that you actually can if it suites your position. Never mind, carry on.
* he goes well beyond trying to promote the reality of a national Christian heritage, in reality a rather heterodox and problematic one at that (see Noll et al., or Fea), to creating and promoting a much narrower and simpler narrative that can be more palatable to a modern politically conservative and evangelical world view that both a Beck and a Huckabee can sell on radio and TV in order to rally the base that dominantly represents the same Political party as Barton. Very circular dude (a nod to the west cost readers).
Mr. Van Dyke,
I teach business management and American history courses at two different colleges in Texas. I hold a BA in Bus. Admin. with a Marketing concentration, MBA, M.Ed. and MA in History:American History concentration (with honors). My academic credentials are leaps and bound beyond Mr. Barton do be careful on making accusations on issues you are ignorant of as you don’t know me and can’t make a reasonable call on my qualifications.
Barton is an Evangelical with a BA in Religious Education which is a very broad based degree . From his own web site. Barton states his goal is to force Biblical principles into our public policy decisions:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/ABTOverview.asp
He takes quotes from George Washington and others who were Christians and portrays them as evangelical right wing Christians rather than the moderate Protestant Christians and Deists as history portrays them.
Mr. “jimmiraybob,” David Barton IS a polemicist, advocate, GOP partisan, and anything you want to throw at him. Stipulated.
His critics are far more clever, far less obvious. That’s where this commenter comes in.
😉
Do we think the commenter “TXHistoryProf” is actually a Texas history professor? Sharpen your tools, jimmiraybob.
Dr. Throckmorton, thank you for exposing this Charlatan. True history should never be construed to favor a specific ideological agenda. True historical scholarship should examine all facts and be presented with a conclusion that summaizes the information discovered. Mr. Barton wants a country that forces one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion In Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” he makes a point against religious tests for elected officials because when supporting or advocating for one religious group we do so at the risk of alienating all others. Barton refuses to recognize Christians who recognize the need to expose those who would hijack our faith to present a jaded view of that faith.
As an academically trained historian specializing in American history, I make every effort to present our founders’ intent to allow all Americans to their religion or the absence thereof. Keep exposing this distorter of truth.
“Mr. Barton wants a country that forces one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…”
Cite, please, TXHistoryProf. I don’t believe you can back this up, because that’s not Barton’s thing. This is the problem with this whole bloody mess—it’s about the culture wars, not history. Feh.
I think the only thing to do is to keep plugging away at Barton. Sooner or later he’ll tie himself up in his own fallacious knots.
I wanted to share that I received a Tweet, I believe it was yesterday, that Warren has had a heart attack and was in surgery. For those of you who pray, now would be a good time.
I wanted to share that I received a Tweet, I believe it was yesterday, that Warren has had a heart attack and was in surgery. For those of you who pray, now would be a good time.
Take him on, Warren. Piece by piece, document by document. Two opposing views cannot both be right. If David is wrong, as you insist, it will come out.
Take him on, Warren. Piece by piece, document by document. Two opposing views cannot both be right. If David is wrong, as you insist, it will come out.
TheAmericanPeople [sic]:
Speak for yourself please.
Boo
How exciting … Your Majesty!
Anyway such a claim is more credible than one of being an entire people all by one’s self!
Richard
a.k.a. TheBritishPeople (of course!)
TheAmericanPeople- I have irrefutable documentation that I am the Queen Of Mars. But I’m not going to show it to you because you are a liberal who isn’t interested in facts.
TheAmericanPeople says:
August 22, 2012 at 1:01 pm
“Provided that anyone has the guts to ask Thomas Nelson to release all of the edits that they pulled out of David Barton’s book. That’s over 20k words on the topic of Jefferson’s issues with Christianity alone by the way. David Barton went on Glenn Beck’s show on http://www.GBTV.com, a show that has more SUBSCRIBERS than CNN has viewers, and discussed the edits and used Jefferson’s own words to refute the criticism.”
Does David Barton provide references to these claims? Does he have any web-pages (or other easily accessible sources) with the documentation he claims Thomas Nelson edited out of his book?
It has been my experience that Barton makes a lot of claims, but that they aren’t supported by any verifiable evidence. If Barton’s evidence was simply “edited” out of his book, why didn’t he just provide it when others claimed he was wrong? Rather than making personal attacks against his critics.
TheAmericanPeople [sic]:
Speak for yourself please.
Boo
How exciting … Your Majesty!
Anyway such a claim is more credible than one of being an entire people all by one’s self!
Richard
a.k.a. TheBritishPeople (of course!)
TheAmericanPeople- I have irrefutable documentation that I am the Queen Of Mars. But I’m not going to show it to you because you are a liberal who isn’t interested in facts.
What is the status on the book “Jefferson Lies”?
Posted by David Milling on 13 August 2012 08:50 AM
“During the week of July 30th, Thomas Nelson made the decision to cease publication and distribution of The Jefferson Lies. The company was contacted by a number of people expressing concerns about the book. We took all of those concerns seriously, tried to sort out matters of opinion or interpretation, and in the course of our review learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported. Because of these deficiencies we decided that it was in the best interest of our readers to cease its publication and distribution.”
That was the “response” given by Thomas Nelson concerning “The Jefferson Lies” . Now, this is easily enough cleared up. Especially where documentation is concerned. Provided that anyone has the guts to ask Thomas Nelson to release all of the edits that they pulled out of David Barton’s book. That’s over 20k words on the topic of Jefferson’s issues with Christianity alone by the way. David Barton went on Glenn Beck’s show on http://www.GBTV.com, a show that has more SUBSCRIBERS than CNN has viewers, and discussed the edits and used Jefferson’s own words to refute the criticism.
There are two very important things to remember, one, Jefferson’s words are just that, HIS words, and David Barton has them. They are not open to debate or opinion unless you develop a time machine. Two, we DO NOT live in a society where you are guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof for these so called “mistakes” rests on the shoulders of the accusors. Thomas Nelson not only edited out documentation supporting many of David’s facts, but then told him that he didn’t have enough documentation!! Something is seriously wrong but I’m sure the line of questions I submitted to Thomas Nelson will get no response because of their irresponsible handling of this matter.
TheAmericanPeople – I can’t answer for Thomas Nelson, but I can tell you we have the documentation in our book. Those who want to make this about Thomas Nelson, me, leftists, etc., need to simply consider the evidence in our book.
TheAmericanPeople says:
August 22, 2012 at 1:01 pm
“Provided that anyone has the guts to ask Thomas Nelson to release all of the edits that they pulled out of David Barton’s book. That’s over 20k words on the topic of Jefferson’s issues with Christianity alone by the way. David Barton went on Glenn Beck’s show on http://www.GBTV.com, a show that has more SUBSCRIBERS than CNN has viewers, and discussed the edits and used Jefferson’s own words to refute the criticism.”
Does David Barton provide references to these claims? Does he have any web-pages (or other easily accessible sources) with the documentation he claims Thomas Nelson edited out of his book?
It has been my experience that Barton makes a lot of claims, but that they aren’t supported by any verifiable evidence. If Barton’s evidence was simply “edited” out of his book, why didn’t he just provide it when others claimed he was wrong? Rather than making personal attacks against his critics.
What is the status on the book “Jefferson Lies”?
Posted by David Milling on 13 August 2012 08:50 AM
“During the week of July 30th, Thomas Nelson made the decision to cease publication and distribution of The Jefferson Lies. The company was contacted by a number of people expressing concerns about the book. We took all of those concerns seriously, tried to sort out matters of opinion or interpretation, and in the course of our review learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported. Because of these deficiencies we decided that it was in the best interest of our readers to cease its publication and distribution.”
That was the “response” given by Thomas Nelson concerning “The Jefferson Lies” . Now, this is easily enough cleared up. Especially where documentation is concerned. Provided that anyone has the guts to ask Thomas Nelson to release all of the edits that they pulled out of David Barton’s book. That’s over 20k words on the topic of Jefferson’s issues with Christianity alone by the way. David Barton went on Glenn Beck’s show on http://www.GBTV.com, a show that has more SUBSCRIBERS than CNN has viewers, and discussed the edits and used Jefferson’s own words to refute the criticism.
There are two very important things to remember, one, Jefferson’s words are just that, HIS words, and David Barton has them. They are not open to debate or opinion unless you develop a time machine. Two, we DO NOT live in a society where you are guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof for these so called “mistakes” rests on the shoulders of the accusors. Thomas Nelson not only edited out documentation supporting many of David’s facts, but then told him that he didn’t have enough documentation!! Something is seriously wrong but I’m sure the line of questions I submitted to Thomas Nelson will get no response because of their irresponsible handling of this matter.
TheAmericanPeople – I can’t answer for Thomas Nelson, but I can tell you we have the documentation in our book. Those who want to make this about Thomas Nelson, me, leftists, etc., need to simply consider the evidence in our book.
Tom,
You are missing the point. Adams is differentiating God and Nature, as the other founding fathers do, which proves the proper meaning of Lonang in the DOI.
Mr. OFT, my ole pal, the quote seems to refer to Divine Providence, not to natural law, nor to the Declaration. At a quick glance, it does not appear to me to even be from John Adams.
http://books.google.com/books?id=82cUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=we+will+submit+more+willingly+to+them,+accordingly+as+we+shall+perceive+that+the+means+that+God+and+nature+have+put+into+our+hands+are+more+and+more+employed+to+reduce+and+humble+a+haughty+enemy&source=bl&ots=JOULfEvW4-&sig=MVy_ynAQX1f43UIXaITq8ouUK2o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QxsYUI6QBKSU0QGO5YHgDA&ved=0CE4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=we%20will%20submit%20more%20willingly%20to%20them%2C%20accordingly%20as%20we%20shall%20perceive%20that%20the%20means%20that%20God%20and%20nature%20have%20put%20into%20our%20hands%20are%20more%20and%20more%20employed%20to%20reduce%20and%20humble%20a%20haughty%20enemy&f=false
This discussion has ended, I think. Nice to see you again, but our business is finished here.
Tom,
You are missing the point. Adams is differentiating God and Nature, as the other founding fathers do, which proves the proper meaning of Lonang in the DOI.
Tom,
The DOI is founded on the Bible.
“[Y]es, we will submit more willingly to them, accordingly as we shall perceive that the means that God and nature have put into our hands are more and more employed to reduce and humble a haughty enemy.”
–John Adams, letter to Livingston*, March 19, 1782, The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Vol. 5. [* – MSS. Dep. of State; 3 Sparks’ Dip. Rev. Corr., 562.]
Tom,
I think I misunderstood your thesis regarding natural law earlier but clearly understand after your last post with the reference to the Declaration. Natural law refers to laws and rights that can never be denied as being derived from a higher power where our inalienable rights stem from which are those God given rights that government cannot deny. Government, under natural law, cannot grant rights, they can only protect them. “Of nature and nature’s God” very much refers to a universal Supreme Being, that does not favor one monotheistic religion over another.
Here is a great site for SCOTUS cases in case you were not aware:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2011
Wikipedia is not a reputable source because it can be edited by anyone, but it is a good starting off point for researching a topic.
Mark
Tom,
The DOI is founded on the Bible.
“[Y]es, we will submit more willingly to them, accordingly as we shall perceive that the means that God and nature have put into our hands are more and more employed to reduce and humble a haughty enemy.”
–John Adams, letter to Livingston*, March 19, 1782, The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Vol. 5. [* – MSS. Dep. of State; 3 Sparks’ Dip. Rev. Corr., 562.]
Note to Tom .. Perhaps its time to look back over this thread and look at some of the accusations you have made or implied .. re: the accusation of ‘deceiving millions’ … the claim that what Warren has done has let the ‘haters’ in .. the claim that Warren’s house is dirty and needs cleaning and so forth. These all came from you. Might I humbly suggest that you are not innocent of being propelled by a personal agenda , an agenda that can blind you to things and lead you to make off the wall statements. Perhaps you have some house cleaing of your own to do.
Peace and God bless,
Dave
Tom,
I think I misunderstood your thesis regarding natural law earlier but clearly understand after your last post with the reference to the Declaration. Natural law refers to laws and rights that can never be denied as being derived from a higher power where our inalienable rights stem from which are those God given rights that government cannot deny. Government, under natural law, cannot grant rights, they can only protect them. “Of nature and nature’s God” very much refers to a universal Supreme Being, that does not favor one monotheistic religion over another.
Here is a great site for SCOTUS cases in case you were not aware:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2011
Wikipedia is not a reputable source because it can be edited by anyone, but it is a good starting off point for researching a topic.
Mark
Note to Tom .. Perhaps its time to look back over this thread and look at some of the accusations you have made or implied .. re: the accusation of ‘deceiving millions’ … the claim that what Warren has done has let the ‘haters’ in .. the claim that Warren’s house is dirty and needs cleaning and so forth. These all came from you. Might I humbly suggest that you are not innocent of being propelled by a personal agenda , an agenda that can blind you to things and lead you to make off the wall statements. Perhaps you have some house cleaing of your own to do.
Peace and God bless,
Dave
Exactly, Mark. 1947’s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
is seen as the turning point into Strict Separationism.
As for James Wilson and natural law, “the right to have rights” that informed the Bill of Rights is founded in the Declaration of Independence, which is a natural law document, “the laws of nature and of nature’s god.” Wilson [and Hamilton in “The Farmer Refuted”] are quite in the mainstream.
“To him to believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all power Will, discovered by Reason.”
–John Adams, Letter to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794
Yes, Jimmiraybob, I used a Democrat [Truman] quite on purpose, because the lion’s share of the Barton hate is coming from the enemies of the Religious Right.
That was the whole point. To use Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush would defeat the point. I hope that clarifies this matter and we can put it to bed.
Tom,
Wilson approved the 3/5 compromise on r7/12/1787 ather than proposed it as I mistakenly thought earlier.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_712.asp
Wilson’s opinion on natural law was outside of the mainstream or the Bill of Rights and Constitution would have contained more Christian specific language.
Before using a quote to support a thesis in historical writing it is necessary to examine the social ,economis and cultural context surroundings the peron being quoted at the time. I am looking purely on who he was at the time he made the quote as well as how he was raised to include his personal belief system. There is no presentism here. I took nothing from thev21st century but simply how society viewed culture and society in the first 20 years of the 20 th century.
I was at the Truman Library and Museum in June. It was during Truman’s administration that we began to start see the massive increase in challenges to the Establishment Clause since its inception in 1791. Our nation did well from 1791-1948 maintaining our support as a nation for a Christian value system. However,it’s no coincidence that the events that followed in the second half of the century had a direct link to forsaking our Christian tradition.
Franklin was raised Puritan later evolving into a very open Deist with a hint of Calvinism mixed in for good measure . (“The Founders on Faith” by Steven Waldman ) it is a GREAT BOOK on the true faith of the founders.
We are much closer in our perspectives than we realized. Have a great day!
Mark
Other things that Truman said that are now anathema (socialism, communism, progresivism, Obamaism), picking up from your quote:
“Above all, we must recognize that human misery breeds most of our crime. We must wipe out our slums, improve the health of our citizens, and eliminate the inequalities of opportunity which embitter men and women and turn them toward lawlessness. In the long run, these programs represent the greatest of all anticrime measures.
“And I want to emphasize, particularly, equality of opportunity. I think every child in the Nation, regardless of his race, creed, or color, should have the right to a proper education. And when he has finished that education, he ought to have the right in industry to fair treatment in employment. If he is able and willing to do the job, he ought to be given a chance to do that job, no matter what his religious connections are, or what his color is.”
Poor guy couldn’t get elected dog catcher today. 🙂
OFT – The issue you have is not with David Barton. It is the Founding Fathers themselves by incorrectly discerning orthodox Christian terms–’Redeemer’ being the first that is essential to this narrative.”
I’m not sure what you are getting at.
OFT – “…which would give you the victory dance you intently desire. “
And, how do you divine my desires? Do you read bull entrails, chicken bones or use some other technique?
Mark,
discrediting Barton isn’t about a “personal vendetta.” Barton has deceived a lot of people He gets people to believe him by pandering to them (telling them the things they want to hear – and that he wants to believe himself), then attacks his critics by portraying them as the enemy. By discrediting him, I mean not only exposing the misrepresentations and falsehoods he spreads,but also showing that his tactics are wrong as well.
Ken,
I don’t feel he should be the victim of personal vendettas from the Left.he is passionate for Christ which he should be. However Jesus would probably not recommend his methods. Just sayin.
He does attack when criticized. A properly trained historian will not write anything he/she wouldn’t be able to defend when crticized. Barton either does not know how to respond to a peer review ( I use thst term “peer” loosely) or he realizes he is not being honest with his readers and feels the need to attack. He does not need to have anyone else discredit him. His lack of scholarship and peer reviews are doing that for him. Why he chose Jefferson, the most “outside the mainstream ” thinking founder of the period. There is too much scholarship out there by historians who do nothing else but study Thomas Jefferson. This is why when I write I am always thinking a step ahead “How to I rebutt this statement?”
Mark
Thank you Mark from Texas. I’m OK with much of what you wrote. FTR, I’m not an evangelical, nor even a Protestant.
Quibbles:
The “3/5 of a person” riff is historically inaccurate, and on the whole judging attitudes on race and gender is “presentism,” the secret to doing bad history.
Unfair to accuse me of cherry-picking James Wilson. He’s explicating natural law and its relation to revelation [the Bible], and is very close here to Sir William Blackstone, the acknowledged British legal scholar. Barton, like some other evangelicals, isn’t very good with explaining the difference and balance between natural law [discovered by “right” reason] and revelation [the Word of God], that truth cannot be in conflict with truth.
On the other hand, our modern skulls full of mush don’t get natural law either.
As for Woodrow Wilson, I was picking a progressive saint, and besides, Glenn Beck hates him. 😉 Let’s go with this one then:
“I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.
The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.
If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”
Not David Barton. Harry Truman. The point holds, that Barton’s invocation of biblical principles as America’s foundation was mainstream until quite recently, yet they try to paint him as a theocratic freak.
BTW, your Patrick Henry quote is bogus. Snopes sez it originated in 1956, and yes, unfortunately it was spread around further by…David Barton.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=126
neither was Franklin an “open” deist, really
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Founding-Fathers-Were-Not-Deists-John-Fea-02-02-2011.html
but again, quibbles.
Thanks, and peace. We are not so far apart afterall. And it is indeed unfortunate that David Barton is off on his own island, unreachable by those who mean him more well than ill.
Tom Van Dyke says:
July 30, 2012 at 4:51 pm
“Texas Prof, I’m sorry but I think you crossed a line in condemning David Barton that went beyond mere overheated rhetoric.”
Again, I disagree. TxHistoryProf said himself he worded his statement poorly. And I’ve seen nothing in his posts to make me think it was anything other than that.
“The tactic has been not to correct Barton, but to discredit him,”
Barton should be discredited. He isn’t a historian, despite his claims otherwise. He distorts and fabricates history to serve his own purposes. When faced with criticism of his claims, he attacks his critics rather than address their valid criticisms.
Tom,
My statement was not condemnation but merely an over exaggeration of an inference I misstated. I believe that Barton does not want a theocracy in the direct sense like in Turkey. He does however as outlined in his own website want to affect and influence legislative policy with Bibkical principles. As a Christian, I see the merits of his goals. However, as an academic historian, I feel we must be careful not to push too much influence of one religion into the public arena for fear of rallying other religions, monotheistic, polytheistic and atheistic from pushing values into the legislative process that are antithetical to the Christian cause.
This is why many public schools do not open their buildings to religious groups. The premise is if you let one you have to let all. Here in the Bible belt that won’t fly.
As an Evangelical Lutheran, I am not in opposition to what Barton’s mission is. I do take issue in the many errors in his scholarship attempting to take history and bend it to fit his agenda. That isn’t history and won’t get him the respect he desires in the secular world where he most fervently desires to gain a foothold.
Barton’s lack of academic historical credentials would not hurt him if he wrote more like McCullough, who is revered as one of the best social historians (history for the laymen “history buffs”) and garners very little criticism from academic historians (research history for academics).
I do agree that if we want to see more Bible based laws, Christians MUST vote and get involved and throw out the idea of “They are all crooks.” or “My vote doesn’t count.” As James Wilson points out, we alone as a collective of citizens are responsible for our government and hold the only power available to change that government if we are dissatisfied. Of the national electorate 39% identify themselves a Evangelical Christians”. Voters in this group with higher education and income levels tend to vote more often then their less educated lower income counterparts. EVERY EVANGELICAL VOTER MUST GET TO THE POLLS THIS FALL! THE LEFT FEARS THE FULL MOBILIZATION OF THE FAR RIGHT!
http://thepartyline.org/tag/dnc2012
I have serious issues with the critics who are are not tearing holes in his scholarship but those who want to tear him down because he is an Evangelical Christian. We are, the biggest threat to the liberal and progressive far left because we vote en masse. We strongly believe in individual responsibility, work ethic, and the uniqueness that defines American Exceptionalism. Gordon S. Wood said in “Empire of Liberty” that our diversity, lack of nationalist views (because of our melting pot of citizens) and our pursuit of a better quality of life, define us as exceptional among the citizens of the world. Barton should regroup and hire a few degreed historians as staff researchers to write about the influence Christianity has had on our nation to silence the ivory tower “credential critics” so he can pursue those working for the “other side” whose primary mission is his destruction. Barton is doing a great service for our country. He has Americans reading history. Socialists hate an informed citizenry. Jefferson said that “Information is the currency of democracy.”. Those who know the back story can never be duped by those who would tear down America to rebuild her for some nefarious purpose.
As far as who you chose to cite to cover the natural law argument, try not to chose the man who proposed to have African-Americans counted as 3/5 of a human being for representation purposes yet give them no voice in Congress even their enumeration gave southern whites much more power than their northern brethren. If you read the entire “Lectures on the Law” you will see that even Wilson begins by recognizing the role that religious freedom played as early as 1649 in Maryland. While Wilson invokes God as the basis for the inspiration of law, he does not advocate that Protestant Christianity be used to partner with government much in the same way as the Catholic and Anglican Churches with Wilson chastising the former’s tyrannical role in the governments of Europe as well as his disdain for the devine rights of princes. Also within the first chapter, Wilson makes a deliberate point to inform women of their place in 18th century America as being unable to handle public affairs without a man. Such rhetoric would never fly today. We have evolved as a society as Locke said we would, meaning thant we must not be resistant to change. As our nation grew it changed by the influx of Catholics,Jews, Muslims,Buddhists, Hindus and atheists. Our founders realized this and made this their motivation to make sure no one religion ever had a monopoly on legislative policy. This is why our Federal Bill of Rights was put in place to protect the minority against the forced actions of the majority. We don’t like it as Christians when other smaller faiths are afforded what seems to us as more protection as we walk around with a bull’s eye on our back the Left. Without freedom of religious expression, we would give the government the opportunity to put in place the religion of their choice at the peril of all others.
Read Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” and Hefferson’s Virgina Act for Religious Freedom to see where the seed, planted in 1649′ began to sprout in 1786.
“Lectures on the Law” by James Wilson delivered in Philadelpha 1790-1791 and published in 1804.
Chapter I
“Let it be known, that, before the doctrine of toleration was published in Europe, the practice of it was established in America. A law in favour of religious freedom was passed in Maryland, as early as the year one thousand six hundred and forty nine.”-James Wilson
“When my Lord Baltimore was afterwards urged—not by the spirit of freedom—to consent that this law should be repealed; with the enlightened principles of a man and a christian, he had the fortitude, to declare, that he never would assent to the repeal of a law, which protected the natural rights of men, by ensuring to every one freedom of action and thought.”-James Wilson
(if a Christian Nation was intended, the right of freedom of action and thought guaranteed in 1649 and again in the First Amendment would be denied to every American)
“Permit me to mention one great principle, the vital principle I may well call it, which diffuses animation and vigour through all the others. The principle I mean is this, that the supreme or sovereign power of the society resides in the citizens at large; and that, therefore, they always retain the right of abolishing, altering, or amending their constitution, at whatever time, and in whatever manner, they shall deem it expedient.”-James Wilson
(the people as a collective chose their government; not any specific ecclesiastical group)
Ch. II
‘It is in this manner that Domat reasons concerning the origin of sovereignty and government. “As there is none but God alone who is the natural sovereign of man; so it is likewise from him that they who govern derive all their power and authority. It is one of the ceremonies in the coronation of the kings of France, for them to take the sword from the altar; thereby to denote, that it is immediately from the hand of God that they derive the sovereign power, of which the sword is the principal emblem.”-‘ James Wilson
“After all, I am much inclined, for the honour of human nature, to believe, that all this doctrine concerning the divine right of kings was, at first, encouraged and cherished by many, from motives, mistaken certainly, but pardonable, and even laudable, and that it was intended not so much to introduce the tyranny of princes, as to form a barrier against the tyranny of priests.” -James Wilson
(the last sentence speaks to the American desire to keep church and state separate based on bad history when the two were joined)
“One of them, at the head of a numerous, a formidable, and a well disciplined phalanx, claimed to be the Almighty’s vicegerent upon earth; claimed the power of deposing kings, disposing crowns, releasing subjects from their allegiance, and overruling the whole transactions of the christian world. Superstition and ignorance dreaded, but could not oppose, the presumptuous claim. The Pope had obtained, what Archimedes wanted, another world, on which he placed his ecclesiastical machinery; and it was no wonder that he moved this according to his will and pleasure. Princes and potentates, states and kingdoms were prostrate before him. Every thing human was obliged to bend under the incumbent pressure of divine control.”-James Wilson
So, by cherry picking your quote from Chapter III, a thorough reading of Chapters I and II show only God and the Bible as the inspiration for law but DOES NOT lend any credence to the argument that we were founded as a “Christian” nation but rather as a collective of believers who happen to be predominantly Christian who refused to let one specific monotheistic religion have an influence on secular government ultimately answering to the people it governs and it ONLY does so WITH THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED,
http://www.nlnrac.org/american/scottish-enlightenment/primary-source-documents
Again you cherry picked from another Wilson who was the most racist President of the 20th century.? Woodrow Wilson segregated government offices, refused women full suffrage until they shamed him into supporting it. Wilson was a typical white southern Presbyterian who spoke very publicly of his Calvinist upbringing. However, that white Protestant faith was also the basis for his racist attitudes as was much of the white South in the early 20th Century. There was also a very strong resurgence of anti-Catholic prejudice as Eastern Europeans flooded Ellis Island. His strong white Protestant Ulster Irish and Presbyterian Scotch upbringing fueled the fire of religious bigotry prompting him to emphasize that we were born as a Christian Nation to remind recent I migrants that as Catholics they were protected but that we WERE and would be a Christian nation UNLESS, as he stated, we forget where we came from which was an inference to the waves of Catholic immigrants. Because of the aforementioned social and cultural issues, we MUST examine the social, economic historical context of the period in which the quote is taken.
Wilson refused to appear before African-American audiences during the presidential campaign of 1912 and very plainly voiced his opposition to women’s Suffrage. -“Pivotal Decades” by John Milton Cooper p. 184-185
Wilson’s father was a Presbyterian minister. This explained Wilson’s zeal for the Christian faith. However, just because he said we were born a Christian nation was his opinion with no basis in fact
Carl Pearlston wrote in 2001:
“The crucial role of Christianity in this nation’s formation is not without dispute, although as Revolutionary leader Patrick Henry said: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship.”
“It is frequently asserted by those seeking to minimize Christianity’s central role in our nation’s founding and history, that the founders themselves were not practicing Christians, but rather were Deists or Agnostics. In a 1962 speech to Congress, Senator Robert Byrd noted that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 29 were Anglicans, 16-18 were Calvinists, and among the rest were 2 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 lapsed Quaker-sometimes Anglican, and only 1 open Deist — Benjamin Franklin who attended all Christian worships and called for public prayer.”
BECAUSE of the oppression by the Church of England, Catholic Church,Puritans and Anglican Church, our founders realized that even as a Protestant Christian plurality there was a need to protect religious freedom from an oppressive government. This is why freedom of or from religion is protected.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html
You and I and Warren also know that, just as the religious fervor of a Christian nation permeated our nation during Wilson’s term, so did racism and lynching but that doesn’t make us a racist nation today anymore than our religious make up tody make us specifically a “Christian” nation.
Mark
Yes, Jimmiraybob, I used a Democrat [Truman] quite on purpose, because the lion’s share of the Barton hate is coming from the enemies of the Religious Right.
That was the whole point. To use Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush would defeat the point. I hope that clarifies this matter and we can put it to bed.
Other things that Truman said that are now anathema (socialism, communism, progresivism, Obamaism), picking up from your quote:
“Above all, we must recognize that human misery breeds most of our crime. We must wipe out our slums, improve the health of our citizens, and eliminate the inequalities of opportunity which embitter men and women and turn them toward lawlessness. In the long run, these programs represent the greatest of all anticrime measures.
“And I want to emphasize, particularly, equality of opportunity. I think every child in the Nation, regardless of his race, creed, or color, should have the right to a proper education. And when he has finished that education, he ought to have the right in industry to fair treatment in employment. If he is able and willing to do the job, he ought to be given a chance to do that job, no matter what his religious connections are, or what his color is.”
Poor guy couldn’t get elected dog catcher today. 🙂
This time I have to agree with Tom. Some of the critics of Barton are doing what he is guilty of: extending a valid point, and then stretching it beyond the breaking point and exaggerating their target’s faults. Barton’s a poor historian, but he’s no theocrat.
Why Barton picked a fight with Jefferson on his side, is beyond me.
This is what bugs me. Barton could make the same overall points about the foundations of this country and simply show that Jefferson’s views were outside of the mainstream. Then again, perhaps I should be grateful that Barton didn’t take that approach, leaving the field clear for me.
Thank you Mark from Texas. I’m OK with much of what you wrote. FTR, I’m not an evangelical, nor even a Protestant.
Quibbles:
The “3/5 of a person” riff is historically inaccurate, and on the whole judging attitudes on race and gender is “presentism,” the secret to doing bad history.
Unfair to accuse me of cherry-picking James Wilson. He’s explicating natural law and its relation to revelation [the Bible], and is very close here to Sir William Blackstone, the acknowledged British legal scholar. Barton, like some other evangelicals, isn’t very good with explaining the difference and balance between natural law [discovered by “right” reason] and revelation [the Word of God], that truth cannot be in conflict with truth.
On the other hand, our modern skulls full of mush don’t get natural law either.
As for Woodrow Wilson, I was picking a progressive saint, and besides, Glenn Beck hates him. 😉 Let’s go with this one then:
“I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.
The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.
If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”
Not David Barton. Harry Truman. The point holds, that Barton’s invocation of biblical principles as America’s foundation was mainstream until quite recently, yet they try to paint him as a theocratic freak.
BTW, your Patrick Henry quote is bogus. Snopes sez it originated in 1956, and yes, unfortunately it was spread around further by…David Barton.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=126
neither was Franklin an “open” deist, really
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Founding-Fathers-Were-Not-Deists-John-Fea-02-02-2011.html
but again, quibbles.
Thanks, and peace. We are not so far apart afterall. And it is indeed unfortunate that David Barton is off on his own island, unreachable by those who mean him more well than ill.
Texas Prof, I’m sorry but I think you crossed a line in condemning David Barton that went beyond mere overheated rhetoric. And my main point has been that the pushback on Barton is often just as bad as what they accuse him of, that the net result is just as much confusion except swinging the other way.
The tactic has been not to correct Barton, but to discredit him, paint him as a theocratic freak, make him the effigy for the Religious Right. And why not? His errors are egregious, he’s fish in a barrel.
“America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the tenets of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.”
That’s not Barton, that’s Woodrow Wilson, 1911. You and I and Warren all know that your average Barton critic has no idea that such sentiments used to be the American mainstream. And that’s my point. [I have no substantive disagreements with Drs. Throckmorton and Coulter on the facts.]
_______________
My American Creation blog colleague Jonathan Rowe suggests that “natural law” seems to be a concept foreign to Barton’s thesis. I would say he doesn’t argue it much because his Protestant audiences are not steeped in natural law, but the James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton arguments do indeed appear on the Wallbuilders.com website.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=111
“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.”—Wilson
[T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.”—Hamilton
Tom,
My statement was not condemnation but merely an over exaggeration of an inference I misstated. I believe that Barton does not want a theocracy in the direct sense like in Turkey. He does however as outlined in his own website want to affect and influence legislative policy with Bibkical principles. As a Christian, I see the merits of his goals. However, as an academic historian, I feel we must be careful not to push too much influence of one religion into the public arena for fear of rallying other religions, monotheistic, polytheistic and atheistic from pushing values into the legislative process that are antithetical to the Christian cause.
This is why many public schools do not open their buildings to religious groups. The premise is if you let one you have to let all. Here in the Bible belt that won’t fly.
As an Evangelical Lutheran, I am not in opposition to what Barton’s mission is. I do take issue in the many errors in his scholarship attempting to take history and bend it to fit his agenda. That isn’t history and won’t get him the respect he desires in the secular world where he most fervently desires to gain a foothold.
Barton’s lack of academic historical credentials would not hurt him if he wrote more like McCullough, who is revered as one of the best social historians (history for the laymen “history buffs”) and garners very little criticism from academic historians (research history for academics).
I do agree that if we want to see more Bible based laws, Christians MUST vote and get involved and throw out the idea of “They are all crooks.” or “My vote doesn’t count.” As James Wilson points out, we alone as a collective of citizens are responsible for our government and hold the only power available to change that government if we are dissatisfied. Of the national electorate 39% identify themselves a Evangelical Christians”. Voters in this group with higher education and income levels tend to vote more often then their less educated lower income counterparts. EVERY EVANGELICAL VOTER MUST GET TO THE POLLS THIS FALL! THE LEFT FEARS THE FULL MOBILIZATION OF THE FAR RIGHT!
http://thepartyline.org/tag/dnc2012
I have serious issues with the critics who are are not tearing holes in his scholarship but those who want to tear him down because he is an Evangelical Christian. We are, the biggest threat to the liberal and progressive far left because we vote en masse. We strongly believe in individual responsibility, work ethic, and the uniqueness that defines American Exceptionalism. Gordon S. Wood said in “Empire of Liberty” that our diversity, lack of nationalist views (because of our melting pot of citizens) and our pursuit of a better quality of life, define us as exceptional among the citizens of the world. Barton should regroup and hire a few degreed historians as staff researchers to write about the influence Christianity has had on our nation to silence the ivory tower “credential critics” so he can pursue those working for the “other side” whose primary mission is his destruction. Barton is doing a great service for our country. He has Americans reading history. Socialists hate an informed citizenry. Jefferson said that “Information is the currency of democracy.”. Those who know the back story can never be duped by those who would tear down America to rebuild her for some nefarious purpose.
As far as who you chose to cite to cover the natural law argument, try not to chose the man who proposed to have African-Americans counted as 3/5 of a human being for representation purposes yet give them no voice in Congress even their enumeration gave southern whites much more power than their northern brethren. If you read the entire “Lectures on the Law” you will see that even Wilson begins by recognizing the role that religious freedom played as early as 1649 in Maryland. While Wilson invokes God as the basis for the inspiration of law, he does not advocate that Protestant Christianity be used to partner with government much in the same way as the Catholic and Anglican Churches with Wilson chastising the former’s tyrannical role in the governments of Europe as well as his disdain for the devine rights of princes. Also within the first chapter, Wilson makes a deliberate point to inform women of their place in 18th century America as being unable to handle public affairs without a man. Such rhetoric would never fly today. We have evolved as a society as Locke said we would, meaning thant we must not be resistant to change. As our nation grew it changed by the influx of Catholics,Jews, Muslims,Buddhists, Hindus and atheists. Our founders realized this and made this their motivation to make sure no one religion ever had a monopoly on legislative policy. This is why our Federal Bill of Rights was put in place to protect the minority against the forced actions of the majority. We don’t like it as Christians when other smaller faiths are afforded what seems to us as more protection as we walk around with a bull’s eye on our back the Left. Without freedom of religious expression, we would give the government the opportunity to put in place the religion of their choice at the peril of all others.
Read Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” and Hefferson’s Virgina Act for Religious Freedom to see where the seed, planted in 1649′ began to sprout in 1786.
“Lectures on the Law” by James Wilson delivered in Philadelpha 1790-1791 and published in 1804.
Chapter I
“Let it be known, that, before the doctrine of toleration was published in Europe, the practice of it was established in America. A law in favour of religious freedom was passed in Maryland, as early as the year one thousand six hundred and forty nine.”-James Wilson
“When my Lord Baltimore was afterwards urged—not by the spirit of freedom—to consent that this law should be repealed; with the enlightened principles of a man and a christian, he had the fortitude, to declare, that he never would assent to the repeal of a law, which protected the natural rights of men, by ensuring to every one freedom of action and thought.”-James Wilson
(if a Christian Nation was intended, the right of freedom of action and thought guaranteed in 1649 and again in the First Amendment would be denied to every American)
“Permit me to mention one great principle, the vital principle I may well call it, which diffuses animation and vigour through all the others. The principle I mean is this, that the supreme or sovereign power of the society resides in the citizens at large; and that, therefore, they always retain the right of abolishing, altering, or amending their constitution, at whatever time, and in whatever manner, they shall deem it expedient.”-James Wilson
(the people as a collective chose their government; not any specific ecclesiastical group)
Ch. II
‘It is in this manner that Domat reasons concerning the origin of sovereignty and government. “As there is none but God alone who is the natural sovereign of man; so it is likewise from him that they who govern derive all their power and authority. It is one of the ceremonies in the coronation of the kings of France, for them to take the sword from the altar; thereby to denote, that it is immediately from the hand of God that they derive the sovereign power, of which the sword is the principal emblem.”-‘ James Wilson
“After all, I am much inclined, for the honour of human nature, to believe, that all this doctrine concerning the divine right of kings was, at first, encouraged and cherished by many, from motives, mistaken certainly, but pardonable, and even laudable, and that it was intended not so much to introduce the tyranny of princes, as to form a barrier against the tyranny of priests.” -James Wilson
(the last sentence speaks to the American desire to keep church and state separate based on bad history when the two were joined)
“One of them, at the head of a numerous, a formidable, and a well disciplined phalanx, claimed to be the Almighty’s vicegerent upon earth; claimed the power of deposing kings, disposing crowns, releasing subjects from their allegiance, and overruling the whole transactions of the christian world. Superstition and ignorance dreaded, but could not oppose, the presumptuous claim. The Pope had obtained, what Archimedes wanted, another world, on which he placed his ecclesiastical machinery; and it was no wonder that he moved this according to his will and pleasure. Princes and potentates, states and kingdoms were prostrate before him. Every thing human was obliged to bend under the incumbent pressure of divine control.”-James Wilson
So, by cherry picking your quote from Chapter III, a thorough reading of Chapters I and II show only God and the Bible as the inspiration for law but DOES NOT lend any credence to the argument that we were founded as a “Christian” nation but rather as a collective of believers who happen to be predominantly Christian who refused to let one specific monotheistic religion have an influence on secular government ultimately answering to the people it governs and it ONLY does so WITH THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED,
http://www.nlnrac.org/american/scottish-enlightenment/primary-source-documents
Again you cherry picked from another Wilson who was the most racist President of the 20th century.? Woodrow Wilson segregated government offices, refused women full suffrage until they shamed him into supporting it. Wilson was a typical white southern Presbyterian who spoke very publicly of his Calvinist upbringing. However, that white Protestant faith was also the basis for his racist attitudes as was much of the white South in the early 20th Century. There was also a very strong resurgence of anti-Catholic prejudice as Eastern Europeans flooded Ellis Island. His strong white Protestant Ulster Irish and Presbyterian Scotch upbringing fueled the fire of religious bigotry prompting him to emphasize that we were born as a Christian Nation to remind recent I migrants that as Catholics they were protected but that we WERE and would be a Christian nation UNLESS, as he stated, we forget where we came from which was an inference to the waves of Catholic immigrants. Because of the aforementioned social and cultural issues, we MUST examine the social, economic historical context of the period in which the quote is taken.
Wilson refused to appear before African-American audiences during the presidential campaign of 1912 and very plainly voiced his opposition to women’s Suffrage. -“Pivotal Decades” by John Milton Cooper p. 184-185
Wilson’s father was a Presbyterian minister. This explained Wilson’s zeal for the Christian faith. However, just because he said we were born a Christian nation was his opinion with no basis in fact
Carl Pearlston wrote in 2001:
“The crucial role of Christianity in this nation’s formation is not without dispute, although as Revolutionary leader Patrick Henry said: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship.”
“It is frequently asserted by those seeking to minimize Christianity’s central role in our nation’s founding and history, that the founders themselves were not practicing Christians, but rather were Deists or Agnostics. In a 1962 speech to Congress, Senator Robert Byrd noted that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 29 were Anglicans, 16-18 were Calvinists, and among the rest were 2 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 lapsed Quaker-sometimes Anglican, and only 1 open Deist — Benjamin Franklin who attended all Christian worships and called for public prayer.”
BECAUSE of the oppression by the Church of England, Catholic Church,Puritans and Anglican Church, our founders realized that even as a Protestant Christian plurality there was a need to protect religious freedom from an oppressive government. This is why freedom of or from religion is protected.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html
You and I and Warren also know that, just as the religious fervor of a Christian nation permeated our nation during Wilson’s term, so did racism and lynching but that doesn’t make us a racist nation today anymore than our religious make up tody make us specifically a “Christian” nation.
Mark
Jimmyray,
The issue you have is not with David Barton. It is the Founding Fathers themselves by incorrectly discerning orthodox Christian terms–“Redeemer” being the first that is essential to this narrative.
I agree with Warren about Jefferson, although, I refrain from giving you the stone and sling that slewed Goliath, which would give you the victory dance you intently desire. Why Barton picked a fight with Jefferson on his side, is beyond me.
Texas Prof, I’m sorry but I think you crossed a line in condemning David Barton that went beyond mere overheated rhetoric. And my main point has been that the pushback on Barton is often just as bad as what they accuse him of, that the net result is just as much confusion except swinging the other way.
The tactic has been not to correct Barton, but to discredit him, paint him as a theocratic freak, make him the effigy for the Religious Right. And why not? His errors are egregious, he’s fish in a barrel.
“America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the tenets of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.”
That’s not Barton, that’s Woodrow Wilson, 1911. You and I and Warren all know that your average Barton critic has no idea that such sentiments used to be the American mainstream. And that’s my point. [I have no substantive disagreements with Drs. Throckmorton and Coulter on the facts.]
_______________
My American Creation blog colleague Jonathan Rowe suggests that “natural law” seems to be a concept foreign to Barton’s thesis. I would say he doesn’t argue it much because his Protestant audiences are not steeped in natural law, but the James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton arguments do indeed appear on the Wallbuilders.com website.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=111
“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.”—Wilson
[T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.”—Hamilton
Jon,
Well played. Another another Scottish philosopher, John Locke osited that just as the natural world evolves, so does societal views. Societal views toward women and minorities remained unchanged until the American experiment in representative government.
Mark
Jimmyray,
The issue you have is not with David Barton. It is the Founding Fathers themselves by incorrectly discerning orthodox Christian terms–“Redeemer” being the first that is essential to this narrative.
I agree with Warren about Jefferson, although, I refrain from giving you the stone and sling that slewed Goliath, which would give you the victory dance you intently desire. Why Barton picked a fight with Jefferson on his side, is beyond me.
Jon,
Well played. Another another Scottish philosopher, John Locke osited that just as the natural world evolves, so does societal views. Societal views toward women and minorities remained unchanged until the American experiment in representative government.
Mark
Tom,
From what I’ve read, Barton has an extremely poor understanding of the natural law. He, like a lot of Christian Nationalists, pretends it means revelation or the Bible. It is not. It is what man discovers from reason. As per Aquinas, the Christian idea is, if you do reason and revelation right, they will both agree and complement one another. It’s Aristotle-Cicero and the Bible working together. This nuance is key and Barton doesn’t get it (as far as I have read him).
I have no issue with Mr. Barton shedding light on the role of Christianity in the founding of our nation. I just have issues with how he is using history to do it. The greatest thing his scholarship has done is encourage the layman to read the primary source documents of our founders and, as with anything, interpretations will differ. I was an ardent fan of Mr. Barton because of his appearances on Glen Beck’s “Founders Fridays” which encouraged me to pursue graduate studies in American history. The more I studied historiography and historical research methods and Constitutional history reading the works of historians past and present along with the primary sources available, I began to see major differences between Mr. Barton and the contemporary historians of today.
Tom,
I made a poor choice of words in stating that Barton wants to push one religion on Americans. However, based on the following phrase on HIS website. He indirectly wants to bring Protestant Christian values to influence American local, state and federal legislation.
“WallBuilders’ goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.”
http://www.wallbuilders.com/ABTOverview.asp
Barton is an Evangelical Christian. As such, they are driven by the Great Commision found in Matthew 28:19.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Living Translation)
Barton holds up historians like Bancroft who as a romanticit historian who saw American history with rose colored glasses. Barton wants to place the founders on a pedestal as demigods without looking at the human side of these men.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/359191?uid=3739920&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337935&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&uid=3739256&sid=21101121436177
On his website, Barton states:
“This broad and thus much more inclusive approach to American history characterized the work of influential historians and educators from George Bancroft (“The Father of American History”)”
http://www.wallbuilders.com/ABTOverview.asp
Charles Beard, early 20th century historian, began to examine the founders as men. Richard Hofstadtler and His graduate student Eric Foner would pick up the mantle to examine history from the social, economic and cultural perspectives. We must look at “the good, the bad, and the ugly” of history. Barton does not do this. We can never truly learn from our mistakes if all we look at are primarily our successes.
http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/remarkable_columbians/charles_beard.html
http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/remarkable_columbians/richard_hofstadter.html
http://www.ericfoner.com/
“The Jefferson Lies” and firestorm surrounding its defense is causing some of Christian readers to move away from him seeking out more authoritative sources such as Gordon S, Wood, Pauline Maier, Jack Rakove, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Akihl Reed Amar, Carol Berkin and Linda Monk.
When reading Barton’s take on the founding also read Linda Monk ‘s very thorough explanation on the separation of church and state below:
http://ratify.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/details_explanation.php?link=122&const=08_amd_01
http://ratify.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/details_explanation.php?link=112&const=06_art_06
I encourage you to read the links I have posted with special focus given to the last three.
Mark
Tom,
From what I’ve read, Barton has an extremely poor understanding of the natural law. He, like a lot of Christian Nationalists, pretends it means revelation or the Bible. It is not. It is what man discovers from reason. As per Aquinas, the Christian idea is, if you do reason and revelation right, they will both agree and complement one another. It’s Aristotle-Cicero and the Bible working together. This nuance is key and Barton doesn’t get it (as far as I have read him).
I have no issue with Mr. Barton shedding light on the role of Christianity in the founding of our nation. I just have issues with how he is using history to do it. The greatest thing his scholarship has done is encourage the layman to read the primary source documents of our founders and, as with anything, interpretations will differ. I was an ardent fan of Mr. Barton because of his appearances on Glen Beck’s “Founders Fridays” which encouraged me to pursue graduate studies in American history. The more I studied historiography and historical research methods and Constitutional history reading the works of historians past and present along with the primary sources available, I began to see major differences between Mr. Barton and the contemporary historians of today.
Tom,
I made a poor choice of words in stating that Barton wants to push one religion on Americans. However, based on the following phrase on HIS website. He indirectly wants to bring Protestant Christian values to influence American local, state and federal legislation.
“WallBuilders’ goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.”
http://www.wallbuilders.com/ABTOverview.asp
Barton is an Evangelical Christian. As such, they are driven by the Great Commision found in Matthew 28:19.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Living Translation)
Barton holds up historians like Bancroft who as a romanticit historian who saw American history with rose colored glasses. Barton wants to place the founders on a pedestal as demigods without looking at the human side of these men.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/359191?uid=3739920&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337935&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&uid=3739256&sid=21101121436177
On his website, Barton states:
“This broad and thus much more inclusive approach to American history characterized the work of influential historians and educators from George Bancroft (“The Father of American History”)”
http://www.wallbuilders.com/ABTOverview.asp
Charles Beard, early 20th century historian, began to examine the founders as men. Richard Hofstadtler and His graduate student Eric Foner would pick up the mantle to examine history from the social, economic and cultural perspectives. We must look at “the good, the bad, and the ugly” of history. Barton does not do this. We can never truly learn from our mistakes if all we look at are primarily our successes.
http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/remarkable_columbians/charles_beard.html
http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/remarkable_columbians/richard_hofstadter.html
http://www.ericfoner.com/
“The Jefferson Lies” and firestorm surrounding its defense is causing some of Christian readers to move away from him seeking out more authoritative sources such as Gordon S, Wood, Pauline Maier, Jack Rakove, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Akihl Reed Amar, Carol Berkin and Linda Monk.
When reading Barton’s take on the founding also read Linda Monk ‘s very thorough explanation on the separation of church and state below:
http://ratify.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/details_explanation.php?link=122&const=08_amd_01
http://ratify.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/details_explanation.php?link=112&const=06_art_06
I encourage you to read the links I have posted with special focus given to the last three.
Mark
Tom Van Dyke says:
July 29, 2012 at 9:24 pm
““Mr. Barton wants a country that forces one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…”
That’s a falsehood and you know it, and it’s not right to play Pontius Pilate with “I don’t know what Barton wants to do.” You’ve read plenty enough of him to know that’s a slander.”
I disagree. It might be a bit exaggerated, perhaps hyperbolic. But given Barton’s deceptive methods and statements, it is not unreasonable to say Barton wants christianity elevated above all other religions in the US.
“But Barton is in no way forcing “one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…” ”
who said Barton was “forcing one specific religion on all Americans ….” ?
Warren, I’ll stipulate the “deceiving millions” bit for the moment, but you have a responsibility to the truth to not allow this Texas professor person to go unchallenged.
“Mr. Barton wants a country that forces one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…”
That’s a falsehood and you know it, and it’s not right to play Pontius Pilate with “I don’t know what Barton wants to do.” You’ve read plenty enough of him to know that’s a slander.
As for “the Bible’s morality should be the basis for law,” we, ahem, history experts are well aware of Blackstone and especially Founder James Wilson, who was the republic’s first legal philosopher, and an eventual Supreme Court justice:
“The law of nature and the law of revelation are both Divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is indeed preposterous to separate them from each other.”
—James Wilson, Of the Law of Nature, 1804
Now, you don’t have to buy that in 2012, but it’s an obligation to historical truth to acknowledge that David Barton’s opinions are in harmony with many of the Founders—which is his central thesis, and why he does this whole Founders trip in the first place.
Contrary to many assertions, it is not unconstitutional for the American people to elect to live according to Biblical principles. Or at least it wasn’t for the lion’s share of our history.
Disagree with Barton all you want, point out his errors all you can [and they are numerous]. But Barton is in no way forcing “one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…”
if you’re going to try to damn him with his own words and his own website, fer landsakes, do a proper job of it:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=23909
“Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:
“[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.”
Respectfully submitted.
TxHistoryProf, back up your accusation
“Mr. Barton wants a country that forces one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…”
or withdraw it. Sir. Your link to Barton’s wallbuilders.com “overview” doesn’t prove your charge, “oh, look behind that curtain over there.”
Bunk. I don’t care who you are or what your credentials are: unless you back up your accusation with Barton’s exact words, you’re doing bad history—to the point of slander.
You’re held to the same standards as Barton, and at least he has the guts to sign his real name to stuff. Man up, bro.
____________________
See what you get, Warren? This is an improvement? There must be a better way to set the record straight than this. All you’re doing is giving a soapbox to the h8ers and ignoramuses on the other side. Are you going to set them straight? This is your own house and the floor’s dirty.
Tom – Mr. TXHistory is not deceiving millions, he is posting on a blog. You have a strange sense pf proportion.
For the record, I don’t know what Barton wants to do, and I don’t think you do either. I have no evidence that Barton wants to force his view of Christianity on everyone but he has said the Bible’s morality should be the basis for law. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZK6xgNTVtbo
Warren, I’ll stipulate the “deceiving millions” bit for the moment, but you have a responsibility to the truth to not allow this Texas professor person to go unchallenged.
“Mr. Barton wants a country that forces one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…”
That’s a falsehood and you know it, and it’s not right to play Pontius Pilate with “I don’t know what Barton wants to do.” You’ve read plenty enough of him to know that’s a slander.
As for “the Bible’s morality should be the basis for law,” we, ahem, history experts are well aware of Blackstone and especially Founder James Wilson, who was the republic’s first legal philosopher, and an eventual Supreme Court justice:
“The law of nature and the law of revelation are both Divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is indeed preposterous to separate them from each other.”
—James Wilson, Of the Law of Nature, 1804
Now, you don’t have to buy that in 2012, but it’s an obligation to historical truth to acknowledge that David Barton’s opinions are in harmony with many of the Founders—which is his central thesis, and why he does this whole Founders trip in the first place.
Contrary to many assertions, it is not unconstitutional for the American people to elect to live according to Biblical principles. Or at least it wasn’t for the lion’s share of our history.
Disagree with Barton all you want, point out his errors all you can [and they are numerous]. But Barton is in no way forcing “one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…”
if you’re going to try to damn him with his own words and his own website, fer landsakes, do a proper job of it:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=23909
“Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:
“[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.”
Respectfully submitted.
@Dave
Well said! I agree with your position. There is little debate that the Christian theology definitely influenced our nation beginning in 1620 at Plymouth continuing with Winthrops Puritan experiment which led to Roger Williams’ exile to Rhode Island. This event and others like it would lead to our founders’ zeal to protect our freedom to worship as we please while stressing the need to be tolerant of others’ faith choices by keeping government out of religion and religion out of government as Madidon,et al mention in “Memorial and Remonstrances Against Religion Assessment” . The memory of the Salem Witch Trials, the influence of the Catholic Churches in European empires were strong influences in forming the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment .
Many historians in academic circles recognize the role that Christianity has played (Dr. Thomas Kidd, Dr. Gary B.Nash, Dr. Wes Craven, Dr. James H. Hutson,Dr. Gordon S. Wood, Dr. Jack Racove,Dr. Pauline Maier,Dr. Joseph Ellis, and Dr, Jacob Needleman to name a few). The ideal path would be for Barton to show the Protestant Christian influence but also recognize the right for every American to chose their religious path and keep it out of government to protect the individual’s right choose their religion or lack thereof.
@All,
For David Barton and others allied with him, some observations:
First, I would say for a good many early settlers to the Colonies, Catholics were not considered Christian. Somehow, we’ve lost the historical context of all this. There are occurrences of Catholic Churches being torched by the early settlers. I think they (early Christians) would be aghast at thinking Catholics were Christians. I might add, some very Evangelicals still see Catholics as not Christians.
In fact, if truth be told, America was founded in large part by those fleeing persecution from those Papists and others aligned with them. Some of the Founding Fathers love of the French Revolution bespoke their antipathy to the ‘priestly’ caste holding society/government in bondage to their mythical ways; and, forcing a theocracy upon the people. There was no love affair between the Protestants and the Catholics; and, neither side would have called the other ‘true Christians’.
Second, until quite recently (maybe the last 20 years or so) Mormons were not considered Christian. So, where does that leave Glen Beck? If my memory is not failing, I would state that as of 1970 Mormons were considered as a non-Christian cult. This is simply stating a recent historical fact. Also, if I’m not mistaken, Mormons considered themselves the only true believers, and everyone else as damned (whatever that means to Mormonism) including their now cozy pals like David Barton.
If, we, current ‘Christians’ can’t get current/modern history right, how can we expect ourselves to get history of 250 years ago correctly. Saying something is so, doesn’t make it so.
Mr. Van Dyke,
I teach business management and American history courses at two different colleges in Texas. I hold a BA in Bus. Admin. with a Marketing concentration, MBA, M.Ed. and MA in History:American History concentration (with honors). My academic credentials are leaps and bound beyond Mr. Barton do be careful on making accusations on issues you are ignorant of as you don’t know me and can’t make a reasonable call on my qualifications.
Barton is an Evangelical with a BA in Religious Education which is a very broad based degree . From his own web site. Barton states his goal is to force Biblical principles into our public policy decisions:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/ABTOverview.asp
He takes quotes from George Washington and others who were Christians and portrays them as evangelical right wing Christians rather than the moderate Protestant Christians and Deists as history portrays them.
@Dave
Well said! I agree with your position. There is little debate that the Christian theology definitely influenced our nation beginning in 1620 at Plymouth continuing with Winthrops Puritan experiment which led to Roger Williams’ exile to Rhode Island. This event and others like it would lead to our founders’ zeal to protect our freedom to worship as we please while stressing the need to be tolerant of others’ faith choices by keeping government out of religion and religion out of government as Madidon,et al mention in “Memorial and Remonstrances Against Religion Assessment” . The memory of the Salem Witch Trials, the influence of the Catholic Churches in European empires were strong influences in forming the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment .
Many historians in academic circles recognize the role that Christianity has played (Dr. Thomas Kidd, Dr. Gary B.Nash, Dr. Wes Craven, Dr. James H. Hutson,Dr. Gordon S. Wood, Dr. Jack Racove,Dr. Pauline Maier,Dr. Joseph Ellis, and Dr, Jacob Needleman to name a few). The ideal path would be for Barton to show the Protestant Christian influence but also recognize the right for every American to chose their religious path and keep it out of government to protect the individual’s right choose their religion or lack thereof.
@All,
For David Barton and others allied with him, some observations:
First, I would say for a good many early settlers to the Colonies, Catholics were not considered Christian. Somehow, we’ve lost the historical context of all this. There are occurrences of Catholic Churches being torched by the early settlers. I think they (early Christians) would be aghast at thinking Catholics were Christians. I might add, some very Evangelicals still see Catholics as not Christians.
In fact, if truth be told, America was founded in large part by those fleeing persecution from those Papists and others aligned with them. Some of the Founding Fathers love of the French Revolution bespoke their antipathy to the ‘priestly’ caste holding society/government in bondage to their mythical ways; and, forcing a theocracy upon the people. There was no love affair between the Protestants and the Catholics; and, neither side would have called the other ‘true Christians’.
Second, until quite recently (maybe the last 20 years or so) Mormons were not considered Christian. So, where does that leave Glen Beck? If my memory is not failing, I would state that as of 1970 Mormons were considered as a non-Christian cult. This is simply stating a recent historical fact. Also, if I’m not mistaken, Mormons considered themselves the only true believers, and everyone else as damned (whatever that means to Mormonism) including their now cozy pals like David Barton.
If, we, current ‘Christians’ can’t get current/modern history right, how can we expect ourselves to get history of 250 years ago correctly. Saying something is so, doesn’t make it so.
@ Patrocles .. I am not Dr. Throckmorton but for me .. being conservative is a theological position not a political one. The intersection of faith and politics is a complex thing. However that is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is the credibility of Barton and his misinformation. The type of things in question are facts .. not your musings, however interesting or heartfelt they might be. The facts in questions are those such as : Could Jefferson have freed his slaves in that time period per the laws of the land. Barton (?deliberately?) edits out his legal reference on that point.. Dr. Throckmorton does not. Thus the different answer to this and many other factual questions. These factual questions are independent of what you are trying to inject into the conversation. I would add that scripture always gives us a very candid view of its heroes (Abrahams faiings with Hagar .. Judah’s sex with a prostitute who turned out to be his daughter in law … David’s adultery with Bathsheeba would be some examples). As Christians .. as people of faith we deal with that. The open descriptions of these heroes of the faith, their good points and bad points are not sugar coated to accomplish a particular agenda. Unfortunately when it comes to this country’s founders / heroes, Barton and company seem to be incapable of that. Furthermore .. I fail to see why the faith of our founding fathers is so critical to his argument. It would be a much easier argument to show that our culture has been predominantly Christian (but obviously not perfect) whether its leaders or founders were or weren’t. The question then woud be how we as Christians should respond in a Christlike way to the cultural shifts that are evident in order to best serve Christ and Christ’s mission..
I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice the Christian principles of honesty and integrity to accomplish a political agenda. If Christianity must become dishonest to accomplish this Christian America agenda then I will indeed opt out. Christ and Christlikeness trump everything else. His Kingdom is above all other kingdoms .. and that includes the United States.
Blessings,
Dave
@ Patrocles .. I am not Dr. Throckmorton but for me .. being conservative is a theological position not a political one. The intersection of faith and politics is a complex thing. However that is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is the credibility of Barton and his misinformation. The type of things in question are facts .. not your musings, however interesting or heartfelt they might be. The facts in questions are those such as : Could Jefferson have freed his slaves in that time period per the laws of the land. Barton (?deliberately?) edits out his legal reference on that point.. Dr. Throckmorton does not. Thus the different answer to this and many other factual questions. These factual questions are independent of what you are trying to inject into the conversation. I would add that scripture always gives us a very candid view of its heroes (Abrahams faiings with Hagar .. Judah’s sex with a prostitute who turned out to be his daughter in law … David’s adultery with Bathsheeba would be some examples). As Christians .. as people of faith we deal with that. The open descriptions of these heroes of the faith, their good points and bad points are not sugar coated to accomplish a particular agenda. Unfortunately when it comes to this country’s founders / heroes, Barton and company seem to be incapable of that. Furthermore .. I fail to see why the faith of our founding fathers is so critical to his argument. It would be a much easier argument to show that our culture has been predominantly Christian (but obviously not perfect) whether its leaders or founders were or weren’t. The question then woud be how we as Christians should respond in a Christlike way to the cultural shifts that are evident in order to best serve Christ and Christ’s mission..
I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice the Christian principles of honesty and integrity to accomplish a political agenda. If Christianity must become dishonest to accomplish this Christian America agenda then I will indeed opt out. Christ and Christlikeness trump everything else. His Kingdom is above all other kingdoms .. and that includes the United States.
Blessings,
Dave
The problem with not being a historian:
This problem is not about finding facts. For example, I’m not a psychologist, but I could find out the facts about what Freud did really say.
But the problem is to get the facts in a (historical or psychological) perspective. Neither Barton nor Throckmorton do that.
The famous “wall of separaton” was quite workable, as long as America was a “minimal state” which did not much intrude into the personal lives of its citizens, but allowed them to act along their own consciences. (A system which worked better for the rich than for the poor – rich Quakers and well organized Catholics could build their own schools, poor Southern Evangelicals depended on what religious education was offered by State schools.)
But in the meantime, judicial activism has allowed and even demanded America to become a “maximal state”, and governmental decisions interfere an all levels with personal consciences. The Christians can no longer be independent, they have either to opt in (and claim a Christian nation) or opt out (as “resident aliens” in the Hauerwas sense) or to push for a return to the minimal state (as libertarians). Ignoring the problem (like the “moderate” or “left” Evangelicals) won’t help.
Is Donald Mann right?
I don’t think so. Barton’s book was a reaction to other books which tried to write evangelical Christianity completely out of American history (as a digression from the Constitution and the American way), making the Founding fathers look like today Liberals. That’s what Teaparty-Grammy refers to.
Barton found some facts to counter that position and then overstated his argument. That could be corrected in a fraternal way (correctio fraternalis).
By the way, I haven’t understood why Dr. Throckmorton calls himself a “conservative Christian”. Does he want to say that he’s not a “liberal” or a “progressive” Christian, or whatever does he want to say (and on what credentials)?
Mr. “jimmiraybob,” David Barton IS a polemicist, advocate, GOP partisan, and anything you want to throw at him. Stipulated.
His critics are far more clever, far less obvious. That’s where this commenter comes in.
😉
Do we think the commenter “TXHistoryProf” is actually a Texas history professor? Sharpen your tools, jimmiraybob.
The problem with not being a historian:
This problem is not about finding facts. For example, I’m not a psychologist, but I could find out the facts about what Freud did really say.
But the problem is to get the facts in a (historical or psychological) perspective. Neither Barton nor Throckmorton do that.
The famous “wall of separaton” was quite workable, as long as America was a “minimal state” which did not much intrude into the personal lives of its citizens, but allowed them to act along their own consciences. (A system which worked better for the rich than for the poor – rich Quakers and well organized Catholics could build their own schools, poor Southern Evangelicals depended on what religious education was offered by State schools.)
But in the meantime, judicial activism has allowed and even demanded America to become a “maximal state”, and governmental decisions interfere an all levels with personal consciences. The Christians can no longer be independent, they have either to opt in (and claim a Christian nation) or opt out (as “resident aliens” in the Hauerwas sense) or to push for a return to the minimal state (as libertarians). Ignoring the problem (like the “moderate” or “left” Evangelicals) won’t help.
The problem Tom is that Barton is a political operative/activist producing a largely false historical narrative* to advance a political agenda that gives preference to a narrow religious world view. That is how he became a “historian.” He is the one mixing the “culture wars”, fighting the evil secularist agenda, with history.
I think that the participation of conservative and evangelical Christians and academic historians such Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter, as well as John Fea (Was America founded as a Christian Nation?) and Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden (The Search for Christian America) in addition to more secular non-academic historians such as Chris Rodda (Liars for Jesus), shows that Barton’s failings cross the lines of ideology and religious conviction.
Also too, you can’t slam Zinn on ideological “culture war” grounds in one venue and then lament the same when it comes to Barton in another. Well, I guess that you actually can if it suites your position. Never mind, carry on.
* he goes well beyond trying to promote the reality of a national Christian heritage, in reality a rather heterodox and problematic one at that (see Noll et al., or Fea), to creating and promoting a much narrower and simpler narrative that can be more palatable to a modern politically conservative and evangelical world view that both a Beck and a Huckabee can sell on radio and TV in order to rally the base that dominantly represents the same Political party as Barton. Very circular dude (a nod to the west cost readers).
“Mr. Barton wants a country that forces one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…”
Cite, please, TXHistoryProf. I don’t believe you can back this up, because that’s not Barton’s thing. This is the problem with this whole bloody mess—it’s about the culture wars, not history. Feh.
Dr. Throckmorton, thank you for exposing this Charlatan. True history should never be construed to favor a specific ideological agenda. True historical scholarship should examine all facts and be presented with a conclusion that summaizes the information discovered. Mr. Barton wants a country that forces one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion In Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” he makes a point against religious tests for elected officials because when supporting or advocating for one religious group we do so at the risk of alienating all others. Barton refuses to recognize Christians who recognize the need to expose those who would hijack our faith to present a jaded view of that faith.
As an academically trained historian specializing in American history, I make every effort to present our founders’ intent to allow all Americans to their religion or the absence thereof. Keep exposing this distorter of truth.
Dr. Throckmorton, thank you for exposing this Charlatan. True history should never be construed to favor a specific ideological agenda. True historical scholarship should examine all facts and be presented with a conclusion that summaizes the information discovered. Mr. Barton wants a country that forces one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion In Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” he makes a point against religious tests for elected officials because when supporting or advocating for one religious group we do so at the risk of alienating all others. Barton refuses to recognize Christians who recognize the need to expose those who would hijack our faith to present a jaded view of that faith.
As an academically trained historian specializing in American history, I make every effort to present our founders’ intent to allow all Americans to their religion or the absence thereof. Keep exposing this distorter of truth.
Dr. Throckmorton, thank you for exposing this Charlatan. True history should never be construed to favor a specific ideological agenda. True historical scholarship should examine all facts and be presented with a conclusion that summaizes the information discovered. Mr. Barton wants a country that forces one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion In Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” he makes a point against religious tests for elected officials because when supporting or advocating for one religious group we do so at the risk of alienating all others. Barton refuses to recognize Christians who recognize the need to expose those who would hijack our faith to present a jaded view of that faith.
As an academically trained historian specializing in American history, I make every effort to present our founders’ intent to allow all Americans to their religion or the absence thereof. Keep exposing this distorter of truth.
Jonathan – Forbearance is a virtue, is it not?
Donald – You should consider an upgrade to the Super-Mega-Ultra 9999999 Meter o’ Irony.
Historianess – Not much to add, except I really like your name, Your Historianess!
Bernie – Getting old, isn’t it?
I went and wallowed in the Blaze comments and found this gem. My brand new irony meter, the Super-Mega 5000000, that wasn’t even turned on, went up in flames.
Teaparty-Grammy says:
“It has been my experience that liberals decide how they want things to be, then create an entire mythology to support that idea, and start behaving as though it were reality. And if you want to see hostility, just get between a liberal and his/her delusions. Hell hath no fury like a liberal forced to glimpse a little truth and reality! David Barton regularly blows the fairy dust out of their eyes, and boy, do they ever hate him for it!”
The stupid is strong with this one.
Mr. Barton should be very grateful that Mr. Throckmorton does not chose to address the problem set that is David Barton’s public persona in terms of the psychopathologies that are within the territory of Dr. Throckmorton’s professional expertise. We could start with the frightened little bunny affect and have a serious portion of fun, but someone has chosen to forebear.
I think the only thing to do is to keep plugging away at Barton. Sooner or later he’ll tie himself up in his own fallacious knots.
Jonathan – Forbearance is a virtue, is it not?
Donald – You should consider an upgrade to the Super-Mega-Ultra 9999999 Meter o’ Irony.
Historianess – Not much to add, except I really like your name, Your Historianess!
Bernie – Getting old, isn’t it?
I went and wallowed in the Blaze comments and found this gem. My brand new irony meter, the Super-Mega 5000000, that wasn’t even turned on, went up in flames.
Teaparty-Grammy says:
“It has been my experience that liberals decide how they want things to be, then create an entire mythology to support that idea, and start behaving as though it were reality. And if you want to see hostility, just get between a liberal and his/her delusions. Hell hath no fury like a liberal forced to glimpse a little truth and reality! David Barton regularly blows the fairy dust out of their eyes, and boy, do they ever hate him for it!”
The stupid is strong with this one.
This! Coming from a man who has a degree in Christian Education? Pot/Kettle!
Mr. Barton should be very grateful that Mr. Throckmorton does not chose to address the problem set that is David Barton’s public persona in terms of the psychopathologies that are within the territory of Dr. Throckmorton’s professional expertise. We could start with the frightened little bunny affect and have a serious portion of fun, but someone has chosen to forebear.
This! Coming from a man who has a degree in Christian Education? Pot/Kettle!