This article includes many quotes from me and responses to issues raised in David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies.
Open forum…
34 thoughts on “Glenn Beck’s The Blaze on Barton and His Critics”
Comments are closed.
A college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues
This article includes many quotes from me and responses to issues raised in David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies.
Open forum…
Comments are closed.
Here is Barton’s interview with Beck yesterday
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/08/16/david-barton-responds-to-critics-during-interview-with-glenn-on-gbtv/
Beck raises a VERY valid point with regards to the quality of the editing at Thomas Nelson. In the interview. It was said that there were 23 major errors. Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard’s “Killing Lincoln” which was not foot or end noted AT ALL, was refused for sale at Ford’s Theatre by the National Park Service. O’Reilly’s publisher, MacMillan NEVER recalled the book but offered O’Reilly the opportunity to correct the errors and reprint. THIS is what Thomas Nelson should have done IF their editors were doing their job which taints the editorial credibility of other Thomas Nelson non-fiction books as Beck eluded.
I am no publishing genius, but wouldn’t it stand to reason, if a publisher is investing their money in a book project from an amateur Christian historian that the editing process for Barton’s reputation and their own would be EXTRA detailed? Plus, Nelson read the manuscript and saw the attacks on the academic community right up front in the introduction and KNEW the left would come after it tearing it apart line by line endnote (not the same as footnotes) by endnote? They had a professional responsibility to vet this book and failed leaving Barton and themselves with egg on their face.
In defense of Barton (I will be lambasted for this lol), the man has a zeal and zest for God’s Word and the Christian foundations of America. With that being said, however, he has no graduate training in scholarly writing and may make an interpretive mistake or two or three. Regardless, he is an amateur and those in academia know that. These critics, left and right, are scholars (whose entire academic lives have been based on forgetting more about Jefferson than Barton or I will ever learn,) were waiting with baited breath like greyhounds waiting on the rabbit. Thomas Nelson failed Barton, Scholarly history, and most important, their readers who buy their books.
Barton’s refutations are week and can be turned either way, BUT, the editing process SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THIS! Beck said when Simon and Schuster edits his books that it is exhausting and that an editing team of 18 researchers combed through his manuscripts. No author, credentialed or not is perfect. Mistakes will be made. That is not a green light to be inattentive to detail, but, it is the editing team’s professional responsibility to catch these mistakes BEFORE going to press. A perfect example is where Barton claims in his conclusion about there being no state tests iN schools for history, his editors should have checked with Barton s home state of Texas to see that was not the case (tests in 8th-12th grade). As on editor found a mistake three editors should have corroborated or dismissed the mistake.
Beck announced that his company, Mercury One will reprint the book. Hopefully Beck’s editors will double check and correct the errors and misunderstandings. I know some commenters call these errors lies and call Barton a liar. I feel that is too harsh. I do enjoy and own several of Barton books. I do not feel he intentionally set out to try to make up stories as much as he misinterpreted the primary source to fit his predetermined thesis of why he chose to write this book. I, unlike others railing on Barton, do not hate Beck. I disagree with about 3/4 of what he says but the 1/4 of the things I do agree with him on are solid conservative issues that at least make me want to research the topic further to verify validity.
He would be well served to buy the following books for his next endeavor:
Burrow, J. W. A History of Histories: Epics, Chronicles, Romances and Inquiries from Herodotus and Thucydides to the Twentieth Century. New York: A.A. Knopf, 2008.
Presnell, Jenny L. The Information-literate Historian: A Guide to Research for History Students. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Steffens, Henry John., Mary Jane. Dickerson, and Toby Fulwiler. Writer’s Guide. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1987.
Turabian, Kate L. “Citation of Electronic Sources Section 15.4.1.” In A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations: Chicago Style for Students and Researchers, 148-49. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
It seems to me that the Blaze article is trying to imply that the issue is really a matter of interpretation, but all the actual evidence they presented pretty much confirms Warren’s perspective. Am I missing something?
An open forum? Thank you, Dr. Throckmorton. From a comment in a previous post,
Laurie said:
For the sake of preventing further damage to our already fractured Christian unity in this dominant humanist culture couldn’t this have been handled more prudently?
Smacking David Barton for the errors in his book does not engage his point.
What is his point, his thesis?
That the Founders, even Jefferson, were not hostile to religion in the public square, as are many people—including the Supreme Court occasionally.
The Naked Public Square. Devoid of religion, stripped of God.
Our children don’t know anything about how our Founding principles have been perverted into a “Godless Constitution.” But we are nothing unless our rights are endowed by our creator. We do not respect each other. Look at all this, Warren. look at the ugliness of these comments.
The only connection we have with each other is respect for our creator. and we don’t even have that anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Public_Square
Forget David Barton and his screwups about history. This is what he’s trying to say. He just doesn’t know how to say it, and people only attack him, they do not help him.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-deist-minimum–28
And that’s what Laurie is trying to say here.
For the sake of preventing further damage to our already fractured Christian unity in this dominant humanist culture couldn’t this have been handled more prudently?
I hear you, Laurie. It’s not even just about Christianity, it’s about the belief that God loves us, and so we must respect each other as all god’s children. Even Thomas Jefferson knew that.
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? ”
That’s what David Barton is trying to say. The rest is The Battle of the Factoids. Even if he strikes out most of the time, he doesn’t strike out every time.
“Our children don’t know anything about how our Founding principles have been perverted into a “Godless Constitution.”But we are nothing unless our rights are endowed by our creator”
You do understand the Declaration and the Constitution are completely separate documents, and only the Constitution has legal standing on how we order our government. Conflating the two is were we start down the slippery slope of assuming the Constitution is a ‘Creator filled’ document.
The Founders knew making the United States a Christian Nation would be impossible because you could not then and cannot now get two denominations out of the many, many denominations to agree on just about anything. Which version of Christianity is the government to be not hostile to and promote? Not everyone in colonial America was a practicing Christian, not even a majority went to church.
But many Americans feel a non-evangelical or non-soul winning Constitution is hostile when it seeks no stance in the matter. The Bill of Rights seeks to mandate the government neither promote the individual’s religion nor to deny him his religion.
My favorite letters to the editor in my local newspaper on government, society or any other subject contain the phrase, “Christian’s believe…” Quite an impossible statement to make. Especially now when Founders who denied the divinity of Jesus are morphed post mortem into Bible believing Christians.
You had “residual respect” for Beck before this?
(Somehow lost my last sentence)
The Founders were brilliant in writing the Constitution as neither a Godly nor a Godless document, it is neutral.
@ Tom… How do you know what Barton’s agenda is? .. What you are saying sounds like more like your agenda. And just what are school children going to learn from the likes of Barton? Here is a partial list…
-When people disagree with you in a scholarly way (especially if you are a Christian) call it an attack.
-Make broad sweeping statements that vilify those who disagree.
-Gather people arond you .. not so much the commenters.. but folks like Rick Green and Scott Lively who slander those who disagree as “being like Hitler” .. as “homosexualists” (whatever that is) as being “elite” or “liberal” or “unChristian” and so forth.
-Need I go on?
Bartonmay not be saying all of these things but he has allowed folks who do say them to post on his facebook page and he personally posted a link to Scott Lively’s article.
I am not Catholic but some of Patrick of Ireland’s writings might be appropriate here…
—-
Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ where I lie, Christ where I sit, Christ where I arise,
Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of every one who speaks to me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
Salvation is of the Lord.
Salvation is of the Christ.
May your salvation, Lord, be ever with us.
—–
Its not all about the factoids .. It’s about representing Christ. As I commented on Rick Green’ one post .. :What’s the use of trying to prove Thomas Jefferson is a Christian when you don’t even act like one?”
As a Christian father of three children I don’t want Barton and company anywhere near my children. Whether they are Christians or not is not my call .. but the brand of Christianity they are presenting in their responses does not look anything like Christ or the “loving God” they are supposedly representing
Dave
The founders knew we would not always be a nation of majority Christians and therefore set up our government to recognize that religios diversity. As the nation grew, different belief systems entered to American narrative leaving to the first amendment being challenged 156 years after it was ratified. Faith is personal and everyone is different. Keep it at home .
Here is Barton’s interview with Beck yesterday
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/08/16/david-barton-responds-to-critics-during-interview-with-glenn-on-gbtv/
Beck raises a VERY valid point with regards to the quality of the editing at Thomas Nelson. In the interview. It was said that there were 23 major errors. Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard’s “Killing Lincoln” which was not foot or end noted AT ALL, was refused for sale at Ford’s Theatre by the National Park Service. O’Reilly’s publisher, MacMillan NEVER recalled the book but offered O’Reilly the opportunity to correct the errors and reprint. THIS is what Thomas Nelson should have done IF their editors were doing their job which taints the editorial credibility of other Thomas Nelson non-fiction books as Beck eluded.
I am no publishing genius, but wouldn’t it stand to reason, if a publisher is investing their money in a book project from an amateur Christian historian that the editing process for Barton’s reputation and their own would be EXTRA detailed? Plus, Nelson read the manuscript and saw the attacks on the academic community right up front in the introduction and KNEW the left would come after it tearing it apart line by line endnote (not the same as footnotes) by endnote? They had a professional responsibility to vet this book and failed leaving Barton and themselves with egg on their face.
In defense of Barton (I will be lambasted for this lol), the man has a zeal and zest for God’s Word and the Christian foundations of America. With that being said, however, he has no graduate training in scholarly writing and may make an interpretive mistake or two or three. Regardless, he is an amateur and those in academia know that. These critics, left and right, are scholars (whose entire academic lives have been based on forgetting more about Jefferson than Barton or I will ever learn,) were waiting with baited breath like greyhounds waiting on the rabbit. Thomas Nelson failed Barton, Scholarly history, and most important, their readers who buy their books.
Barton’s refutations are week and can be turned either way, BUT, the editing process SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THIS! Beck said when Simon and Schuster edits his books that it is exhausting and that an editing team of 18 researchers combed through his manuscripts. No author, credentialed or not is perfect. Mistakes will be made. That is not a green light to be inattentive to detail, but, it is the editing team’s professional responsibility to catch these mistakes BEFORE going to press. A perfect example is where Barton claims in his conclusion about there being no state tests iN schools for history, his editors should have checked with Barton s home state of Texas to see that was not the case (tests in 8th-12th grade). As on editor found a mistake three editors should have corroborated or dismissed the mistake.
Beck announced that his company, Mercury One will reprint the book. Hopefully Beck’s editors will double check and correct the errors and misunderstandings. I know some commenters call these errors lies and call Barton a liar. I feel that is too harsh. I do enjoy and own several of Barton books. I do not feel he intentionally set out to try to make up stories as much as he misinterpreted the primary source to fit his predetermined thesis of why he chose to write this book. I, unlike others railing on Barton, do not hate Beck. I disagree with about 3/4 of what he says but the 1/4 of the things I do agree with him on are solid conservative issues that at least make me want to research the topic further to verify validity.
He would be well served to buy the following books for his next endeavor:
Burrow, J. W. A History of Histories: Epics, Chronicles, Romances and Inquiries from Herodotus and Thucydides to the Twentieth Century. New York: A.A. Knopf, 2008.
Presnell, Jenny L. The Information-literate Historian: A Guide to Research for History Students. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Steffens, Henry John., Mary Jane. Dickerson, and Toby Fulwiler. Writer’s Guide. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1987.
Turabian, Kate L. “Citation of Electronic Sources Section 15.4.1.” In A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations: Chicago Style for Students and Researchers, 148-49. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Teresa,
Very well stated! As an educator, I realize , as you pointed out, that we must constantly push our perception of what we believe to be true in order to validate what we believe or to change or chang the formulation of our worldview.
Ken,
I realize that The founders als realized that Christianity would be the dominate religion in America. However, the founders were not so naive that they thought Christianity would be never have challengers and that someday it could be overtaken, although not for several generations IMHO.
Tom,
Regarding the origin of unalienable rights:
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff0100.htm
These are self-evident from nature. Government protects rights but does not grant them. Jefferson points ths out in his letters on the subject.
Teresa,
Very well stated! As an educator, I realize , as you pointed out, that we must constantly push our perception of what we believe to be true in order to validate what we believe or to change or chang the formulation of our worldview.
Ken,
I realize that The founders als realized that Christianity would be the dominate religion in America. However, the founders were not so naive that they thought Christianity would be never have challengers and that someday it could be overtaken, although not for several generations IMHO.
Tom,
Regarding the origin of unalienable rights:
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff0100.htm
These are self-evident from nature. Government protects rights but does not grant them. Jefferson points ths out in his letters on the subject.
@Tom Van Dyke:
I think, Tom, we as a people, and as a Nation seem fairly incapable of having reasoned argument and debate. I know I can easily get locked in my own paradigm of how things should be; and, why they should be that way. Quite frankly, I oftentimes don’t want to hear another side, another approach, another view because those ‘new’ ideas threaten my very insecure inner-world. But, if I’ve learned anything from Warren’s Blog, and many of the commenters here is that I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t need to be right to still be me.
I need the Zoe’s, Dave’s, Ken’s, Timothy Kincaid’s, Warren’s, Tom Van Dykes, and the Barton’s to stretch me, to challenge my insular notions, to help me see when I’m blind. And, what has been quite helpful for me in my now messy, fractured world is to attribute kind motives to others and their views. That is, after all, what I would like them to do for me. Often, it’s not ‘either/or’ … but, ‘both/and’.
I found the following TED.com very helpful for our current conversation:
Dare to Disagree
Tom,
How’s that for a bargain. I’ll accept state churches if they get to be United Church of Christ (the current denomination housing the Congregationalists). Is that fair?
Well clearly the solution is to bring back Congregationalism as the state church.
Hmmm…. now that I think of it…
TxHistoryProfessor is correct that the Founders were aware that Christianity could lose its cultural hegemony. They did not expect it or hope for it, but that’s the price of religious liberty.
(And this skips over the fact that religion was left to the states, a different but not irrelevant discussion—Massachusetts had an “official” established church [Congregationalism] until 1833!)
As for God-given rights, the Constitution doesn’t say that all men are created equal either. This is understood as the basis of our Constitution, “the right to have rights.”
In Mr. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address of 1863, “four score and seven years ago” dates to 1776, not 1787. That is my America.
“… It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
@Tom Van Dyke:
I think, Tom, we as a people, and as a Nation seem fairly incapable of having reasoned argument and debate. I know I can easily get locked in my own paradigm of how things should be; and, why they should be that way. Quite frankly, I oftentimes don’t want to hear another side, another approach, another view because those ‘new’ ideas threaten my very insecure inner-world. But, if I’ve learned anything from Warren’s Blog, and many of the commenters here is that I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t need to be right to still be me.
I need the Zoe’s, Dave’s, Ken’s, Timothy Kincaid’s, Warren’s, Tom Van Dykes, and the Barton’s to stretch me, to challenge my insular notions, to help me see when I’m blind. And, what has been quite helpful for me in my now messy, fractured world is to attribute kind motives to others and their views. That is, after all, what I would like them to do for me. Often, it’s not ‘either/or’ … but, ‘both/and’.
I found the following TED.com very helpful for our current conversation:
Dare to Disagree
Tom,
How’s that for a bargain. I’ll accept state churches if they get to be United Church of Christ (the current denomination housing the Congregationalists). Is that fair?
Well clearly the solution is to bring back Congregationalism as the state church.
Hmmm…. now that I think of it…
TxHistoryProf says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:30 am
‘The founders knew we would not always be a nation of majority Christians and therefore set up our government to recognize that religios diversity.’
I don’t think this is true. I strongly suspect most of the founder always expected christianity to be the dominate religion. However, they also recognized there would be religious diversity and didn’t want the christians to force their religion on non-christians (or even among the various sects of christianity)
TxHistoryProfessor is correct that the Founders were aware that Christianity could lose its cultural hegemony. They did not expect it or hope for it, but that’s the price of religious liberty.
(And this skips over the fact that religion was left to the states, a different but not irrelevant discussion—Massachusetts had an “official” established church [Congregationalism] until 1833!)
As for God-given rights, the Constitution doesn’t say that all men are created equal either. This is understood as the basis of our Constitution, “the right to have rights.”
In Mr. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address of 1863, “four score and seven years ago” dates to 1776, not 1787. That is my America.
“… It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Tom Van Dyke says:
August 16, 2012 at 1:27 am
‘What is his point, his thesis?
That the Founders, even Jefferson, were not hostile to religion in the public square, as are many people—including the Supreme Court occasionally.’
This statement is just as false now as it was the 1st time you said it Tom. Constantly repeating it won’t make it true (you’d think you would have learned that lesson from the Barton mess).
1st, this is not Barton’s thesis. Barton’s thesis is that Jefferson (and the rest of the founding fathers) where all devote christians and intended for christianity to be the religion of this country. He also claims there are these “ultra leftist” boogeymen (which I have yet to see him specifically name ANYONE who is on record as making any such claims) that have re-written Jefferson as an atheist. He uses these boogeymen to setup his strawman argument that Jefferson wasn’t an atheist.
2nd it isn’t true. While I imagine there may be (probably are) some extremists who say that Jefferson was “hostile to religion in the public square” I have yet to see any evidence of them. And certainly not on the Supreme Court or any other position of authority where they would be taken anymore seriously than Barton should be.
The founders knew we would not always be a nation of majority Christians and therefore set up our government to recognize that religios diversity. As the nation grew, different belief systems entered to American narrative leaving to the first amendment being challenged 156 years after it was ratified. Faith is personal and everyone is different. Keep it at home .
TxHistoryProf says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:30 am
‘The founders knew we would not always be a nation of majority Christians and therefore set up our government to recognize that religios diversity.’
I don’t think this is true. I strongly suspect most of the founder always expected christianity to be the dominate religion. However, they also recognized there would be religious diversity and didn’t want the christians to force their religion on non-christians (or even among the various sects of christianity)
Tom Van Dyke says:
August 16, 2012 at 1:27 am
‘What is his point, his thesis?
That the Founders, even Jefferson, were not hostile to religion in the public square, as are many people—including the Supreme Court occasionally.’
This statement is just as false now as it was the 1st time you said it Tom. Constantly repeating it won’t make it true (you’d think you would have learned that lesson from the Barton mess).
1st, this is not Barton’s thesis. Barton’s thesis is that Jefferson (and the rest of the founding fathers) where all devote christians and intended for christianity to be the religion of this country. He also claims there are these “ultra leftist” boogeymen (which I have yet to see him specifically name ANYONE who is on record as making any such claims) that have re-written Jefferson as an atheist. He uses these boogeymen to setup his strawman argument that Jefferson wasn’t an atheist.
2nd it isn’t true. While I imagine there may be (probably are) some extremists who say that Jefferson was “hostile to religion in the public square” I have yet to see any evidence of them. And certainly not on the Supreme Court or any other position of authority where they would be taken anymore seriously than Barton should be.
Tom Van Dyke:
I disagree: One can believe in Good without believing in gods. A Creator is not necessary, and many who are most concerned with human rights believe gods, demons, spirits, hobgoblins, fairies and the Easter Bunny to be equally non-existent.
Is something Good because a god says so? Or can something be good even if not backed up by godlike power.? To put it another way – does Might make Right? And if not – what does? Can Good exist separately from gods?
I contend that it can, and does. For proof, I have none, just that it works. One can construct justifications based on Kantian philosophy or games theory, but it’s really a matter of faith, even gnosis. Not superstition, unlike belief in gods, spirits, djinni and the like.
Mainstream Christianity requires belief in hundreds, even thousands of gods. Archangels, Angels, Thrones, Powers, Principalities, various Demons, Spirits, Djinii, Imps, and magic spells to exorcise them. I doubt that many Christians can even tell you how many gods they’re called on to believe in, and there’s even disagreement about the nature of the most powerful. three or one?
Deism requires belief in some amorphous Creator. While superficially more sophisticated, it’s ultimately just a bin to place the currently Unexplained, and provide justification for that which we know is Right, but cannot prove..
Science has an underlying assumption, that supernatural entities don’t cause physical phenomena, that while much is unexplained, nothing is inexplicable. It’s not Faith, just a working assumption, pretty much the only one. Is it true? We can’t prove it is. It works though, and is falsifiable. The existence of gods is not.
Similarly, we have a working assumption that Good exists, separate from the existence or otherwise of godlike powers.
@ Tom… How do you know what Barton’s agenda is? .. What you are saying sounds like more like your agenda. And just what are school children going to learn from the likes of Barton? Here is a partial list…
-When people disagree with you in a scholarly way (especially if you are a Christian) call it an attack.
-Make broad sweeping statements that vilify those who disagree.
-Gather people arond you .. not so much the commenters.. but folks like Rick Green and Scott Lively who slander those who disagree as “being like Hitler” .. as “homosexualists” (whatever that is) as being “elite” or “liberal” or “unChristian” and so forth.
-Need I go on?
Bartonmay not be saying all of these things but he has allowed folks who do say them to post on his facebook page and he personally posted a link to Scott Lively’s article.
I am not Catholic but some of Patrick of Ireland’s writings might be appropriate here…
—-
Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ where I lie, Christ where I sit, Christ where I arise,
Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of every one who speaks to me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
Salvation is of the Lord.
Salvation is of the Christ.
May your salvation, Lord, be ever with us.
—–
Its not all about the factoids .. It’s about representing Christ. As I commented on Rick Green’ one post .. :What’s the use of trying to prove Thomas Jefferson is a Christian when you don’t even act like one?”
As a Christian father of three children I don’t want Barton and company anywhere near my children. Whether they are Christians or not is not my call .. but the brand of Christianity they are presenting in their responses does not look anything like Christ or the “loving God” they are supposedly representing
Dave
(Somehow lost my last sentence)
The Founders were brilliant in writing the Constitution as neither a Godly nor a Godless document, it is neutral.
“Our children don’t know anything about how our Founding principles have been perverted into a “Godless Constitution.”But we are nothing unless our rights are endowed by our creator”
You do understand the Declaration and the Constitution are completely separate documents, and only the Constitution has legal standing on how we order our government. Conflating the two is were we start down the slippery slope of assuming the Constitution is a ‘Creator filled’ document.
The Founders knew making the United States a Christian Nation would be impossible because you could not then and cannot now get two denominations out of the many, many denominations to agree on just about anything. Which version of Christianity is the government to be not hostile to and promote? Not everyone in colonial America was a practicing Christian, not even a majority went to church.
But many Americans feel a non-evangelical or non-soul winning Constitution is hostile when it seeks no stance in the matter. The Bill of Rights seeks to mandate the government neither promote the individual’s religion nor to deny him his religion.
My favorite letters to the editor in my local newspaper on government, society or any other subject contain the phrase, “Christian’s believe…” Quite an impossible statement to make. Especially now when Founders who denied the divinity of Jesus are morphed post mortem into Bible believing Christians.
Tom Van Dyke:
I disagree: One can believe in Good without believing in gods. A Creator is not necessary, and many who are most concerned with human rights believe gods, demons, spirits, hobgoblins, fairies and the Easter Bunny to be equally non-existent.
Is something Good because a god says so? Or can something be good even if not backed up by godlike power.? To put it another way – does Might make Right? And if not – what does? Can Good exist separately from gods?
I contend that it can, and does. For proof, I have none, just that it works. One can construct justifications based on Kantian philosophy or games theory, but it’s really a matter of faith, even gnosis. Not superstition, unlike belief in gods, spirits, djinni and the like.
Mainstream Christianity requires belief in hundreds, even thousands of gods. Archangels, Angels, Thrones, Powers, Principalities, various Demons, Spirits, Djinii, Imps, and magic spells to exorcise them. I doubt that many Christians can even tell you how many gods they’re called on to believe in, and there’s even disagreement about the nature of the most powerful. three or one?
Deism requires belief in some amorphous Creator. While superficially more sophisticated, it’s ultimately just a bin to place the currently Unexplained, and provide justification for that which we know is Right, but cannot prove..
Science has an underlying assumption, that supernatural entities don’t cause physical phenomena, that while much is unexplained, nothing is inexplicable. It’s not Faith, just a working assumption, pretty much the only one. Is it true? We can’t prove it is. It works though, and is falsifiable. The existence of gods is not.
Similarly, we have a working assumption that Good exists, separate from the existence or otherwise of godlike powers.
An open forum? Thank you, Dr. Throckmorton. From a comment in a previous post,
Laurie said:
For the sake of preventing further damage to our already fractured Christian unity in this dominant humanist culture couldn’t this have been handled more prudently?
Smacking David Barton for the errors in his book does not engage his point.
What is his point, his thesis?
That the Founders, even Jefferson, were not hostile to religion in the public square, as are many people—including the Supreme Court occasionally.
The Naked Public Square. Devoid of religion, stripped of God.
Our children don’t know anything about how our Founding principles have been perverted into a “Godless Constitution.” But we are nothing unless our rights are endowed by our creator. We do not respect each other. Look at all this, Warren. look at the ugliness of these comments.
The only connection we have with each other is respect for our creator. and we don’t even have that anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Public_Square
Forget David Barton and his screwups about history. This is what he’s trying to say. He just doesn’t know how to say it, and people only attack him, they do not help him.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-deist-minimum–28
And that’s what Laurie is trying to say here.
For the sake of preventing further damage to our already fractured Christian unity in this dominant humanist culture couldn’t this have been handled more prudently?
I hear you, Laurie. It’s not even just about Christianity, it’s about the belief that God loves us, and so we must respect each other as all god’s children. Even Thomas Jefferson knew that.
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? ”
That’s what David Barton is trying to say. The rest is The Battle of the Factoids. Even if he strikes out most of the time, he doesn’t strike out every time.
It seems to me that the Blaze article is trying to imply that the issue is really a matter of interpretation, but all the actual evidence they presented pretty much confirms Warren’s perspective. Am I missing something?
You had “residual respect” for Beck before this?
ugh… whatever residual respect I had for Beck just dissipated
ugh… whatever residual respect I had for Beck just dissipated