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.

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.

-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

ugh… whatever residual respect I had for Beck just dissipated

You had “residual respect” for Beck before this?