Comments on: David Barton Justifies Civilizing Indians By Destroying Them

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:00:58 +0000

Richard: All I can say is that I see his critics consistently overshooting their own evidence in their haste to discredit him. Mention Barton and it’s a torrent of Two Minutes Hate.
I don’t like defending him, but the irony of his critics doing the same thing he does is too appalling not to note–putting words in his mouth, ascribing nasty motives, sophistically trying to take advantage of his [admitted] sloppiness in order to impugn conservatism/the GOP if not the traditional [Judeo-] Christian worldview. It’s quite transparent.
With this latest book on Jefferson, Baton has indeed screwed the pooch, I think–not only for his overreach, but tactically because Jefferson is more valuable as an enemy of the traditional Judeo-Christian worldview, the back-stabbing hypocrite.
As for what Barton’s worldview actually is, all I can say is that I have never seen a critic state it accurately. They prefer to scour TV interviews, webcasts, podcasts and radio shows in search of rope to hang him with.
For all the times I’ve read his haters putting the exact words in his mouth, at least formally he has never [to my knowledge] ever asserted “America was Founded as a Christian Nation.”
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.”
So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.”
“No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, & had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, & with us, Christianity & Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, & did not often refer to it, & exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because fredom [sic] of conscience & respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both..”—Chief Justice John Marshall, letter to Jaspar Adams 1833
This sort of thing is the core of Barton’s argument, and his own sloppy scholarship on some other factoids doesn’t falsify the legit ones. Caveat emptor, by all means, but so too when reading his critics.

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:00:58 +0000

Well, I suspect Barton is his own worst enemy. Also, I’m not sure that he is really obedient to Christian principles (as we all are not from time to time), since seeking to ‘justify’ what were effectively massacres is simply not consistent with what I understand to be the core values expressed Christ’s teaching. And I suspect that many Jews would not agree with Barton’s appraisal and application of the ‘Judeo-‘ aspects of Judeo-Christian principles.
Some may indeed ‘use’ Barton’s utterances in an attempt to discredit Christianity. However there are others who oppose what he and his ilk say because they regard his behaviour as a threat to Christianity. I would count myself among those in the latter category.

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:00:58 +0000

I see your point about conflicting ideas of God, Tom. My view is that Barton is, from a Christian perspective, a heretic; “as God is in Christ, God is” would be my understanding of core Christian theology. (Obviously, I respect his right to a heretic if he chooses.) And I ‘admit’ (again) that I too do often fail to conform to Christian principles; I know my pay grade!

By: Boo

Boo — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:00:58 +0000

How on earth do you shout someone down on an internet forum, Tom? And no, pointing out your personal behavior is not a personal attack. You were the one who chose to go on and on and on about yourself.

By: Boo

Boo — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:00:57 +0000

Tom- if your only standard is might makes right, which is in fact what you are advocating in the above post, then you have no basis for injecting right or wrong into it at all. And if you actually think “everyone else is doing it!” is a valid excuse, then your parents did something very wrong in raising you.

By: Boo

Boo — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:59:51 +0000

“We all like to imagine we’d have freed our slaves or fought the Confederacy or marched with Dr. King. But my view of human beings is that most of us have feet of clay and go along with the crowd.”
Which is irrelevant to the fact that the people who did those things were in the right, and the people whowent aong with the cowd were wrong. Taking the Indians land was wrong. The fact it isn’t something that would be practical to “fix” at this point in history does not change that. The morality of a position is not determined by the courage or lack thereof of the person holding the position. To claim otherwise smacks of narcicism.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:59:51 +0000

I don’t understand why you bothered to enter this thread since you had already made up your mind.
Because I knew there must be more to the story than Barton blandly endorsing genocide, which the title of this post insinuated, Warren.
And I believe I have now told the rest of the story.
You realize by now that my disposition is for apologetics, not polemics, yes? I’d have even defended you–as much as possible with principle–back in your “ex-gay” days when they were dragging YOUR name through the mud. You weren’t necessarily 100% wrong back then [nor are you now].

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:59:51 +0000

Yes, boo, ‘tu quoque’ is no defence in law (and probably not in ‘morals’ either).
I suspect that Barton might be victim to that ‘cowboys and indians’ mindset that presupposes that the ‘cowboys’ are the ‘goodies’ and the ‘indians’ are the ‘baddies’, and then offers an ‘interpretation’ of history based on that premise. Most of us have moved on from that … or are at least trying to do so – which is a start.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:58:03 +0000

In reply to Tom Van Dyke. I don't want this thread to turn into a debate over SSM so back to the topic please.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:58:03 +0000

In reply to Tom Van Dyke.

It was a simple question and you changed the subject. Intellectualizing about it doesn’t change anything.
I listened to the entire broadcast for myself. Perhaps you should do that too before you go off on tangents.
I don’t understand why you bothered to enter this thread since you had already made up your mind.