Cincinnati Area Pastors Call On NRB To Sever Connection To League Of The South Board Member

78 thoughts on “Cincinnati Area Pastors Call On NRB To Sever Connection To League Of The South Board Member”

1. Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 27, 2013 at 3:34 pm
   “In case anyone is interested in the truth of the matter of the Cincinnati pastors, my opinion is based on evidence like this that turns up pretty easily on Google.”
   When did you 1st read this evidence, Tom? Before you made your post claiming the pastor group was “far left-wing activists” or after someone asked you for evidence of your claim?
   Your insinuation is insulting, sir, that I initially just made it up and was saved by it happening to be true. Which illustrates that good-faith discussion is not really many people’s object here–it’s to shout down arguments they don’t like.
   I looked these guys up months ago when the Jefferson Lies boycott threat arose-[ironic because it was race, not Barton’s usual topic of religion]. I like to know the whole story, not just the surface details: These pastors are more known for their political and social activism than any actual concern for historical scholarship. Sorry people find that inconvenient.

2. And, Tom, given that you support the Union that forms your nation, and given that you deplore slavery and racism, stop worrying about whether someone who shares your own convictions is a ‘lefty’, a ‘righty’ or an ‘anythingelsy’, and get with the programme! 🙂

3. (If I were seeking to advance the same thesis as Tom, I’d probably have posted a rather ‘juicier’ excerpt … assuming that one were available – which may or may not be the case. My reading of the ‘excerpt’ above is that Beard is stating what we Londoners might call “the bleedin’ obvious”: of course personal and social responsibility go hand-in hand; we are social beings as well as individuals.)

4. I see nothing joking about it from an Australian perspective. Merely a statement of fact.

5. No, I add the necessary information that’s missing so the reader can make judgments based on all the facts, not just half of them.
   The first thing people should know is that “jimmiraybob” follows me around the internet with shoddy personal attacks and kneejerk defenses of anyone on the left.
   And oh, look, my old leftish pal KTWard. She has a very good point here, although one wonders if the FRC are distancing themselves from the Institute on the Constitution on its own merits, or distancing itself from the guilt-by-association controversy the left is ginning up about it.
   I have no use for the Institute, but I’ve seen work just as crappy on the left. Until self-appointed “guardians of truth” on the left get equally worked up about errors on their own side, it should at least be pointed out that groups such as “Cincinnati Area Pastors” need to be identified for their leftist political action easily as much as for being “evangelicals.”
   Evangelicals such as Rabbi Michael Wolf, for instance. 😉

6. jimmiraybob# ~ Sep 25, 2013 at 5:55 pm
   KTWard,
   The second thing that you should know about Tom is that the second thing that he always does is resort to ad hominem and innuendo.
   It’s not right to harass me like this and disrupt the discussion.
   I was fired as a contributor to at the Southern Appeal blog for calling for an end to the Rebel battle flag. When a “neo-Confederate” showed up at this blog, I dressed him down as unAmerican and unChristian. I have nothing to apologize for as a person and should not have to defend myself from anonymous attacks.
   You don’t know anything about me.

7. Perhaps, Tom, the focus by some evangelicals on the ‘religious rightists’ is seen by those evangelicals as a necessary part of ‘getting their own house in order’.
   No, it’s left-wingers getting ahold of ammo from folks like Warren to attack the right with. Let’s get real. They don’t know squat about history and don’t care.**
   Hey, I’m all for David Barton exiting the stage. Whatever good he did [and he did reawaken interest in the truth about America’s religious heritage*], he’s now a whipping boy for the left. He could say 9 right things and all you’ll ever hear is the one thing he got wrong.
   So let’s just be honest–those who don’t admit what the Institute gets right and what Barton gets right are just the other side of the advocacy coin. Let’s not pretend it’s about history; it’s about all politics. Him AND them.
   _________________
   *How many people credit deists and the Enlightenment for the American Founding? that “common knowledge” is as wrong as the more strident voices on the right. Further, Barton’s overarching thesis is pretty modest, not that many people even know what it is.
   http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=23909
   _________________
   “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.”
   Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) similarly acknowledged:

   In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion.

   Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed:

   [W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it.”

   ______________________
   **You don’t think leftists like the “Cinncinnati Area Pastors” don’t use Jesus and the Beatitudes routinely to sell their socialist/communitarian vision of the state? Puh-leez. And FTR, I think it’s all valid.

8. In case anyone is interested in the truth of the matter of the Cincinnati pastors, my opinion is based on evidence like this that turns up pretty easily on Google. [Rev. Chris Beard is one of the leaders of this controversy.]
   http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/19/nation/la-na-ohio-evangelicals-20120520

   White evangelical voters are widely presumed to march in lock step with the right wing of the Republican Party. The reality is more nuanced. Some, like [Rev. Chris] Beard, say their faith has led them to question conservative orthodoxy on issues such as immigration, the environment and racial and economic equity.
   “Evangelicals,” he said, “are quickly discovering the whole Gospel. And that has implications for how we engage the public sphere.”
   Words like that are music to the ears of President Obama’s reelection campaign, which desperately needs to make inroads among people like Beard and his flock, especially in such battleground states as Ohio. It is part of a broad effort in key states to scratch for every possible vote in what is expected to be a nail-biter election.
   The meetings that Beard attended were officially nonpartisan, and there was no mention of either Obama or Republican Mitt Romney. Still, they were part of an effort by liberal groups to mobilize religious voters, union voters and others before the election.
   “This is like one layer of an overall strategy of building progressive infrastructure in the state,” said Kirk Noden, executive director of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, an umbrella group for liberal community organizers in Ohio. He said it was especially important to target white evangelicals.

   FTR, I have no problem with religion in politics, left or right. But let’s just be clear and honest about it.

   1. Tom – That is what you have to call someone far left?!
      The man is a theological conservative who attends a meeting and all of a sudden he is a far left activist?
      Wow. As Richard might say, No. Sale.

9. Perhaps, Tom, the focus by some evangelicals on the ‘religious rightists’ is seen by those evangelicals as a necessary part of ‘getting their own house in order’. After all, one does not have to be a ‘lefty’ to criticize people like David Barton. In fact, since many on the ‘religious right’ advocate very tight state control in certain areas of life, it could be seen as a mark of being on the ‘libertarian right’ to oppose him. More irony perhaps?

10. Once we know they’re left-wing activist “evangelicals,” specifically the ones who threatened a boycott of David Barton’s publisher, then we have the whole story, Warren.
    As for this guilt-by-association trip, I would say the same thing if one of the “pastors” had ties with Farrakhan and someone tried to tar their whole group with it. They had a name for this guilt-by-association game back in the 1950s.

    The Cincinnati Area Pastors contacted Frank Wright, CEO and president of NRB, three weeks ago with our concerns. Mr. Wright acknowledged receipt of our concerns, and has chosen to take no action against Michael Peroutka.

    If the NRB is broadcasting racist content, I’m in total support. Otherwise, The Cincinnati [Left-Wing] Pastors are just playing the same old partisan game.
    Hey, it worked with Barton. What the hell?

11. Are these the same left-wing activist “evangelical” pastors who went after David Barton? Oh look, they are.
    http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2012/07/cincinnati-pastors-boycott-thomas.html
    Not that I have any brief for League of the South, but this is a partisan charade.

12. We contend that by endorsing Michael Peroutka, NRB also endorses secessionism and extreme anti-American government sentiments.

    Well yes, and…?

13. One cannot really be ‘bipartisan’ over the kinds of matters raised by the League. Either one agrees with their programme or one doesn’t. I suspect that there is a not insignificant number of evangelicals who don’t, and it’s a good thing that there are pastors who represent their views.
    That there is an overlap between those who oppose the League’s agenda and that of Barton should not perhaps entirely surprise us. Both seem to me to have a somewhat ‘theocratic’ element in their political discourse.

14. One cannot really be ‘bipartisan’ over the kinds of matters raised by the League. Either one agrees with their programme or one doesn’t. I suspect that there is a not insignificant number of evangelicals who don’t, and it’s a good thing that there are pastors who represent their views.
    That there is an overlap between those who oppose the League’s agenda and that of Barton should not perhaps entirely surprise us. Both seem to me to have a somewhat ‘theocratic’ element in their political discourse.

15. It’s easy to stand up for people you agree with. I don’t think you quite get this American freedom of speech thing yet, my British friend. The cure for bad speech is more free speech, not censorship. At least that’s the American theory. Your country prohibits “bad” speech, especially “homophobic” and “Islamophobic” ideas. But our constitution was designed to protect speech, even “bad” speech.
    Further, some and many of the attacks on these clowns are ill-founded. Truth and clarity matter, at least to me, which is why I go on record when the attacks are inaccurate.
    For instance, Christian reconstructionism ala RJ Rushdoony believes that America should choose Christ and theocracy. Someday. They do not believe in imposing theocracy by force. They’re speaking theologically and eschatologically when they say the Constitution cannot be reformed, but must be replaced. But people–especially those with an antipathy/ignorance to Christianity–make them out to be speaking literally of revolution in the present day so they can paint them as dangerous. And that’s demagoguery too.
    Because they’re all talk. And if you recall, I told one of them I’d shoot him myself if he ever raised an angry hand for his racist/racialist principles. But somewhere in there is a legitimate and valid argument to preserve the principles of Western civilization. So when the other clowns threaten to boycott the National Religious Broadcasters with nonsense such as

    We contend that NRB cannot promote a man who is against multiculturalism, without promoting the division of the Body of Christ along color and ethnic lines.

    it’s like, hold on there, pal. “Multiculturalism” isn’t in the Bible, and you’re just as bogus as the other clowns trying to shove their confused version of the Bible down people’s throats. Yes, you’re opposing racism [goody for you], but you’re also sneaking in this “multiculturalism” crap under the same argument. It’s a rhetorical trick–find some extremist idiots to bash, so whatever YOU say seems entirely sensible.
    So that’s why clarity matters, and why free speech matters, and all the rest, me brother. My impression is that you yourself are a down-the-line left-liberal, but many Americans look at multi-culti Europe and say, if that’s our future, then no thanks.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355961/Nicolas-Sarkozy-joins-David-Cameron-Angela-Merkel-view-multiculturalism-failed.html

    French president Nicolas Sarkozy has joined David Cameron in condemning multiculturalism as a failure.
    Cameron launched a scathing attack earlier this months on 30 years of multiculturalism in Britain warning that it fostered extremism.
    His damning verdict came just months after German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that multiculturalism in Germany had failed.
    Now Sarkozy has joined the growing number of European leaders who have adopted identical views on multiculturalism.
    He told the French people: ‘We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.’
    The president made the declaration in a TV debate last night after being asked if the policy of encouraging the religious and cultural differences of immigrants was not working.
    He told viewers: ‘My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure.’

16. It’s easy to stand up for people you agree with. I don’t think you quite get this American freedom of speech thing yet, my British friend. The cure for bad speech is more free speech, not censorship. At least that’s the American theory. Your country prohibits “bad” speech, especially “homophobic” and “Islamophobic” ideas. But our constitution was designed to protect speech, even “bad” speech.
    Further, some and many of the attacks on these clowns are ill-founded. Truth and clarity matter, at least to me, which is why I go on record when the attacks are inaccurate.
    For instance, Christian reconstructionism ala RJ Rushdoony believes that America should choose Christ and theocracy. Someday. They do not believe in imposing theocracy by force. They’re speaking theologically and eschatologically when they say the Constitution cannot be reformed, but must be replaced. But people–especially those with an antipathy/ignorance to Christianity–make them out to be speaking literally of revolution in the present day so they can paint them as dangerous. And that’s demagoguery too.
    Because they’re all talk. And if you recall, I told one of them I’d shoot him myself if he ever raised an angry hand for his racist/racialist principles. But somewhere in there is a legitimate and valid argument to preserve the principles of Western civilization. So when the other clowns threaten to boycott the National Religious Broadcasters with nonsense such as

    We contend that NRB cannot promote a man who is against multiculturalism, without promoting the division of the Body of Christ along color and ethnic lines.

    it’s like, hold on there, pal. “Multiculturalism” isn’t in the Bible, and you’re just as bogus as the other clowns trying to shove their confused version of the Bible down people’s throats. Yes, you’re opposing racism [goody for you], but you’re also sneaking in this “multiculturalism” crap under the same argument. It’s a rhetorical trick–find some extremist idiots to bash, so whatever YOU say seems entirely sensible.
    So that’s why clarity matters, and why free speech matters, and all the rest, me brother. My impression is that you yourself are a down-the-line left-liberal, but many Americans look at multi-culti Europe and say, if that’s our future, then no thanks.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355961/Nicolas-Sarkozy-joins-David-Cameron-Angela-Merkel-view-multiculturalism-failed.html

    French president Nicolas Sarkozy has joined David Cameron in condemning multiculturalism as a failure.
    Cameron launched a scathing attack earlier this months on 30 years of multiculturalism in Britain warning that it fostered extremism.
    His damning verdict came just months after German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that multiculturalism in Germany had failed.
    Now Sarkozy has joined the growing number of European leaders who have adopted identical views on multiculturalism.
    He told the French people: ‘We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.’
    The president made the declaration in a TV debate last night after being asked if the policy of encouraging the religious and cultural differences of immigrants was not working.
    He told viewers: ‘My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure.’

17. And, Tom, given that you support the Union that forms your nation, and given that you deplore slavery and racism, stop worrying about whether someone who shares your own convictions is a ‘lefty’, a ‘righty’ or an ‘anythingelsy’, and get with the programme! 🙂

18. And, Tom, given that you support the Union that forms your nation, and given that you deplore slavery and racism, stop worrying about whether someone who shares your own convictions is a ‘lefty’, a ‘righty’ or an ‘anythingelsy’, and get with the programme! 🙂

19. And, Tom, given that you support the Union that forms your nation, and given that you deplore slavery and racism, stop worrying about whether someone who shares your own convictions is a ‘lefty’, a ‘righty’ or an ‘anythingelsy’, and get with the programme! 🙂

20. Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 27, 2013 at 3:34 pm
    “In case anyone is interested in the truth of the matter of the Cincinnati pastors, my opinion is based on evidence like this that turns up pretty easily on Google.”
    When did you 1st read this evidence, Tom? Before you made your post claiming the pastor group was “far left-wing activists” or after someone asked you for evidence of your claim?
    Your insinuation is insulting, sir, that I initially just made it up and was saved by it happening to be true. Which illustrates that good-faith discussion is not really many people’s object here–it’s to shout down arguments they don’t like.
    I looked these guys up months ago when the Jefferson Lies boycott threat arose-[ironic because it was race, not Barton’s usual topic of religion]. I like to know the whole story, not just the surface details: These pastors are more known for their political and social activism than any actual concern for historical scholarship. Sorry people find that inconvenient.

21. (If I were seeking to advance the same thesis as Tom, I’d probably have posted a rather ‘juicier’ excerpt … assuming that one were available – which may or may not be the case. My reading of the ‘excerpt’ above is that Beard is stating what we Londoners might call “the bleedin’ obvious”: of course personal and social responsibility go hand-in hand; we are social beings as well as individuals.)

22. Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 27, 2013 at 3:34 pm
    “In case anyone is interested in the truth of the matter of the Cincinnati pastors, my opinion is based on evidence like this that turns up pretty easily on Google.”
    When did you 1st read this evidence, Tom? Before you made your post claiming the pastor group was “far left-wing activists” or after someone asked you for evidence of your claim?

23. But, Tom, you provided the excerpt!
    Oh well … enjoy the weekend.

24. Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 27, 2013 at 3:34 pm
    “In case anyone is interested in the truth of the matter of the Cincinnati pastors, my opinion is based on evidence like this that turns up pretty easily on Google.”
    When did you 1st read this evidence, Tom? Before you made your post claiming the pastor group was “far left-wing activists” or after someone asked you for evidence of your claim?

25. That’s a single excerpt from a single news story. To debate piecemeal like this is a waste of time. Anyone interested in the truth will investigate their political agenda further–it’s not a secret, it’s in plain sight. Then they’ll know the players, and know the full story.
    Thank you kindly for your time.

26. But, Tom, you provided the excerpt!
    Oh well … enjoy the weekend.

27. In case anyone is interested in the truth of the matter of the Cincinnati pastors, my opinion is based on evidence like this that turns up pretty easily on Google. [Rev. Chris Beard is one of the leaders of this controversy.]
    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/19/nation/la-na-ohio-evangelicals-20120520

    White evangelical voters are widely presumed to march in lock step with the right wing of the Republican Party. The reality is more nuanced. Some, like [Rev. Chris] Beard, say their faith has led them to question conservative orthodoxy on issues such as immigration, the environment and racial and economic equity.
    “Evangelicals,” he said, “are quickly discovering the whole Gospel. And that has implications for how we engage the public sphere.”
    Words like that are music to the ears of President Obama’s reelection campaign, which desperately needs to make inroads among people like Beard and his flock, especially in such battleground states as Ohio. It is part of a broad effort in key states to scratch for every possible vote in what is expected to be a nail-biter election.
    The meetings that Beard attended were officially nonpartisan, and there was no mention of either Obama or Republican Mitt Romney. Still, they were part of an effort by liberal groups to mobilize religious voters, union voters and others before the election.
    “This is like one layer of an overall strategy of building progressive infrastructure in the state,” said Kirk Noden, executive director of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, an umbrella group for liberal community organizers in Ohio. He said it was especially important to target white evangelicals.

    FTR, I have no problem with religion in politics, left or right. But let’s just be clear and honest about it.

    1. Tom – That is what you have to call someone far left?!
       The man is a theological conservative who attends a meeting and all of a sudden he is a far left activist?
       Wow. As Richard might say, No. Sale.

28. Oh well, us pommies like to see the joke (when we’re not whinging, that is)! But there was a serious point there, of course – all this ‘right’ and ‘left’ is relative (and often misleading too).

29. That’s a single excerpt from a single news story. To debate piecemeal like this is a waste of time. Anyone interested in the truth will investigate their political agenda further–it’s not a secret, it’s in plain sight. Then they’ll know the players, and know the full story.
    Thank you kindly for your time.

30. Oh well, us pommies like to see the joke (when we’re not whinging, that is)! But there was a serious point there, of course – all this ‘right’ and ‘left’ is relative (and often misleading too).

31. I see nothing joking about it from an Australian perspective. Merely a statement of fact.

32. An aside: there is, from a W European perspective, very little genuine ‘leftness’ in the US political dialectic. I remember, when I was studying American history (I chose to do so as my family is a ‘transatlantic’ one), my teacher saying “in the USA, there are today two main political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats; the Democrats are right-wing, and the Republicans are to the right of the Democrats.” Obviously, that was intended as a joke, but …
    Labels like ‘right’ and ‘left’ are bandied around quite a bit (and a big fave in the ‘bandying department’ just now is ‘liberal’ – a word which generally has positive connotations on this side of the Atlantic, but seems in some quarters to be biggest insult possible over your way); much better surely to look at things on an issue-by-issue basis?

33. An aside: there is, from a W European perspective, very little genuine ‘leftness’ in the US political dialectic. I remember, when I was studying American history (I chose to do so as my family is a ‘transatlantic’ one), my teacher saying “in the USA, there are today two main political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats; the Democrats are right-wing, and the Republicans are to the right of the Democrats.” Obviously, that was intended as a joke, but …
    Labels like ‘right’ and ‘left’ are bandied around quite a bit (and a big fave in the ‘bandying department’ just now is ‘liberal’ – a word which generally has positive connotations on this side of the Atlantic, but seems in some quarters to be biggest insult possible over your way); much better surely to look at things on an issue-by-issue basis?

34. Sure, it’s just a coincidence the pastors’ group just happens to be made up of far-left wing activists. Believe whatever you want, Richard.

    1. Tom – Right is right even if the people are left. However, what is your evidence of the leftness of the pastors? Oh wait, the farleftness of the pastors? To me, the political views are not that relevant here (we are talking about opposition to the League of the South). However, you keep making this claim. What is your basis for it?
       This really is a ridiculous argument and one that Barton used on me. If these guys are “far left” then words really have no meaning anymore.

35. (At least when I suggested that the pastors’ action was to do ‘putting one’s own house in order’, I had the humility to say “perhaps”. And I would venture to suggest that it is highly unlikely that Warren has any particular interest in attacking all on the ‘right’ / ‘centre-right’ of the political spectrum – yet he appears to share the pastors’ concerns. Again, Tom, sorry – no sale.)

36. Sure, it’s just a coincidence the pastors’ group just happens to be made up of far-left wing activists. Believe whatever you want, Richard.

    1. Tom – Right is right even if the people are left. However, what is your evidence of the leftness of the pastors? Oh wait, the farleftness of the pastors? To me, the political views are not that relevant here (we are talking about opposition to the League of the South). However, you keep making this claim. What is your basis for it?
       This really is a ridiculous argument and one that Barton used on me. If these guys are “far left” then words really have no meaning anymore.

37. @ Tom
    Why not actually ask these pastors what is there motivation? Are they really challenging Barton and petitioning NRB because they are ‘lefties’? You assert this, but on what objective basis.

38. (At least when I suggested that the pastors’ action was to do ‘putting one’s own house in order’, I had the humility to say “perhaps”. And I would venture to suggest that it is highly unlikely that Warren has any particular interest in attacking all on the ‘right’ / ‘centre-right’ of the political spectrum – yet he appears to share the pastors’ concerns. Again, Tom, sorry – no sale.)

39. @ Tom
    Why not actually ask these pastors what is there motivation? Are they really challenging Barton and petitioning NRB because they are ‘lefties’? You assert this, but on what objective basis.

40. Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 25, 2013 at 6:08 pm
    ” He (Barton) could say 9 right things and all you’ll ever hear is the one thing he got wrong.”
    Probably true. However, you are ignoring the reason for that. The issue isn’t as much that he got something wrong as it is WHY he got it wrong and his response when his inaccuracies were pointed out to him.

41. Tom,
    Someone was a bit bewildered by your “lefty” commentary and I provided my assessment of your style, which is to steer everything into left-right politics. This is neither unfair nor exaggerated. As to your disdain for modernity and secularism, that is based on your own professions over the years. As to your goal of saving the country, that’s a paraphrase from a post that you did at the other group blog that you are participating in – one that you referenced and to which you posted a link (no stalking involved and no comments of mine posted).
    That you and I share an interest in some common blogs is no mystery as they all address issues involved in the founding period.
    As to your withdrawal from the Southern Appeal blog, I offered a word of support in comments at the American Creation blog – another of the group blogs that you participate in and that I have commented at for a few years.
    I don’t think that you’re a bad person and have admired some of the positions that you’ve stated. However, we do have some fundamental differences in opinion. So be it. If you think that my commentary was harsh then you might take some time to reflect on how you frame the issues and how you treat others that merely disagree with you.

42. Tom,
    Someone was a bit bewildered by your “lefty” commentary and I provided my assessment of your style, which is to steer everything into left-right politics. This is neither unfair nor exaggerated. As to your disdain for modernity and secularism, that is based on your own professions over the years. As to your goal of saving the country, that’s a paraphrase from a post that you did at the other group blog that you are participating in – one that you referenced and to which you posted a link (no stalking involved and no comments of mine posted).
    That you and I share an interest in some common blogs is no mystery as they all address issues involved in the founding period.
    As to your withdrawal from the Southern Appeal blog, I offered a word of support in comments at the American Creation blog – another of the group blogs that you participate in and that I have commented at for a few years.
    I don’t think that you’re a bad person and have admired some of the positions that you’ve stated. However, we do have some fundamental differences in opinion. So be it. If you think that my commentary was harsh then you might take some time to reflect on how you frame the issues and how you treat others that merely disagree with you.

43. Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 25, 2013 at 6:08 pm
    ” He (Barton) could say 9 right things and all you’ll ever hear is the one thing he got wrong.”
    Probably true. However, you are ignoring the reason for that. The issue isn’t as much that he got something wrong as it is WHY he got it wrong and his response when his inaccuracies were pointed out to him.

44. Tom,
    Someone was a bit bewildered by your “lefty” commentary and I provided my assessment of your style, which is to steer everything into left-right politics. This is neither unfair nor exaggerated. As to your disdain for modernity and secularism, that is based on your own professions over the years. As to your goal of saving the country, that’s a paraphrase from a post that you did at the other group blog that you are participating in – one that you referenced and to which you posted a link (no stalking involved and no comments of mine posted).
    That you and I share an interest in some common blogs is no mystery as they all address issues involved in the founding period.
    As to your withdrawal from the Southern Appeal blog, I offered a word of support in comments at the American Creation blog – another of the group blogs that you participate in and that I have commented at for a few years.
    I don’t think that you’re a bad person and have admired some of the positions that you’ve stated. However, we do have some fundamental differences in opinion. So be it. If you think that my commentary was harsh then you might take some time to reflect on how you frame the issues and how you treat others that merely disagree with you.

45. Tom,
    Someone was a bit bewildered by your “lefty” commentary and I provided my assessment of your style, which is to steer everything into left-right politics. This is neither unfair nor exaggerated. As to your disdain for modernity and secularism, that is based on your own professions over the years. As to your goal of saving the country, that’s a paraphrase from a post that you did at the other group blog that you are participating in – one that you referenced and to which you posted a link (no stalking involved and no comments of mine posted).
    That you and I share an interest in some common blogs is no mystery as they all address issues involved in the founding period.
    As to your withdrawal from the Southern Appeal blog, I offered a word of support in comments at the American Creation blog – another of the group blogs that you participate in and that I have commented at for a few years.
    I don’t think that you’re a bad person and have admired some of the positions that you’ve stated. However, we do have some fundamental differences in opinion. So be it. If you think that my commentary was harsh then you might take some time to reflect on how you frame the issues and how you treat others that merely disagree with you.

46. jimmiraybob# ~ Sep 25, 2013 at 5:55 pm
    KTWard,
    The second thing that you should know about Tom is that the second thing that he always does is resort to ad hominem and innuendo.
    It’s not right to harass me like this and disrupt the discussion.
    I was fired as a contributor to at the Southern Appeal blog for calling for an end to the Rebel battle flag. When a “neo-Confederate” showed up at this blog, I dressed him down as unAmerican and unChristian. I have nothing to apologize for as a person and should not have to defend myself from anonymous attacks.
    You don’t know anything about me.

47. Perhaps, Tom, the focus by some evangelicals on the ‘religious rightists’ is seen by those evangelicals as a necessary part of ‘getting their own house in order’.
    No, it’s left-wingers getting ahold of ammo from folks like Warren to attack the right with. Let’s get real. They don’t know squat about history and don’t care.**
    Hey, I’m all for David Barton exiting the stage. Whatever good he did [and he did reawaken interest in the truth about America’s religious heritage*], he’s now a whipping boy for the left. He could say 9 right things and all you’ll ever hear is the one thing he got wrong.
    So let’s just be honest–those who don’t admit what the Institute gets right and what Barton gets right are just the other side of the advocacy coin. Let’s not pretend it’s about history; it’s about all politics. Him AND them.
    _________________
    *How many people credit deists and the Enlightenment for the American Founding? that “common knowledge” is as wrong as the more strident voices on the right. Further, Barton’s overarching thesis is pretty modest, not that many people even know what it is.
    http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=23909
    _________________
    “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.”
    Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) similarly acknowledged:

    In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion.

    Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed:

    [W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it.”

    ______________________
    **You don’t think leftists like the “Cinncinnati Area Pastors” don’t use Jesus and the Beatitudes routinely to sell their socialist/communitarian vision of the state? Puh-leez. And FTR, I think it’s all valid.

48. KTWard,
    The second thing that you should know about Tom is that the second thing that he always does is resort to ad hominem and innuendo.

49. Perhaps, Tom, the focus by some evangelicals on the ‘religious rightists’ is seen by those evangelicals as a necessary part of ‘getting their own house in order’. After all, one does not have to be a ‘lefty’ to criticize people like David Barton. In fact, since many on the ‘religious right’ advocate very tight state control in certain areas of life, it could be seen as a mark of being on the ‘libertarian right’ to oppose him. More irony perhaps?

50. No, I add the necessary information that’s missing so the reader can make judgments based on all the facts, not just half of them.
    The first thing people should know is that “jimmiraybob” follows me around the internet with shoddy personal attacks and kneejerk defenses of anyone on the left.
    And oh, look, my old leftish pal KTWard. She has a very good point here, although one wonders if the FRC are distancing themselves from the Institute on the Constitution on its own merits, or distancing itself from the guilt-by-association controversy the left is ginning up about it.
    I have no use for the Institute, but I’ve seen work just as crappy on the left. Until self-appointed “guardians of truth” on the left get equally worked up about errors on their own side, it should at least be pointed out that groups such as “Cincinnati Area Pastors” need to be identified for their leftist political action easily as much as for being “evangelicals.”
    Evangelicals such as Rabbi Michael Wolf, for instance. 😉

51. KTWard,
    The second thing that you should know about Tom is that the second thing that he always does is resort to ad hominem and innuendo.

52. ktward# ~ Sep 24, 2013 at 2:26 pm – “Why does it even matter to you if the Cincinnati Area Pastors are perceived as [lefty] partisan?”
    Because the first thing Tom always does is to evaluate everything with respect to a political left-right frame and then demonize the left. And, in his case, everything not fitting within his narrow conservative ideological framework constitutes the left – the enemy to be defeated. He’s on a mission to save the nation from modernity and secularism……and the left.
    I think that Tom would agree that this is a fair evaluation.

53. ktward# ~ Sep 24, 2013 at 2:26 pm – “Why does it even matter to you if the Cincinnati Area Pastors are perceived as [lefty] partisan?”
    Because the first thing Tom always does is to evaluate everything with respect to a political left-right frame and then demonize the left. And, in his case, everything not fitting within his narrow conservative ideological framework constitutes the left – the enemy to be defeated. He’s on a mission to save the nation from modernity and secularism……and the left.
    I think that Tom would agree that this is a fair evaluation.

54. What is it that is ‘defensible’, Pat? What did you have in mind?

55. @ Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 23, 2013 at 5:42 pm
    Why does it even matter to you if the Cincinnati Area Pastors are perceived as [lefty] partisan? Maybe you missed this part:

    The Institute was behind the course on the Constitution which was canceled by the Springboro, Ohio school board and the conference which Family Research Council VP Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin exited earlier this year.

    Looks to me like even the Religious Right’s inarguably partisan FRC wants to avoid affiliating itself with The Institute on the Constitution.

56. What is it that is ‘defensible’, Pat? What did you have in mind?

57. @ Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 23, 2013 at 5:42 pm
    Why does it even matter to you if the Cincinnati Area Pastors are perceived as [lefty] partisan? Maybe you missed this part:

    The Institute was behind the course on the Constitution which was canceled by the Springboro, Ohio school board and the conference which Family Research Council VP Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin exited earlier this year.

    Looks to me like even the Religious Right’s inarguably partisan FRC wants to avoid affiliating itself with The Institute on the Constitution.

58. Richard Willmer,
    I’m convinced that we can find some undefendable points with Peroutka, if we want to.
    But I’m convinced, too, that at present it is the important task, and we are called, to take our stand in defending the defendable.

59. (Being a Brit, I’m always on the lookout for irony! How ironic that there is such an overlap between the ‘anti-gay’ religion right and the secessionists. This does give a very ‘mixed message’: “Well done, you Africans, for fighting for traditional values and bashing those pesky gays … oh, by the way, you lot were made by God to be slaves!” Hmmmmm. But then again, consistency and intellectual rigour was never perhaps the ‘religious right’s’ strongest suit.)

60. Well, I suppose supporting ‘succession’ is not in itself wrong (and neither is being critical of one’s government): after all, next year the Scottish electorate may decide that Scotland should ‘secede’ from the United Kingdom, and I entirely support their ‘right’ to decide one way or the other. Similarly, whether what is now the USA should remain a single nation state is surely a matter for legitimate political debate.
    However, it does seem that, in the US, the whole ‘secession’ thing is tied up with racial politics and – to put it bluntly – racism. This is where the principal danger lies, and I suspect that this is the basis of these pastors’ opposition (which I entirely understand and support – from where I sit, the USA is simply too important on the world stage to allow it to fragment in order to advance the cause of racism; secession a la LotS would be a disaster that would reverberate around the globe).

61. Richard Willmer,
    I’m convinced that we can find some undefendable points with Peroutka, if we want to.
    But I’m convinced, too, that at present it is the important task, and we are called, to take our stand in defending the defendable.

62. We contend that by endorsing Michael Peroutka, NRB also endorses secessionism and extreme anti-American government sentiments.

    Well yes, and…?

63. We contend that by endorsing Michael Peroutka, NRB also endorses secessionism and extreme anti-American government sentiments.

    Well yes, and…?

64. (Being a Brit, I’m always on the lookout for irony! How ironic that there is such an overlap between the ‘anti-gay’ religion right and the secessionists. This does give a very ‘mixed message’: “Well done, you Africans, for fighting for traditional values and bashing those pesky gays … oh, by the way, you lot were made by God to be slaves!” Hmmmmm. But then again, consistency and intellectual rigour was never perhaps the ‘religious right’s’ strongest suit.)

65. Well, I suppose supporting ‘succession’ is not in itself wrong (and neither is being critical of one’s government): after all, next year the Scottish electorate may decide that Scotland should ‘secede’ from the United Kingdom, and I entirely support their ‘right’ to decide one way or the other. Similarly, whether what is now the USA should remain a single nation state is surely a matter for legitimate political debate.
    However, it does seem that, in the US, the whole ‘secession’ thing is tied up with racial politics and – to put it bluntly – racism. This is where the principal danger lies, and I suspect that this is the basis of these pastors’ opposition (which I entirely understand and support – from where I sit, the USA is simply too important on the world stage to allow it to fragment in order to advance the cause of racism; secession a la LotS would be a disaster that would reverberate around the globe).

66. We contend that by endorsing Michael Peroutka, NRB also endorses secessionism and extreme anti-American government sentiments.

    Well yes, and…?

67. One cannot really be ‘bipartisan’ over the kinds of matters raised by the League. Either one agrees with their programme or one doesn’t. I suspect that there is a not insignificant number of evangelicals who don’t, and it’s a good thing that there are pastors who represent their views.
    That there is an overlap between those who oppose the League’s agenda and that of Barton should not perhaps entirely surprise us. Both seem to me to have a somewhat ‘theocratic’ element in their political discourse.

68. One cannot really be ‘bipartisan’ over the kinds of matters raised by the League. Either one agrees with their programme or one doesn’t. I suspect that there is a not insignificant number of evangelicals who don’t, and it’s a good thing that there are pastors who represent their views.
    That there is an overlap between those who oppose the League’s agenda and that of Barton should not perhaps entirely surprise us. Both seem to me to have a somewhat ‘theocratic’ element in their political discourse.

69. Once we know they’re left-wing activist “evangelicals,” specifically the ones who threatened a boycott of David Barton’s publisher, then we have the whole story, Warren.
    As for this guilt-by-association trip, I would say the same thing if one of the “pastors” had ties with Farrakhan and someone tried to tar their whole group with it. They had a name for this guilt-by-association game back in the 1950s.

    The Cincinnati Area Pastors contacted Frank Wright, CEO and president of NRB, three weeks ago with our concerns. Mr. Wright acknowledged receipt of our concerns, and has chosen to take no action against Michael Peroutka.

    If the NRB is broadcasting racist content, I’m in total support. Otherwise, The Cincinnati [Left-Wing] Pastors are just playing the same old partisan game.
    Hey, it worked with Barton. What the hell?

70. Are these the same left-wing activist “evangelical” pastors who went after David Barton? Oh look, they are.
    http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2012/07/cincinnati-pastors-boycott-thomas.html
    Not that I have any brief for League of the South, but this is a partisan charade.

71. Are these the same left-wing activist “evangelical” pastors who went after David Barton? Oh look, they are.
    http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2012/07/cincinnati-pastors-boycott-thomas.html
    Not that I have any brief for League of the South, but this is a partisan charade.

    1. So these guys can’t be evangelicals because you say so? Only certain people are allowed to oppose the League of the South?

72. Are these the same left-wing activist “evangelical” pastors who went after David Barton? Oh look, they are.
    http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2012/07/cincinnati-pastors-boycott-thomas.html
    Not that I have any brief for League of the South, but this is a partisan charade.

    1. So these guys can’t be evangelicals because you say so? Only certain people are allowed to oppose the League of the South?

Comments are closed.