Category: david barton

David Barton Says Founders Took Bill of Rights from Genesis. What If They Did?

Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC
The Bill of Rights from Archives.gov Charters of Freedom collection

David Barton has lately started sounding like the Institute on the Constitution. Michael Peroutka tells people that the American view is based on the Declaration of Independence and proves that

“The American View” of government is that there is a God, the God of the Bible, our rights come from Him, and the purpose of civil government is to secure our rights.

Barton promoted those points on Glenn Beck’s show recently and added that the Bill of Rights came from Genesis 1-8. Watch (from Right Wing Watch):
[youtube]https://youtu.be/g8Z8sWQM3ig[/youtube]
At 1:42 into the clip above, Barton said:

And they held that all those came out of Genesis one through eight and that’s what they looked to, Genesis one through eight. They went through and said here’s the rights we see and that’s why governments exist.

I can’t remember ever hearing Barton cite the part of the Declaration in bold letters below:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Where do the powers come from? The consent of the governed. If the governed want something other than what Barton thinks the Bible teaches, then would Barton say the Declaration is wrong?
As usual Barton isn’t specific about which founders said what. I have pointed out several times on this blog that Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, did not point to the Bible as a source for the document.  Below is a segment from a previous post which cites Jefferson’s description of the influences on him as he wrote the Declaration:

When Jefferson wrote about the Declaration, he did not credit the Bible or Christianity.

First, to Henry Lee on May 8, 1825, Jefferson wrote:

But with respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles or new arguments never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before: but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. The historical documents which you mention as in your possession ought all to be found, and I am persuaded you will find to be corroborative of the facts and principles advanced in that Declaration.

Who wrote the “elementary books of public right?” Moses? The Apostle Paul? No, Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney contributed to the “harmonizing sentiments of the day.” A case could be made that some of that harmonizing sentiment derived from religious sources with religious references, but Jefferson did not mention them or appeal to them as primary influences.

In 1823, Jefferson told James Madison (referring to Lee’s theories about the source of the Declaration):

Richard Henry Lee charged it as copied from Locke’s treatise on government. Otis’s pamphlet I never saw, and whether I had gathered my ideas from reading or reflection, I do not know. I know only that I turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it. I did not consider it as any part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether, and to offer no sentiment which had ever been expressed before.

According to Jefferson (and in contrast to what the authors of the Founders’ Bible want you to believe), he did not turn to the Bible when writing the Declaration of Independence. Christian historians Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden got it right when they wrote in 1989:

Here then is the “historical error”: It is historically inaccurate and anachronistic to confuse, and virtually to equate, the thinking of the Declaration of Independence with a biblical world view, or with Reformation thinking, or with the idea of a Christian nation. (p. 130).

I will add that I can’t see how the Bill of Rights can be found in Genesis 1-8.
What If Genesis 1-8 Was the Source of Our Rights?
It did get me wondering what the Bill of Rights would look like if the founders had used Genesis 1-8.
The first amendment probably would not be the same since everybody would have to observe the Sabbath on the same day. Women would be ruled by men (well, that isn’t so far off from the founding era). Burnt offerings would be a right. Murder would not be a capital offense. As with Cain, a murderer would have the right to be banished with protection from retaliation and the ability to marry. Polygamy would be a right. Nephilim-human marriages would be protected.
I just don’t see anything about quartering soldiers, search and seizures, juries, or trials, etc.
During this clip, Beck asked Barton to bring in the Bible and point out where these things are found. I think that is a super idea that will probably never happen.

Historian Thomas Kidd on Why Mike Huckabee Won't Be the Evangelical Darling in 2016

Thomas Kidd nails it at the Washington Post.
Kidd finds several reasons why Huckabee isn’t catching fire among evangelicals. One reason Kidd identifies is Huckabee’s status as a former Fox News host. As an example, Kidd correctly points out Huckabee’s attachment to David Barton.

Fox’s cozy confines allow candidates to get into an insulated mindset, in which they are not used to having to face critical reporters or be accountable for outlandish statements. You knew something was going wrong with Huckabee in 2011 when, at a “Rediscover God in America” conference, he sang the praises of the widely discredited Christian history writer and Republican Party activist David Barton. Huckabee said that he “almost wished” that “all Americans would be forced — forced at gunpoint no less — to listen to every David Barton message.” A year later, a massive outcry led by evangelical and Catholic scholars forced an embarrassed Thomas Nelson Publishers to pull Barton’s book “The Jefferson Lies” from circulation.

Well said.
Note Kidd’s observation that “a massive outcry led by evangelical and Catholic scholars” led to Thomas Nelson’s actions. Barton claimed only four college professors had a problem with it. Hardly. Kidd is correct, Barton is not.
I wasn’t aware of Huckabee’s outrageous statement about Obama leading Jews to the oven door. That alone should end his campaign. Understandably, Jewish groups condemned it.
Go over and read Kidd’s article at the Post.
 

David Barton: Treasury Department Will Be Denigrated by Addition of Woman to $10 Bill

The boys at Wallbuilders (David Barton and Rick Green) are all in a tizzy over the replacement of Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill by a woman (unnamed as yet). Right Wing Watch was listening in to the Wallbuilders Live show yesterday and heard the guys lamenting the travesty it will be. From RWW:

Last month, the Treasury Department announced that a woman would be featured on the $10 bill when it is redesigned in 2020 and David Barton was so outraged that he brought the National Review’s Quin Hillyer onto his “WallBuilders Live” radio program today to explain why this decision is so “outrageous and ignorant.”

The audio is at RWW so go on over and listen to the good ol’ boys talk about the denigration of our nation’s history and economic system.
Probably Barton and the fellas don’t know that the women folk like economic systems too. In fact, there have been quite a few women at the Treasury Department over the years.

Earlier this month, Treasury Notes highlighted the start of Women’s History Month with a blog post on the 2013 Girl Scouts of the USA Centennial Silver Dollar. As we near the end of the month, Treasury Notes is proud to feature photographs displayed in a gallery on the second-floor hallway of the Treasury building showcasing women in Treasury history. The historical photographs date between 1874 and 1926, honoring the role and contributions that women have made to the Department. Today Treasury has the most women in senior positions ever including Treasurer Rosie Rios, Under Secretary for International Affairs Lael Brainard, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Mary Miller, Assistant Secretary for Management Nani Coloretti, Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Janice Eberly, Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis S. Leslie Ireland, and Assistant Secretary for International Markets, Development Marisa Lago, and Acting Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs​ Natalie Wyeth Earnest.

The gents shouldn’t be too upset since Hamilton will most likely still be on the $10 bill but a woman will be added to the new design. I doubt that Maria Reynolds will be chosen to share the bill with Alexander.

David Barton: Churches Are Required to Hire Pedophiles to Run Church Nurseries

On Tuesday, David Barton appeared on Missions Radio (click link for entire program), a podcast hosted by Kenneth Mitchell. The topics were mostly current events and Barton’s analysis of them. As with his history, his analysis of current events is also off the mark. In this clip, Barton claims churches have to hire pedophiles to run their nurseries.

Transcript:

Then, Congress has passed what’s called ENDA, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, passed this in ’06 under Pelosi and Reid and at that point in time, it says you cannot discriminate on the basis of hiring.
As a result, the president has now announced that faith based groups have to hire homosexuals; not an option, you have to because federal law says you cannot discriminate on the basis of identity. So if a pedophile comes to the church and says I want to run your nursery, you can’t say no because that’s discriminating on the basis of identity. If a homosexual comes and says I want to be your youth director and you say no, you can’t do that, you can’t distinguish on the basis of gender.
And in the same way as came out at the Supreme Court, back 25 years ago when the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was wrong, and you had a Christian college, Bob Jones that says we’re still going to do it in dating and interracial marriage, etc., they lost the tax exempt status because they wouldn’t comply with the Supreme Court decision. Well now the Supreme Court says you can’t distinguish on the basis of gender but only on identity, guess what? That calls into qu…and that’s what Obama’s attorney said, it will call into question every single tax exemption in America for every church. I guarantee you that people who thought same-sex marriage was for equality didn’t intend to destroy all the church in America. And that’s what it does.

No. Just no.
Barton is completely wrong about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It never passed both houses of Congress during the same session, and it is not law today. It was not introduced in the 109th Congress (2005-2007). As an aside, the House speaker during that Congress was Dennis Hastert and the Senate president was Dick Cheney.  ENDA passed the House in the next Congress but not the Senate. Another version of the legislation passed the Senate in 2013 but not the House (see this timeline).
Barton told Mitchell’s audience that President Obama’s executive order forbidding discrimination by federal contractors came “as a result” of ENDA. Not so. Barton claims faith based groups have to hire homosexuals. However, this order only applies to federal contractors not all faith based groups. Then he uncorked a doozy by claiming that churches have to hire pedophiles who want to run church nurseries. Of course, this is ridiculous fear mongering.
Stop a minute to think about that claim. Anyone who has any knowledge of church work or volunteer work with children knows Barton’s claim is ridiculous. In many schools, you can’t volunteer to accompany your child’s classroom on a field trip without criminal and child abuse clearances. In recent years, churches have been required by liability insurers to screen all volunteers before working with children. Barton’s claims are absurd and irresponsible.
On the claim that a church has to hire an openly gay applicant, Barton offers no evidence. I know of no case where a non-gay-affirming church was required to hire a gay person for a religious function. Churches discriminate on the basis of religion all the time by hiring only those who agree on even fine points of doctrine. Many churches also discriminate on the basis of gender by not hiring women for certain functions. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidance makes it clear that “governmental regulation of church administration, including the appointment of clergy, impedes the free exercise of religion and constitutes impermissible government entanglement with church authority. The exception applies only to employees who perform essentially religious functions, namely those whose primary duties consist of engaging in church governance, supervising a religious order, or conducting religious ritual, worship, or instruction.” Clearly, youth directing is an essentially religious function. 
In the last paragraph above, Barton refers to concerns that religious colleges might be required to treat same-sex unions as they do male-female marriages now. There is basis for this topic but Barton stretches the matter to include churches. The solicitor general Donald Verilli addressed this matter in a famous exchange with Justice Alito during oral arguments on Obergefell v. Hodges. Justice Alito asked Verilli if a college opposed same-sex marriage would that college suffer the same fate as Bob Jones University who maintained discriminatory policies based on race. Verilli acknowledged that such questions could come up if a right to same-sex marriage was recognized. However, Alito and Verilli did not discuss churches, as Barton implies.  Verilli didn’t say a favorable same-sex marriage decision would “call into question every single tax exemption in America for every church” or anything close to it.
For the most part, colleges are places of public accommodation and already operate under federal guidelines when it comes to employment and other civil rights. As Verilli replied to Alito, the question can’t be answered without knowing the specific facts. Some schools may have a better case for allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation than others. However, the issue was never the free exercise of religion by churches. In this context, it would be good to recall Justice Kennedy’s words on the matter:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.

With uninformed pundits like Barton headlining church conferences, no wonder many evangelicals are worried the sky is falling.  I hope Mr. Mitchell will consider giving equal time or at least informing his listeners that Barton was wrong and the First Amendment still exists in America.

David Barton's Legend Grows to Include Supreme Court Winner

David Barton was given a PhD by Glenn Beck and was sorta called “America’s Historian” in a World Net Daily article and speaks for over 400 (600?) groups per year.  Barton has also added NCAA Division One basketball player and translator for the Russian gymnastics team. Now, he can add winner of cases at the Supreme Court. Watch this invitation to hear Barton speak at an Assembly of God church in Texarkana, TX (full video here):

Barton has filed some amicus briefs (friend of the court) which anyone can do (e.g., here) but he is not an attorney and hasn’t argued before the court.  Of course, I realize Barton didn’t say this but I wonder if he will correct it. He has some responsibility for it since he says in his bio that he has “participated” in Supreme Court cases. The minister took the word “participated” and made it into “argued and won.” He also made Barton into a “Constitutional scholar.”
My point isn’t that Barton is responsible for the false things people say about him (although in Beck’s case, he should have corrected the misinformation). Rather, I am focusing my attention more on the social and cognitive factors that operate in the evangelical environment that elevate Barton to expert status. Here is one. This minister gave Barton a superhuman build up, using false information to do it. Since the minister wants Barton to motivate his congregation, he fails to tell his people about Barton’s misleading stories, his disgraced book about Jefferson and the general negative associations Barton has among actual experts, Christian and otherwise. And this minister, who probably did not intend to speak falsely, adds the stuff of legends.