history – Page 13 – Warren Throckmorton

David Barton and Early Retirement: Actually Not a Bad Idea

David Barton is again claiming that living according to his understanding of the Bible will lead to a long life. This time the issue is retirement. He says since the Bible doesn’t talk about it, then Christians shouldn’t retire because it is a pagan concept. Watch:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/Fu_dNSvRLW4[/youtube]
He claims that Deuteronomy 6:24 promises good consequences to people who do what God wants us to do. So if there are negative consequences from some activity or practice (e.g., retirement) as demonstrated by science, then God must not want us to do it.
He then quotes unnamed actuaries as saying that people live 2.4 years past retirement on average. He says the statistics are there that show God did not design us for retirement.
Barton’s citation of 2.4 years is meaningless in absence of knowledge of the health status of the population involved or the average age of retirement in the population. Does this figure combine men and women? Blue-collar workers and people in professions? Furthermore, we don’t know how this figure compares to people who never retire. Misusing numbers, we could make Barton look pretty bad because those who never retire live zero years beyond retirement.
Studies of mortality and retirement are mixed, leaning in more recent work toward the finding that retirement has a beneficial effect on health and mortality. However, in some populations, people seem to have more trouble when they retire. I am going to look at two representative studies, one in favor of early retirement and the other demonstrating that retirement may lead to other problems which can shorten life.
The first study is titled “The Causal Effect of Retirement on Mortality: Evidence from Targeted Incentives to Retire Early” and was published in August 2013 (link). To help me understand the nuances of the study, I contacted co-author Jochem Zweerink at the University of Amsterdam. The study’s abstract says:

This paper identifies and estimates the impact of early retirement on the probability to die within five years, using administrative micro panel data covering the entire population of the Netherlands. Among the older workers we focus on, a group of civil servants became eligible for retirement earlier than expected during a short time window. This exogenous policy change is used to instrument the retirement choice in a model that explains the probability to die within five years. Exploiting the panel structure of our data, we allow for unobserved heterogeneity by way of individual fixed effects in modeling the retirement choice and the probability to die. We find for men that early retirement, induced by the temporary decrease in the age of eligibility for retirement benefits, decreased the probability to die within five years by 2.5 percentage points. This is a strong effect. We find that our results are robust to several specification changes.

In non-academic speak, Zweerink told me, “we indeed find that retirement has a beneficial effect on longevity.” He also told me that there is a positive effect on the spouse of men who retire early. Please note that this study included data on the entire population of the Netherlands.
On the flip side, there is a 2010 study by Andreas Kuhn and colleagues from the University of Zurich which finds some clues about why some studies might find negative consequences from retirement. This study’s abstract reads:

We estimate the causal effect of early retirement on mortality for blue-collar workers. To overcome the problem of negative health selection, we exploit an exogenous change in unemployment insurance rules in Austria that allowed workers in eligible regions to withdraw permanently from employment up to 3.5 years earlier than workers in non-eligible regions. For males, instrumental-variable estimates show that retiring one year earlier causes a significant 2.4 percentage points (about 13%) increase in the probability of dying before age 67. We do not find any adverse effect of early retirement on mortality for females. Our analysis of death causes suggests that male excess mortality is concentrated among three causes of deaths: (i) ischemic heart diseases (mostly heart attacks), (ii) diseases related to excessive alcohol consumption, and (iii) vehicle injuries. These causes account for 78 percent of the causal retirement effect (while accounting for only 24 percent of all deaths in the sample). About 32 percent of the causal retirement effect are directly attributable to smoking and excessive alcohol consumption.

This study examined the outcomes of early retirement on blue-collar workers in Austria. For these workers, retiring early is associated with earlier death for men but not women. Breaking the results down, it appears that early retirement gives some men more time to drink, smoke, eat bad food and get in car accidents (those all could be related). In other words, if you are thinking of retiring early so you can pursue an unhealthy lifestyle, then better to stay working. However, many other people retire because of pre-retirement health concerns and their demise can’t be blamed on retirement.
Reality isn’t as neat as David Barton’s poor exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:24. Those verses were given to Israel as a people and not you and me as individuals. And when one looks at all the data, the complexity is clear. For instance, in the Austrian study, women have different outcomes than men. Do the different outcomes mean that women can go against Barton’s interpretation of the Bible and do well, but men can’t?
Many studies show that retirement can be beneficial depending on what a person does. Many people retire from their job but don’t stop being active. They engage in more leisure if they have the means, but they often work part-time, or volunteer. I have been in churches where retirees carry on much of the work of the church because they have the time to do it. My plan is retire from teaching and then do something else. Maybe I’ll get a degree in history. I’ll surely have more time to debunk bad history if I am still interested in doing that then. If Barton never retires, then I will have no shortage of things to do.

Message to Glenn Beck and Fellowship Church: Congress Didn't Print the Aitken Bible

In addition to faulty theology, there are several glaring historical errors in Glenn Beck’s talk to Fellowship Church on July 5. Sadly, the audience is less knowledgeable now than before he spoke. Here is one example.
Glenn Beck told Fellowship Church that the first thing Congress did after the United States won the Revolutionary War was to print a Bible in English. Watch:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/cBgkSUILZEw[/youtube]
Transcript:

Don’t let anybody tell you we are not a Christian nation because we absolutely are a Christian nation. This is one of seven Bibles, three or four of them are held by the Smithsonian. Three are in private hands; extraordinarily rare. It’s called the Aitken Bible. This was the first thing Congress did when they started. We couldn’t print the Bible. So when we first established ourselves and we won the war, the first act was to print the Aitken Bible. When it was given to George Washington, he wept, and he said, ‘finally, a gift that is meaningful enough to give to the men that served by my side.’ We are a Christian nation. And we need to start behaving like a Christian nation, with love and respect, and take the beam out of our own eye before looking at the speck in someone’s else’s. We’re losing memberships in our churches because, stop talking about the things that the Bible tells us to do. Let’s start doing them!

It is ironic that Beck tells the audience to start doing what the Bible says just after he consistently bore false witness about the Aitken Bible.
Let me take Beck’s claims bit by bit.

It’s called the Aitken Bible. This was the first thing Congress did when they started. We couldn’t print the Bible. So when we first established ourselves and we won the war, the first act was to print the Aitken Bible.

Beck was holding up a copy of what appeared to be the Aitken Bible. It is rare and valuable. It is also true that the British prohibited Bibles printed in America. However, nothing he said after that is true. Congress did not print the Bible and the involvement with Aitken’s project was not initiated by Congress. Furthermore, the timing of Aitken’s request and Congressional response do not match Beck’s passionate claim. It most certainly is not the first thing Congress did after the United States won the war for independence.
Robert Aitken petitioned Congress in a letter dated January 21, 1781. He wanted the approval of Congress for a Bible he was printing and he wanted to be the official Bible printer of the United States. You can read his petition here and here. I have it below as well.

To the Honourable The Congress of the United States of America

The Memorial of Robert Aitken of the City of Philadelphia Printer

Humbly Sheweth

That in every well regulated Government in Christendom The Sacred Books of the Old and New Testament, commonly called the Holy Bible, are printed and published under the Authority of the Sovereign Powers, in order to prevent the fatal confusion that would arise, and the alarming Injuries the Christian Faith might suffer from the spurious and erroneous Editions of Divine Revelation. That your Memorialist has no doubt but this work is an Object worthy the attention of the Congress of the United States of America, who will not neglect spiritual security, while they are virtuously contending for temporal blessings.

Under this persuasion, your Memorialist begs leave to inform your Honours That he hath begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools, But being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible to Issue forth without the sanction of Congress, Humbly prays that your Honors would take this important matter into serious consideration & would be pleased to appoint one Member or Members of your Honourable Body to inspect his work so that the same may be published under the Authority of Congress. And further, your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States, provided the same be in all things perfectly consonant to the Scriptures as heretofore Established and received amongst us, And as in Duty bound your Memorialist shall ever pray

Robt. Aitken Philadelphia. 21, Jany. 1781.

Aitken appeared to be under the impression that the United States might operate like Britain and regulate the authorized version of the Bible. He wanted his Bible to be the one approved by the government. In addition, he wanted Congressional awareness and approval because it had been illegal to do what he was doing under British rule. In fact, the war had not yet been won when Aitken began his work. He had already printed the New Testament but wanted to finish the job. “Being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible to Issue forth without the sanction of Congress,” Aitken didn’t want to do anything which Congress might oppose.
Cornwallis surrendered to the American forces on October 19, 1781 so Aitken’s petition came prior to the end of the war, not first thing after we won. Congress appointed a committee to interact with Aitken as he progressed on his project. Aitken sent a copy of his Bible to Congress on September 9, 1782. The Congressional proclamation about the Bible was dated September 12, 1782. . The treaty of Paris formally ending the war did not come until September 3, 1783. The proclamation from Congress is below in the first paragraph:

There is nothing in this proclamation about Congress as Bible printer. Congress clearly recognized Aitken as the author and recommended his work for religious and artistic achievement. It was Aitken’s idea, his work, his investment, and eventually his loss. He didn’t make money on the project, and because Congress didn’t fund the project, he offered the Bibles to George Washington with the suggestion, made by a friend, that Washington ask Congress to purchase Bibles for the troops who had fought in the war.
Beck embellished the story more by involving Washington. Beck claimed:

When it was given to George Washington, he wept, and he said, ‘finally, a gift that is meaningful enough to give to the men that served by my side.’

There is no record that Washington wept when Aitken’s friend, John Rodgers, requested that Washington asked Congress to buy copies of the Bible for his troops. Washington declined politely saying that most of the troops had gone home and so he couldn’t make such a request. Washington’s return letter on the subject indicated that he would liked to have given the troops a Bible but not in the manner claimed by Beck. Here is what Washington replied to Aitken’s friend, Rev. Rodgers.

Your proposition concerning Mr. Aikin’s Bibles would have been particularly noted by me, had it been suggested in season, but the late Resolution of Congress for discharging part of the Army, taking off near two thirds of our numbers, it is now too late to make the attempt. It would have pleased me well, if Congress had been pleased to make such an important present to the brave fellows, who have done so much for the security of their Country’s rights and establishment.

Beck’s quote from Washington is quite a dramatic embellishment as is most of what he had to say to Fellowship Church. Beck’s story about Congress and the Aitken Bible is false; his citation about Washington is highly inflated and misleading. Most people listening would go away thinking that the first thing Congress did after winning the war for independence was to use public funds to print a Bible and give it to the American troops with the heartfelt approval of George Washington.
Beck’s key story used to support the claim that the U.S. is a Christian nation turns out to be a fabrication.
Beck has to know this. It has been pointed out publicly by numerous writers. Even if somehow he has avoided reading the many debunkings of this story, the alternative isn’t much better. He is either knows the story is a fiction or he is a very, very bad historian. Fellowship Church’s spokesman told Christian Post that Beck was “unmatched” in his knowledge of history. If that is so, then Beck misled Fellowship Church on July 5 with knowledge aforethought.
If Glenn Beck and Ed Young want to honor the passionate plea Beck made to Fellowship Church to stop talking about the things the Bible says to do and to start doing them, then they need to come clean to the congregation and set the facts straight.
For more on the Aitken Bible lie and the involvement of Washington, see this Huffington Post article by Chris Rodda.

Glenn Beck Tells Fellowship Church America is a Covenant Nation Like Israel

I told you Glenn Beck was going to teach theology at Fellowship Church and he wasted little time doing it. Watch (at about 4:00 into the full clip available on You Tube):
[youtube]https://youtu.be/MHXMZPgPxWs[/youtube]
Beck told the Baptists:

I have a lot of stuff and very little time. I wanna just kind of go through because its essential that we ask ourselves: who are we? Who are we? Because most people don’t know. And what keeps us going? Again, most people don’t know. We came here for a reason. We are a covenant nation. We are the only ones besides the original state of Israel that made the covenant with God.

The other day in response to Beck’s defense of Ed Young, I asked who is/was the American Moses. Beck says it was George Washington. Speaking of the first president, Beck said Washington was

Down on his knees after the first inaugural address, George Washington made a four hour covenant with the Lord. We are violating that covenant now. We are the ones that are blowing it.

Washington went to church for a service after the inauguration but I don’t think it lasted four hours.
This is classic Latter Day Saint teaching about both history and theology. We’re not in the Bible but America is in the Book of Mormon which is where that teaching comes from.
A couple of years ago, I noted that David Barton had endorsed a book which included this covenant teaching. Beck featured Tim Ballard on his show and raved about the book. Here is what Mormon Tim Ballard says about America as covenant nation.

One of our preeminent examples of one who possessed such innate conviction was George Washington. He declared the following in his first inaugural address as the first president of the United States. His message not only reflects his own understanding of the American Covenant, but that of those who came before him in discovering, settling, and founding the new nation.

[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States.

Ballard, Timothy (2012-05-16). The Covenant: America’s Sacred and Immutable Connection to Ancient Israel (Kindle Locations 1074-1080). Legends Library. Kindle Edition.

Ballard doesn’t write about a four hour covenant but he adds:

Can there be any doubt that Washington possessed an understanding of the American Covenant and of his associated obligations to the people and to God? As he accepted the presidency, it seems as though he felt the weight of his responsibility within the context of that relationship.
Moments before this address, Washington was sworn in as the first president of the United States. This “swearing in” ceremony makes the inaugural address even more significant, as it truly portrays our first president in his role as American Covenant-maker. For example, consider the words of the oath of office, which are found in Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The profundity of that promise is revealed as we examine the true nature of the Constitution as national scripture. The Constitution (as will be detailed later) does nothing less than prescribe the formula for securing those American Covenant blessings of liberty, protection, and prosperity. It is but the modern political version of the ancient promise to Joseph found in Genesis 49. In swearing to uphold the Constitution, each president is committing himself and the nation to God and the American Covenant.
Ballard, Timothy (2012-05-16). The Covenant: America’s Sacred and Immutable Connection to Ancient Israel (Kindle Locations 1089-1100). Legends Library. Kindle Edition.

Ballard believes that American colonists were Ephraimites and have a connection to Israel. Mormons have an extremely high regard for the Constitution and consider it divine.
Blogger P.J. Miller calls this heresy and explains it is also popular at the American Family Association. My good friends over at Christ and Pop Culture discuss the broader manifestation of Americanism and address the false teaching that it is.

Glenn Beck Tells Ed Young's Fellowship Church: We Are a Christian Nation

LDS Gospel doctrine teacher Glenn Beck told Southern Baptist Fellowship Church on July 5: “We are a Christian nation, period.”
Watch:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/y0_xha6Jcdg[/youtube]
As I have pointed out, Beck’s church believes the founding fathers were baptized into his LDS church by coming in spirit form to a former LDS president and asking for redemption. So even rational Unitarian Thomas Jefferson is now a Mormon (according to the Mormon Chronicle).
Any Tyndale scholars in the house? I don’t think Beck got Tyndale’s last words right.
This video is only a brief clip but it sounds like he went over similar ground as his speech at Liberty University last year.
Here is one of the sessions posted by Ed Young. I may have additional comments:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/xL5uqFVlkBg[/youtube]

Daily Jefferson: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson Died on July 4, 1826; Happy Independence Day!

This post is reprinted from last year on Independence Day. Seems like a fitting way to end the Daily Jefferson series. Happy Independence Day!
In addition to being Independence Day, this is the day that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died within hours of each other on July 4, 1826.

On this day in 1826, former Presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were once fellow Patriots and then adversaries, die on the same day within five hours of each other.

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were friends who together served on the committee that constructed the Declaration of Independence, but later became political rivals during the 1800 election. Jefferson felt Adams had made serious blunders during his term and Jefferson ran against Adams in a bitter campaign. Two men stopped communicating and Philadelphia physician Benjamin Rush wanted to encourage them to reconcile. Rush was on good terms with both Adams and Jefferson and set about to help them mend the distance. In his letter to Adams on October 17, 1809, Rush used the device of a dream to express his wish that Adams and Jefferson would again resume communications. This letter is part of a remarkable sequence of letters which can be read here. In this portion, Rush suggests his “dream” of a Jefferson-Adams reunion.

“What book is that in your hands?” said I to my son Richard a few nights ago in a dream. “It is the history of the United States,” said he. “Shall I read a page of it to you?” “No, no,” said I. “I believe in the truth of no history but in that which is contained in the Old and New Testaments.” “But, sir,” said my son, “this page relates to your friend Mr. Adams.” “Let me see it then,” said I. I read it with great pleasure and herewith send you a copy of it.
“1809. Among the most extraordinary events of this year was the renewal of the friendship and intercourse between Mr. John Adams and Mr. Jefferson, the two ex-Presidents of the United States. They met for the first time in the Congress of 1775. Their principles of liberty, their ardent attachment to their country, and their views of the importance and probable issue of the struggle with Great Britain in which they were engaged being exactly the same, they were strongly attracted to each other and became personal as well as political friends. They met in England during the war while each of them held commissions of honor and trust at two of the first courts of Europe, and spent many happy hours together in reviewing the difficulties and success of their respective negotiations. A difference of opinion upon the objects and issue of the French Revolution separated them during the years in which that great event interested and divided the American people. The predominance of the party which favored the French cause threw Mr. Adams out of the Chair of the United States in the year 1800 and placed Mr. Jefferson there in his stead. The former retired with resignation and dignity to his seat at Quincy, where he spent the evening of his life in literary and philosophical pursuits, surrounded by an amiable family and a few old and affectionate friends. The latter resigned the Chair of the United States in the year 1808, sick of the cares and disgusted with the intrigues of public life, and retired to his seat at Monticello, in Virginia, where he spent the remainder of his days in the cultivation of a large farm agreeably to the new system of husbandry. In the month of November 1809, Mr. Adams addressed a short letter to his friend Mr. Jefferson in which he congratulated him upon his escape to the shades of retirement and domestic happiness, and concluded it with assurances of his regard and good wishes for his welfare. This letter did great honor to Mr. Adams. It discovered a magnanimity known only to great minds. Mr. Jefferson replied to this letter and reciprocated expressions of regard and esteem. These letters were followed by a correspondence of several years in which they mutually reviewed the scenes of business in which they had been engaged, and candidly acknowledged to each other all the errors of opinion and conduct into which they had fallen during the time they filled the same station in the service of their country. Many precious aphorisms, the result of observation, experience, and profound reflection, it is said, are contained in these letters. It is to be hoped the world will be favored with a sight of them. These gentlemen sunk into the grave nearly at the same time, full of years and rich in the gratitude and praises of their country (for they outlived the heterogeneous parties that were opposed to them), and to their numerous merits and honors posterity has added that they were rival friends.
With affectionate regard to your fireside, in which all my family join, I am, dear sir, your sincere old friend,
BENJN: RUSH

It is not clear to me that Rush had an actual dream. He may have used the device of a dream to prod his friend into reconciliation with Jefferson. On more than one prior occasion, Rush communicated his views via writing about them as dreams. For instance, Rush responded to a political question from Adams in a February 20, 1809 letter via a dream narrative. Adams responded on March 4, 1809 praising Rush’s wit and asked for a dream about Jefferson:

Rush,—If I could dream as much wit as you, I think I should wish to go to sleep for the rest of my Life, retaining however one of Swifts Flappers to awake me once in 24 hours to dinner, for you know without a dinner one can neither dream nor sleep. Your Dreams descend from Jove, according to Homer.
Though I enjoy your sleeping wit and acknowledge your unequalled Ingenuity in your dreams, I can not agree to your Moral. I will not yet allow that the Cause of “Wisdom, Justice, order and stability in human Governments” is quite desperate. The old Maxim Nil desperandum de Republica is founded in eternal Truth and indispensable obligation.
Jefferson expired and Madison came to Life, last night at twelve o’clock. Will you be so good as to take a Nap, and dream for my Instruction and edification a Character of Jefferson and his Administration?

Another reason that I question whether it was an actual dream is because a draft of this letter demonstrates that Rush considered another literary device for his prophecy. A footnote in Lyman Butterfield’s compilation of Rush’s letter reads:

In the passage that follows, BR [Benjamin Rush] made his principal plea to Adams to make an effort toward reconciliation with Jefferson. That pains were taken in composing the plea is shown by an autograph draft of the letter, dated 16 Oct. in Hist. Soc. Penna., Gratz Coll. In the draft BR originally wrote, and then crossed out, the following introduction to his dream history: “What would [you omitted] think of some future historian of the United States concluding one of his chapters with the following paragraph?” The greater verisimilitude of the revision adds much to the effectiveness of this remarkable letter. (Butterfield, L.H., The Letters of Benjamin Rush, Vol. II, 1793-1813, Princeton Univ. Press, 1951, p. 1023)

Apparently, Rush wanted to get this message to Adams and chose to use a device already requested by Adams, instead of an appeal to legacy via the reference to the history books.
In any case, real dream or not, Adams liked the proposition and replied to Rush on October 25, 1809, about the “dream” saying,

A Dream again! I wish you would dream all day and all Night, for one of your Dreams puts me in spirits for a Month. I have no other objection to your Dream, but that it is not History. It may be Prophecy. There has never been the smallest Interruption of the Personal Friendship between me and Mr. Jefferson that I know of. You should remember that Jefferson was but a Boy to me. I was at least ten years older than him in age and more than twenty years older than him in Politicks. I am bold to say I was his Preceptor in Politicks and taught him every Thing that has been good and solid in his whole Political Conduct. I served with him on many Committees in Congress in which we established some of the most important Regulations of the Army &c, &c, &c
Jefferson and Franklin were united with me in a Commission to the King of France and fifteen other Commissions to treat with all the Powers of Europe and Africa. I resided with him in France above a year in 1784 and 1785 and met him every day at my House in Auteuil at Franklins House at Passy or at his House in Paris. In short we lived together in the most perfect Friendship and Harmony.

Although in a less poetic manner, Rush also wrote Jefferson to suggest a resumption of friendship. Although it took awhile (1812), Adams and Jefferson did resume correspondence. As predicted by Rush, they carried on a vigorous correspondence until late in their lives regarding their personal and political lives. Then 50 years after July 4, 1776, Jefferson and Adams “sunk into the grave nearly at the same time, full of years and rich in the gratitude and praises of their country…”*

*Much of this post was adapted from a prior post on John Adams and the Holy Ghost letter and published on this blog May 31, 2011. Read more about Jefferson’s religious views in Getting Jefferson Right by Michael Coulter and me.