Category: history

David Barton Attempts to Cover His Historical Tracks; Changes Capitol Tour Video

In the ongoing controversy over David Barton’s historical work, this is a significant development. First, let me present the components of the story.
In 2007, David Barton led a tour of the Capitol on behalf of the Family Research Council where he made several key claims. He used these claims to make dubious assertions about the intent of the founding fathers. FRC edited the tour video into an eight minute promo and uploaded it to You Tube. That video had over 4 million views. To fully understand the significance of this issue, you should watch that video which is still available on several You Tube accounts (another version is here on Vimeo):

Earlier this year, FRC made the video private after 34 Christian historians and social scientists asked FRC to remove the video from You Tube. FRC acknowledged the errors and Barton then made changes to the speech by introducing newly recorded audio clips into the old video. The new video has not been uploaded to the FRC account but was made available last week on Barton’s Wallbuilders You Tube account. Here it is:

 
Although new viewers of this video would not know it, there are several important changes to the original video.   The table below summarizes the alterations and remaining problems.

Bartonoldnewvideo2

Clearly, Barton has changed his story on some key claims he has been making for years. However, he continues to defend erroneous conclusions even as he walks back on his prior stories. For instance, on the Aitken Bible story, he continues to take Aitken’s words about his Bible being a “neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools” and make them come from Congress. He really wants that story to be about the Congressional policy on the Bible in schools when it has nothing to do with it. He continues to make the Bible a joint effort of Aitken and Congress when in fact, Aitken had nearly finished his project when he approached Congress in 1781. Prior to the 1781 petition to Congress, Aitken had already printed the New Testament and after his petition to Congress but before Congress answered him, Aitken offered the Bible for sale to the public.

The video below illustrates the Aitken Bible narratives that are now being changed. Note in these retellings, Barton says the Aitken Bible proves Congress wanted the Bible in schools. This claim, of course, is just one of several narratives which have been altered.

As Barton begins to walk back some his claims, I am curious about who will inform all of the audiences he has misled. He has told countless churches and evangelical audiences that Congress printed the first Bible for the use of schools, and that 29 out of 56 signers had Bible school degrees, and so on. Will he take responsibility for informing these audiences of the errors? Will the Family Research Council do so?

Facts and Fiction in the Jonah Case: Spitzer's Retraction

In November, 2012 on behalf of several former clients of  Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing (formerly Homosexuality), the Southern Poverty Law Center initiated a complaint in New Jersey (Ferguson et al v. JONAH). The complaint seeks damages under New Jersey’s consumer protection laws and challenges JONAH’s claims to be able to help people change sexual orientation.
In support of JONAH, Michelle Cretella, a pediatrician, filed an amicus brief with various claims regarding sexual reorientation. There are many glaring problems with this brief. I hope to examine several of them over the coming days, including her selective citation of my work.
A huge problem for NARTH has been Robert Spitzer’s retraction of his 2001 study on sexual reorientation, and Cretella briefly addresses Spitzer’s recent statements:

cretellaamicus1

I hope Cretella does not do pediatrics as she suggests doing sexual reorientation. For her patients’ sake, I hope she relies on new studies and takes into account all relevant studies to inform her advice. On sexual orientation, there have been several important studies about sexual orientation since 2001 which are relevant.
And then regarding Zucker and the publication of a retraction: This is misleading. In Zucker’s journal, Spitzer did publish a letter to the editor which apologized for what he now believes are erroneous conclusions.  Regarding Zucker’s reasons for not doing something in addition to Spitzer’s letter, I will let him speak for himself. In a widely published May 20, 2012 email, Zucker stated:

Dear Colleagues:
1. As some of you know, Robert Spitzer has recently expressed his reservations/regret/remorse about the study he published in Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2003, in which he interviewed 200 men and women who had sought out some variant of “reparative therapy” to deal with their unwanted homoerotic attractions, desires, etc. This was first reported on in an article in American Prospect and then went viral the way all good things should do in the post-modern era…the story even reached the front page of the New York Times in an article by Ben Carey and then an Editorial in the NYT.
2. Because there is a lot of interest in the original study, the author’s regret, etc., I have asked the publisher to give open access to the original Spitzer article, the 26 peer commentaries that followed it, Spitzer’s reply, my Editorial that introduced the “target” article, and Spitzer’s recent Letter to the Editor in which he expresses his reappraisal of the study. The open access period will be for 2 months, where anyone from Australia to Zimbabwe can download these papers for free. I am grateful for this kind gesture on the publisher’s part.
3. I have one suggestion: read the Discussion of the original Spitzer article and the 26 peer commentaries.
Feel free to pass this message on to colleagues and relevant listservs.
Best regards
Ken Zucker, Ph.D.
Editor, Archives of Sexual Behavior

Cretella implies that Zucker took a stand on Spitzer’s original conclusions regarding change. Rather, Zucker honored Bob Spitzer’s request to publish a letter and made the original work available.
Cretella also cites my literature reviews from 1998 and 2002 but does not include my more recent views. I will address this in a future post.

Clarification on the Glenn Beck Power Structure Destroying Announcement

Beck says he was misunderstood. Right Wing Watch has apologized for getting the story wrong, but in my opinion, Beck did not make himself clear. Here are two tweets where Beck clarified his meaning about the apocalyptic announcements.

and then the really big news comes (maybe) within the next week.

So for those who are enmeshed in that universe, there will be another tension filled wait for the big reveal.

Paul-Cruz 2016 – Have the Kingmakers Decided?

Surely, nothing is certain, but this meet up probably offers a sign about what the kingmakers are thinking.
iowarenewal

The Iowa Renewal Project

Cordially invites you to participate in its

Pastors’ Policy Briefing

Rediscovering God in America

With Special Guests

Senator Rand Paul

and

Senator Ted Cruz

and

Historian David Barton

and

Former Congressman Bob McEwen

Who will be accompanied by

Dr. Ken Canfield

Pastor Ken Graves

Gail McWilliams

Mat Staver, Founder & Chairman of Liberty Counsel

Pastor Jason Taylor

Pastor Laurence White

Dr. Don Wildmon

and other guest speakers

To be held at

Des Moines Marriott Downtown

Located at

700 Grand Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50309

on Thursday, July 18th and Friday, July 19th, 2013

 Meals and lodging are complimentary

and will be provided by the Iowa Renewal Project

To reserve your space, please RSVP no later than July 17th

by calling (800) 921-1928 or https://the.maxcelreg.net/IABriefing 

Hotel information will be distributed the week of July 10th

Reservations are limited and will be accepted on first call basis

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

Thursday, July 18, 2013

5:00 p.m. Check – in and registration

6:00 p.m. Reception

6:30p.m. Dinner Session

Friday, July 19, 2013

7:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast and Morning Session

10:30 a.m. Break

11:30 a.m. Luncheon

2:30 p.m. Close

It was at one of these events that Mike Huckabee famously said he wished all Americans could be forced at gunpoint to listen to all of David Barton’s messages.

The American Renewal Project (and state branches like Iowa’s) is the project of David Lane. Lane is the fellow who recently wrote an article on waging war to restore a Christian America — which was actually removed from World Net Daily(!?).  In that article, Lane wrote:

As to the future of America – and the collapse of this once-Christian nation – Christians must not only be allowed to have opinions, but politically, Christians must be retrained to war for the Soul of America and quit believing the fabricated whopper of the “Separation of Church and State,” the lie repeated ad nauseum by the left and liberals to keep Christian America – the moral majority – from imposing moral government on pagan public schools, pagan higher learning and pagan media. Bill Bennett’s insight, “… the two essential questions Plato posed as: Who teaches the children, and what do we teach them?” requires deep thought, soul-searching and a response from Christian America to the secular, politically correct and multicultural false gods imposing their religion on America’s children.

Lane rolls back the curtain and makes very clear the goals of his American renewal — imposition of his view of Christianity on public institutions. Those looking around the potential GOP contenders in 2016 and think Rand Paul might be a friend to libertarian policies need to examine those who are now putting Paul in front of Christian pastors.  Lane is showing up all over with Paul, and accompanied him to Israel in January, in what Lane called, “…absolutely the first step in his 2016 White House campaign.” 

During the GOP primary season, Ron Paul courted evangelical support and ended up having to back away from dominionist pastors who became a distraction.  Will Rand Paul follow in his father’s footsteps? Possibly by virtue of his low profile, Lane has not been an obvious liability to the conservatives he has supported. However, images of Christian America warring on everybody else to impose one particular version of Christianity probably won’t play well outside of Iowa.

Update on the Sovereign Grace Abuse Case

On May 29, plaintiffs filed a request to reconsider the dismissal of claims in the Sovereign Grace abuse case.  Plaintiffs are alleging a conspiracy on the part of Sovereign Grace leaders which, if granted, would allow the presentation of claims relating to that claims. Read the entire motion here.
A helpful summary can be found here.
A leading advocacy group formed out of the Catholic church abuse scandal has spoken out in condemnation of Christian leaders who have come to the defense of C. J. Mahaney, founder of the Sovereign Grace network. David Clohessy said the public stance of the ministers who defend the accused send a chilling message to the victims of abuse and may keep others from coming forward.
Related post:
The Sovereign Grace Abuse Scandal