Category: history

Correcting Scott Lively’s Conspiracy Theory

On the Bryan Fischer Show Tuesday, and then yesterday via Twitter, David Barton spoke favorably of Scott Lively’s article defending Barton, posted earlier this week. The chief aim of the article is to link my criticisms of Scott Lively’s book The Pink Swastika with our fact checking of claims made by David Barton about Thomas Jefferson in The Jefferson Lies.

The mention of Lively comes at about 5 minutes into the clip I posted on Monday. Then today, Barton tweeted the article to his followers. As regular readers of this blog know, Lively promotes criminalization of homosexuality and has done so in nations around the world. He most associated with the efforts in Uganda to maintain laws against homosexuality there.

In the summer of 2009, I looked into his book The Pink Swastika. Lively claims that the Holocaust was animated by gay Nazis. Although I trust my way around books of history, I also like to get advice from historians. For that reason, I asked then GCC colleague and historian J.D. Wyneken to look at the Pink Swastika and tell me what he thought about it.  Wyneken delivered a stunning blow to The Pink Swastika in a two-part post on my blog (read them here: one, two). You can read the rest of the series with my posts included here.

There are many problems with Lively’s current analysis. The most important is that he is wrong on his assumptions. Michael Coulter and I wrote Getting Jefferson Right because we believed it is important for Christians to discuss issues of church, state and liberty from a foundation of fact within proper context. We are both interested in the topic and wanted to do it.

Another problem which is what I want to correct now is Lively’s revision of recent history and the false picture he paints regarding my colleague and friend J. D. Wyneken. In his conspiracy theory piece, Lively says:

He [Throckmorton] even corralled a newly-arrived faculty member at Grove City to write a criticism of my book The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party. I called the man who wrote the critique, intending to challenge him to a debate. He told me that he had been very uncomfortable with Throckmorton’s request and didn’t intend to repeat the collaboration.

Yesterday, I talked to J.D. Wyneken who disputed Lively’s account. Lively may have called but according to Wyneken, they never spoke on the phone. Lively emailed and, according to Wyneken, wanted to drive a wedge between us. Wyneken never said he was uncomfortable with my request to look at Lively’s book, but rather was glad to provide a reaction to it. Wyneken planned no additional posts since his interest in the matter was complete, not because he had second thoughts about what he said about The Pink Swastika. There was and is no problem with Wyneken. That was a figment of Lively’s imagination.

So now we have David Barton distributing an article which traffics in assumptions and false statements about me and my friends. Rather than paint me as a bogeyman, wouldn’t it be more respectable to just address the issues which have been raised by no fewer than 15 conservative Christian scholars?

 

Institute for Religion and Democracy Laments David Barton’s “Unfortunate, Unnecessary Exaggerations”

In a column posted yesterday on Patheos and then today on the website of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, IRD President Mark Tooley laments David Barton’s “unfortunate, unnecessary exaggerations.”

In this measured piece, Tooley runs through some of the usual suspects – Barton’s exaggerations of Jefferson’s involvement in the church at the Capitol, his misstep on Jefferson and slavery and Jefferson’s heterodox religious faith.  I take Tooley’s point to be that these and other embellishments and exaggerations are unnecessary to make the points Barton would like to make.  Furthermore, Christian theology would not expect perfect consistency from mortals.

While this analysis is brief and treads on these topics more gingerly than I have, I think it is significant that the IRD posted this on their website. Barton still today is casting his critics as liberals who are threatened by The Jefferson Lies.  However, with critiques from no fewer than 15 conservative Christian scholars (including John Fea – Messiah College, Jay Richards – Discovery Institute and Chuck Dunn – Regent University) and now these concerns from the conservative IRD, it is just impossible to make that charge stick.

 

 

What can be learned from the David Barton controversy

John Fea posted a must-read article on Patheos this morning about what can be learned from the debacle over The Jefferson Lies. He brings together many threads and items of relevance to the entire controversy. I hope those who still think criticisms of Barton’s history are only coming from Alinsky-inspired liberals will read this piece.

The truth is out there. The effort to paint us all as academic elitists and liberals is just a way to try to change the subject.

Go read Fea’s post; it is very well done and on target.

David Barton Attacks; Tells Me How to Do Psychology

Of late, David Barton and his staffer Rick Green have savaged me due to their perception that his book, The Jefferson Lies, was pulled by Thomas Nelson publishers because of our book Getting Jefferson Right. Green linked the professors who reviewed his book with the tactics of Hitler and Alinsky and now Barton is attacking me over my academic position on reparative therapy. Roll the tape:

So let me get this right. Barton says I have no basis to critique his claims about Jefferson because I am not trained as a historian. However, he can make moral judgments about me because of my position on a psychology related matter.

I know some will be taken in by this. I expect that. Barton says he is going to release rebuttals to our work bit by bit. Well, believe it or not, I welcome that. He made light of our work on his claim that Jefferson chose to include “in the year of our Lord Christ” in presidential documents. While he acknowledged that the form was pre-printed, he did not deal with the fact that the language was not chosen by Jefferson. And because the language was required by the treaty with Holland (as well as other treaties), the Congress could not simply change it.

However, I will say what I have said all along: If Mr. Barton has evidence to counter any of my posts, or aspects of the book, we would like to see it. Contrary to the conspiracy theories which animated Barton and Fischer today, we wrote this book because the evidence we examined did not support the claims. If we are wrong, we will say so.

Media on David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies

The UK Guardian covered the removal of Barton’s book today.

Glenn Beck’s news site The Blaze reported on the removal of the book and carried a Barton v. Throckmorton section to be completed tomorrow.

Here is a link to several more stories on the Barton controversy over The Jefferson Lies going back to last week.