On April 28, David Barton is slated to speak at Urbana University in Ohio. With the title, “David Barton – an expert of historical and Constitutional issues,” the event is promoted on the school’s website. However, his presence there may not place Urbana on Barton’s list of a dozen acceptable colleges.
The Barton event is being sponsored by a small group of people in the area informally called, “We the People,” according to Karen Bailey, Champaign County Auditor. Bailey is one of the initial sponsors who is paying for Barton to come to town. In a phone interview, she called the event “a gift to the community.” She said other sponsors were coming on board but that Urbana University is being paid for the use of facilities.
The event caught my eye because Urbana University seems an unlikely place for Barton to speak. While there is a religious background to the school (Swedenborgian), the school would not be on my short list of institutions which would be friendly to Barton’s brand of historical revisionism.
While he may be a gift to those who want to believe in Christian nationalism, he will be a lump of coal to other groups, such as:
Scholars and academics – Barton says that students at Christian colleges are falling away from faith because of their “pagan professors” who were trained by professors who “hate God.” Scores of academics, including Christians, have called out Barton on his historical problems.
PTSD sufferers and advocates – Last year, along with Kenneth Copeland, Barton engaged in offensive suggestions about cure to PTSD sufferers. Barton drew a special rebuke from the conservative Gospel Coalition’s Joe Carter, who called Barton and Copeland’s advice “gospel-destroying and demonic.”
AIDS/HIV patients – Barton has called AIDS/HIV a punishment for sin.
Native Americans – Barton invoked just-war theory to help rationalize the destruction of Native American tribes, prompting Baptist leader Randy Adams to call the theory “outrageous” and unhelpful.
LGBT people – Barton has promoted the idea that homosexuality should be re-criminalized.
Those offended by Christian nationalism – Some, perhaps many, African-Americans are offended by the Christian nationalism promoted by Barton. Then, there was Barton’s awkward defense of Thomas Jefferson’s ownership of slaves and his false contention that Jefferson couldn’t free his slaves during his life.
Those who value historical accuracy – Exhibit A is the removal of Barton’s book The Jefferson Lies from publication in the midst of a successful sales run due to historical errors. Exhibit B is the fact that the Family Research Council removed his Capitol Tour video from You Tube because of historical errors. Focus on the Family had to edit two broadcasts to remove two historical falsehoods which Barton repeatedly told in his speeches. Other instances are too numerous to mention.
Not knowing the topic of his talk, it is hard to know what stories he will tell. He might tell them that violent crime has shot straight up until now since the Bible was removed from the public schools (it hasn’t), or that the first English Bible was printed for the use of schools (it wasn’t), or that the Constitution quotes the Bible verbatim (it doesn’t).
Category: politics
The David Barton Dozen: Ecclesia College (AR)
In October of last year, David Barton said there are about a dozen colleges that he believes are right on history and the Constitution. John Fea identified six of them as
Liberty University Law School
Ohio Christian University
Oklahoma Wesleyan University
Pensacola Christian College
Brewton-Parker College
Louisiana College
I think a seventh can be added: Ecclesia College in Arkansas.
Barton is on the Board of Regents and recently spoke there. While in the area, he spoke to a group of GOP state legislators demonstrating again his hard-to-explain influence. Even though he teaches things like the Constitution quotes the Bible verbatim and the Bible is a part of our law via the 7th Amendment, GOP legislators can’t seem to get enough of him. Neither of those claims are true of course, but that doesn’t stop him.
All posts on David Barton.
Uganda Watch: Evangelicals and Ugandans on the Defensive
Ugandan politicians and evangelical leaders have been on the defensive for different reasons since the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was signed into law by President Yoweri Museveni. Many evangelicals are having to account for support for the bill which arose from the far right element of the evangelical world and Ugandan leaders, facing loss of aid from donor countries, are spinning the bill beyond recognition.
Sarah Pulliam Bailey posted a thoughtful article at Religion News Service (picked up by WaPo) earlier this week which included reactions of various evangelicals to the bill (yours truly among them). Bailey noted the strong opposition to the bill from Rick Warren. Warren felt the need to repeat his opposition recently as apparently some critics were erroneously blaming him for influencing the bill’s passage. Russell Moore was also vigorous in opposing the bill but sadly was incorrect in at least one of his statements:
Decrying laws in countries such as Uganda and Russia, Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said he knows no evangelicals who would support legislation like Uganda’s.
If you count Scott Lively, Bryan Fischer and Darryl Foster among evangelicals (I would rather not), then Moore isn’t correct. Maybe Moore means he doesn’t personally know anyone. I must say I was glad to hear from the Southern Baptists. I do wish they had spoken out louder and sooner.
Among Ugandan leaders, Uganda’s UN envoy has the unenviable task of defending the indefensible. About the law, Onyanga Aparr said
“It seeks to protect our children from those engaged in acts of recruiting them into homosexuality and lesbianism,” he said.
The law also sought to curb the use of paid homosexual sex to induce disadvantaged and vulnerable people, he said.
This is a farce. There are already laws on the books that criminalize any sexual contact with people under 18. If prostitution was in view, then why did the law not address only those transactions? In truth, the law criminalizes consensual relationships with the threat of life in prison. Perhaps, the UN envoy has not read the bill. He can read it here.
Meeting Minutes from Uganda's Ministry of Health Task Force Debate on Homosexuality
Although Yoweri Museveni has not yet signed the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, he has signaled his intent to do so based on information presented to him from a task force set up by Uganda’s Ministry of Health. Museveni passed the buck to that committee and claims to be taking steps in line with their recommendations. I posted the committee’s report here last week.
Apparently, the task force only met two times prior to presenting their findings. According to minutes of those two meetings which I present here, the entire process seemed to be thrown together at the last minute.
Minutes for the first meeting:
Minutes of the 1st task force on the homosexuality debate held at the Ministry of Health on 3rd February 2014
Members Present
Dr. Isaac Ezati Chair, Director Planning, Ministry of Health
Dr. Sylvester Onzivua Senior Pathologist, Mulago Hospital
Dr. Misaki Wayengera Geneticist, Makerere University
Prof. Seggane Musisi Psychiatrist, Makerere University
Dr. Sheila Ndyanabangi Head, Mental Health Desk, Ministry of Health
Dr. Paul Bangirana Psychologist, Makerere University
Assoc. Prof. Eugene Kinyanda Psychiatrist, Makerere University
Dr David Basangwa Director, Butabika Hospital
Min 1: The Chair briefed members that the President needs an opinion from experts whether homosexuality is abnormal.
Min 2: The team agreed to answer the following questions;
a) Is there a scientific basis for homosexuality, if yes what is it?
b) Is it a disease (disease process) or not?
c) Is it an abnormality. What drives it? Include the social, psychological and religious causes.
Min 3: They also noted the need to mention the following in the report;
a) The protection of families and that the act needs to be regulated i.e. no recruiting, public displays so as to protect children and families.
b) The controversies of the literature. No literature in Uganda about homosexuality, most studies done in the West. There is need to balance between the evidence from the west and protecting our culture.
c) Studies are needed to study homosexuality/sexuality in Uganda.
Min 4: To meet again on Wednesday at 6pm with answers to the question, is there a scientific basis for this?
Minutes for the second meeting:
Minutes of the 2nd task force on the homosexuality debate held at the Ministry of Health on 5th February 2014
Members Present
- Dr. Isaac Ezati Chair, Director Planning, Ministry of Health
- Dr. Sylvester Onzivua Senior Pathologist, Mulago Hospital
- Dr. Misaki Wayengera Geneticist, Makerere University
- Prof. Seggane Musisi Psychiatrist, Makerere University
- Dr. Sheila Ndyanabangi Head, Mental Health Desk, Ministry of Health
- Dr. Paul Bangirana Psychologist, Makerere University
- Dr Jacinto Amandua Commissioner, Ministry of Health
Absent with apology
- Assoc. Prof. Eugene Kinyanda Psychiatrist, Makerere University
- Dr David Basangwa Director, Butabika Hospital
Min 1: Dr Ezati nominated Prof Seggane to Chair the scientific arm of the task force. He reiterated the question the Minister wanted answered; what is the scientific or genetic basis of homosexuality and can it be learned or unlearned.
Min 2: Prof Seggane presented his report. He gave a background on sexuality and overview of the biological basis. He concluded that homosexuality is not an abnormality nor a habit but a normal biological variant of sexuality. It needs to be regulated as was in the traditional African society.
Min 3: Dr Bangirana presented evidence showing that that the hypothalamus in both homosexual men and heterosexual women was activated by androgen containing odours. All brains of the three groups processed other odours similarly. These findings imply that homosexual men have a different brain response to male odours compared to heterosexual men but they respond to other odours like heterosexuals. It is not clear whether this differing physiological response exists at birth or developed after homosexual experience later in life.
Min 4: Dr Onzivua made his presentation. He mentioned that there is no biological basis for homosexuality. There is no biological basis to promote homosexuality, different body parts are adapted for their functions, eg pinna to collect sound waves etc. The anatomy of the human being is not designed homosexuality. There are no conclusive studies on the genetics of homosexuality. However the environmental influence can not be ignored.
Min 5: Dr Wayengera presented his report. There are statistical correlations between the behaviour and structural and genetic factors. The current based on the dearth of genetic studies imply that it is a learned behaviour (social influence). Chromosomal studies have not produced consistent results when replicated. Animal studies have shown a genetic basis of homosexuality (in Drosophila and mice) but have not replicated in humans. Evolutionary biology where the main role for sex is procreation implies there is no structural basis for homosexuality.
Min 6: A discussion followed these presentations. It was suggested that simple explanations are needed to explain homosexuality since the lay public will not understand the science presented above. Need to look at it from all angles i.e. biological, psychological and social.
Min 7: Conclusions:
a) There is no definitive gene for homosexuality
b) Homosexuality is not a disease
c) Homosexuality is not an abnormality
d) In every society, there is a small number of people with homosexual tendencies
e) It can be influenced by environmental factors (e.g. culture, information, permissiveness)
f) The practise needs regulation like any other behaviour
It is stunning to think that a decision as important as whether to endorse the Anti-Homosexuality Bill could be decided in this manner. Clearly this committee did not consider all of the evidence and ignored some that was presented. At least as reported here, the committee did not reflect on the inappropriate use of science requested by the president, and even discussed simplifying the complexity of the issues for public consumption. There is something very wrong about this process; the right to exist should not depend on research studies.
Remarks from President Museveni about Why He Plans to Sign Uganda's Anti-Gay Bill
Yesterday, Uganda’s state department released some remarks from Yoweri Museveni with his rationale for signing the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009.
President Museveni’s Remarks on decision to sign anti-homosexual bill at the closing ceremony of the 10-day retreat of the NRM Parliamentary Caucus, 16th February 2014
1. In that bill, I had no problem with punishing people who promote homosexuality.
2. I had no problem with punishing people who become homosexual for mercenary reasons what one would call homosexual prostitution. The man is not a homosexual, but he engages in homosexuality for money.
3. I had no problem with punishing exhibitionism of homosexuality.
The reason I had not signed the bill is to scientifically answer the question; are there people genetically born homosexual? For me, I had thought that since there were people born albino there could be people born homosexual.
But since the medical authorities, the department of genetics of the Medical School from Makerere, say there is no proof yet that people are homosexual by genetics, I told those scientists to put it in writing and they are going to do so. Then I will sign the bill.
Am taking all these precautions because am historically answerable for whatever I do as a leader. There were mistakes made in the 1930s by Hitler because he wanted to make Germany strong..Some of these issues are very crucial and should be handled objectively not emotionally.
I had not concentrated my mind on homosexuality all these years. I thought electricity, roads, were more urgent things. Moreover, I had never seen a homosexual.
When you insisted we sat down and discussed it and we have found a solution systematically.
I know we are going to have a big battle with outsiders, but I will be able to say I asked scientists and this is what they said. That homosexuals are normal people behaving abnormally.
These statements don’t line up squarely with the ministry of health report, but they are clear in the political strategy Museveni will use. He has passed the buck to the “scientists” to justify his actions. The editor of Uganda’s Observer believes Museveni’s decision was based in political trade:
The Observer Editor Richard M Kavuma believes the president may have been guided by political calculations. Because he was keen to win over MPs on key issues such as denying suspects bail on certain offences, Kavuma said, the president may have decided to sign the popular bill as a concession.
“But it is also true that some of the president’s people may challenge the legislation in court and given Uganda’s largely progressive Constitution, they may get the bill declared unconstitutional,” Kavuma said.
“That way the president comes out looking good to his anti-gay electorate, while the judges will take the flak from Uganda’s generally Christian conservative population.”
Kavuma added: “Because the law is likely to fail anyway, the president may have found the political cost of signing the bill to be much lower than that of maintaining his locally ‘anti-people’ stance. On the contrary, he will be praised across churches, shrines and mosques if he signs the bill.”
I think Kavuma is right about the courts. The law clearly violates Uganda’s constitution, and the courts will likely strike it down. However, much harm could come to innocent people before that happens.