Tag: david Barton

David Barton Inaccurately Criticizes the Wrong Academic

John Fea is rightfully perplexed over being criticized by self-styled historian David Barton.  In a recent speech, Barton went after the wrong academic.
On the Wallbuilders Live radio show, host Rick Green played a segment of a speech Barton gave at something called Dallas Pro-Family Legislators Conference. In the speech, Barton falsely identified John Fea as the academic who critiqued Barton’s claim that John Locke cited the Bible over 1500 times in his Two Treatises of Government.
Actually, it was historian and Locke scholar Greg Forster and me.
In a post dated May 8, 2015, Forster evaluated the accuracy of the claim about Locke which Barton made in front of crowd of pastors in the Ukraine (go to the post for the video).  Barton told the Ukrainian pastors:

This man is named John Locke. He was a great lawgiver in history and he was also a theologian.  He wrote this particular book on civil government in 1690. This has been used by nations across the world in building their governments. We actually own many of the original works by these lawgivers from four or five centuries ago.
Now if I were to ask us as ministers to name the Bible verses we can think of that address civil government, I would imagine that we could come up with 25 or 30 verses.
In this book here less than 3 cm thick, he lists over 500 biblical references to how civil government is to operate…. No, (interrupting the interpreter) 1500, 1500. I don’t know of a Christian today who could name 1500 Bible verses on how civil government’s to operate.
We may be Christians but we don’t think biblically about government.

After watching the video, Forster said:

Barton does not tell us the title of the book he holds up, but from his description it is impossible that it could be any book other than the Two Treatises of Government. However, his characterization of it is outrageous. Claiming that the Two Treatises “lists over 1,500 biblical references on how civil government is to operate” is not much more dishonest than claiming that the Bill of Rights protects 1,500 rights.
In his edition of the Two Treatises, editor Mark Goldie of Cambridge University lists only 121 Bible verses cited in the entire Two Treatises. And that’s including all the places where Locke didn’t cite the verse explicitly and Goldie “interpolated” the citation. In addition to those 121 Bible verses referenced, Goldie lists six places where Locke cited an entire chapter of the Bible, and one place where he cited an entire book (Proverbs). That’s it. But anyone who has read the Two Treatises will know Barton’s claim is false without having had to count.
Moreover, a large number – possibly even the majority – of those 121 citations are not to passages “on how civil government is to operate.” The Bible references in the Two Treatises are heavily concentrated in the First Treatise. The overwhelming majority of the First Treatise, in turn, is devoted to an extended analysis of small number of selected verses from the first two chapters of Genesis, especially Genesis 1:28-30. That’s a lot of analysis devoted to understanding the biblical text, but it’s not a large number of verses cited. The remainder of the First Treatise, where other biblical verses are cited more frequently, looks to the Bible not primarily for instruction on civil government but almost entirely on the power of parents over their children, especially the inheritance of property from parents to children. Locke is interested in these verses because he wants to use them to refute Robert Filmer’s claim that today’s kings inherit their power from Adam, but these are clearly not “biblical references on how civil government is to operate.” They are biblical references on how families are to operate. In fact, the point that descriptions of the how the family should work are not descriptions of how civil government should work was Locke’s main point!
After all this, it seems trivial to point out that Locke did not, in fact, “write” the Two Treatises in 1690; he published it in that year, but wrote it much earlier.

Barton makes this claim in the new edition of The Jefferson Lies and on his website. He said his staff counted up the citations.
In September 2015, I challenged Barton to produce evidence for his claim and demonstrated that for one to claim Locke cited over 1500 Bible verses, one would have to count every verse in the book of Proverbs because Locke mentioned that book once.
So Dr. Fea, you’re off the hook. Next time Barton wants to inaccurately beat up on an academic, he can take it up with Forster and me.

Today's Lesson in White Privilege is Brought to You by David Barton

Yesterday, Right Wing Watch posted some audio of David Barton lamenting his status as white, Christian male. Want to understand white privilege? Today’s lesson is brought to us by Mr. Barton. On the American Pastor’s Network radio show, Barton said (audio posted by RWW):

Every item in the Bill of Rights is given to every individual, it’s not given to groups, but today, the Supreme Court says the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the majority. Now how stupid is that? Because I’m in the majority as a white guy, do I not get the right to a trial by jury, do I not get the right to free speech? No, because I’m in the wrong group. And so, what happens is even back in 1992, in a Supreme Court case I was involved with, the court at the time created classes of religions and if you’re in Christianity, that’s the biggest religion so we give you the least protection. But if you’re in a small religion, we’ll give you more protection than anyone else.

Keep calm and speak freely, Mr. Barton; you have all your First Amendment rights. Even though you are a white Christian, you can have a trial by jury if ever you need one. What hubris to think minorities have it better than you. I can’t think of a better way to illustrate white Christian privilege than these statements.
Surely, Mr. Barton has read the Federalist papers. It appears he disagrees with Madison who wrote in #51:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects.

Madison (also in #10) expressed confidence that the U.S. system would protect the rights of minorities from the state and from the majority. In the quote above, Madison wrote that “Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens.” Madison was not as troubled by discussing the interests of “groups” as Barton is. Instead of complaining that the majority had fewer rights, Madison expressed concern that minority rights could be “insecure.”

David Barton Offers Spring Break Teachers Conference

Instead of relaxing and refreshing, school teachers can now look forward to several days with David Barton over Spring Break.
Wallbuilders Teachers Conference
Barton left off some of the “how-to” topics he should cover.

So many topics, so little time.

David Barton Criticizes Public Schools Then Incorrectly Links Quote to Lincoln

You can’t make this up.
Writing for OneNewsNow today, David Barton claimed to know the thinking behind the protestors who descended on Washington DC during the inauguration weekend. Without providing any polling or even anecdotal evidence, he said the protestors were unaware of the reasons why a candidate for president could win the popular vote but lose the election. He said the protestors were unaware that America is not a pure democracy. Somehow, Barton knows the views of all those protestors.

The protestors believe that only the national popular vote matters (which Hillary won – barely). But even though she garnered the votes of most of the largest cities in America, she did not win the majority of the states, cities, or counties. In fact, Trump won 30 of the 50 states, more than 80 percent of America’s 3,141 counties, and an equally lop-sided percentage of its 35,000 cities. The protestors were unaware (as are most Americans) that the Constitution establishes an election system that balances diverse measurements. Shame on schools for not teaching the Constitution.

How does he know this? Because some of the protestors carried signs saying, “Trump is not my president.” Of course, legally Trump is the POTUS. However, I suspect many of the protestors know that but had a different meaning in mind. They don’t believe Trump represents their beliefs and values, or that he is someone they can be proud to call president. Thank God for the freedom to protest and express one’s views.
After ranting and mind reading a little more, Barton pronounces more shame on the schools.

Shame on schools for teaching students to elevate personal opinion above absolute facts.

Speaking of facts, I cannot help but point out that Barton ends his article with a quote that cannot be found in Lincoln’s writings. This is a quote Barton himself once said couldn’t be confirmed.

It’s time that Americans demand that their schools once again teach American history (so students know that the popular vote winner does not always win the presidential election), American government (so they know we are a republic and not a democracy), the Constitution (so they understand our bicameral federal and election system), and absolute truth (that personal opinion must submit to truth and reality). If we don’t make these changes, we will not want to imagine, much less experience, the horrifying results from Abraham Lincoln’s warning that “the philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” (emphasis added)

After awhile of looking for this quote in Lincoln’s works, I got that familiar feeling that this was a misattributed quote. Indeed, I can’t find it in any Lincoln source or in any reputable source about Lincoln. I could find no instance of the quote with a citation of anything Lincoln said or wrote.
So after shaming schools for questionable sins, Barton blatantly commits an actual one.
Who should we blame, Mr. Barton or his schools?

HarperCollins: Monica Crowley's Book Will No Longer Be Offered for Purchase

HarperCollins just told CNN’s Andrew Kazcynski that they are pulling Monica Crowley’s 2012 book, What the Bleep Just Happened Here?
After taking a little time to study the matter, the publisher decided to stop selling the book “until such time as the author has the opportunity to source and revise the material.” (HC statement from the CNN article)
In the past when confronted with plagiarism charges against Mark Driscoll, HarperCollins acknowledged the “citation errors” and then quietly corrected them. Plagiarism was much more extensive in this instance.
Monica Crowley joins David Barton as a conservative with a book pulled by HarperCollins. In Barton’s case, it was because the book was filled with historical errors.  Maybe Crowley will pull a Barton and claim her book was the victim of liberal political correctness.