David Barton: Treasury Department Will Be Denigrated by Addition of Woman to $10 Bill

The boys at Wallbuilders (David Barton and Rick Green) are all in a tizzy over the replacement of Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill by a woman (unnamed as yet). Right Wing Watch was listening in to the Wallbuilders Live show yesterday and heard the guys lamenting the travesty it will be. From RWW:

Last month, the Treasury Department announced that a woman would be featured on the $10 bill when it is redesigned in 2020 and David Barton was so outraged that he brought the National Review’s Quin Hillyer onto his “WallBuilders Live” radio program today to explain why this decision is so “outrageous and ignorant.”

The audio is at RWW so go on over and listen to the good ol’ boys talk about the denigration of our nation’s history and economic system.
Probably Barton and the fellas don’t know that the women folk like economic systems too. In fact, there have been quite a few women at the Treasury Department over the years.

Earlier this month, Treasury Notes highlighted the start of Women’s History Month with a blog post on the 2013 Girl Scouts of the USA Centennial Silver Dollar. As we near the end of the month, Treasury Notes is proud to feature photographs displayed in a gallery on the second-floor hallway of the Treasury building showcasing women in Treasury history. The historical photographs date between 1874 and 1926, honoring the role and contributions that women have made to the Department. Today Treasury has the most women in senior positions ever including Treasurer Rosie Rios, Under Secretary for International Affairs Lael Brainard, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Mary Miller, Assistant Secretary for Management Nani Coloretti, Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Janice Eberly, Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis S. Leslie Ireland, and Assistant Secretary for International Markets, Development Marisa Lago, and Acting Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs​ Natalie Wyeth Earnest.

The gents shouldn’t be too upset since Hamilton will most likely still be on the $10 bill but a woman will be added to the new design. I doubt that Maria Reynolds will be chosen to share the bill with Alexander.

David Barton: Churches Are Required to Hire Pedophiles to Run Church Nurseries

On Tuesday, David Barton appeared on Missions Radio (click link for entire program), a podcast hosted by Kenneth Mitchell. The topics were mostly current events and Barton’s analysis of them. As with his history, his analysis of current events is also off the mark. In this clip, Barton claims churches have to hire pedophiles to run their nurseries.

Transcript:

Then, Congress has passed what’s called ENDA, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, passed this in ’06 under Pelosi and Reid and at that point in time, it says you cannot discriminate on the basis of hiring.
As a result, the president has now announced that faith based groups have to hire homosexuals; not an option, you have to because federal law says you cannot discriminate on the basis of identity. So if a pedophile comes to the church and says I want to run your nursery, you can’t say no because that’s discriminating on the basis of identity. If a homosexual comes and says I want to be your youth director and you say no, you can’t do that, you can’t distinguish on the basis of gender.
And in the same way as came out at the Supreme Court, back 25 years ago when the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was wrong, and you had a Christian college, Bob Jones that says we’re still going to do it in dating and interracial marriage, etc., they lost the tax exempt status because they wouldn’t comply with the Supreme Court decision. Well now the Supreme Court says you can’t distinguish on the basis of gender but only on identity, guess what? That calls into qu…and that’s what Obama’s attorney said, it will call into question every single tax exemption in America for every church. I guarantee you that people who thought same-sex marriage was for equality didn’t intend to destroy all the church in America. And that’s what it does.

No. Just no.
Barton is completely wrong about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It never passed both houses of Congress during the same session, and it is not law today. It was not introduced in the 109th Congress (2005-2007). As an aside, the House speaker during that Congress was Dennis Hastert and the Senate president was Dick Cheney.  ENDA passed the House in the next Congress but not the Senate. Another version of the legislation passed the Senate in 2013 but not the House (see this timeline).
Barton told Mitchell’s audience that President Obama’s executive order forbidding discrimination by federal contractors came “as a result” of ENDA. Not so. Barton claims faith based groups have to hire homosexuals. However, this order only applies to federal contractors not all faith based groups. Then he uncorked a doozy by claiming that churches have to hire pedophiles who want to run church nurseries. Of course, this is ridiculous fear mongering.
Stop a minute to think about that claim. Anyone who has any knowledge of church work or volunteer work with children knows Barton’s claim is ridiculous. In many schools, you can’t volunteer to accompany your child’s classroom on a field trip without criminal and child abuse clearances. In recent years, churches have been required by liability insurers to screen all volunteers before working with children. Barton’s claims are absurd and irresponsible.
On the claim that a church has to hire an openly gay applicant, Barton offers no evidence. I know of no case where a non-gay-affirming church was required to hire a gay person for a religious function. Churches discriminate on the basis of religion all the time by hiring only those who agree on even fine points of doctrine. Many churches also discriminate on the basis of gender by not hiring women for certain functions. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidance makes it clear that “governmental regulation of church administration, including the appointment of clergy, impedes the free exercise of religion and constitutes impermissible government entanglement with church authority. The exception applies only to employees who perform essentially religious functions, namely those whose primary duties consist of engaging in church governance, supervising a religious order, or conducting religious ritual, worship, or instruction.” Clearly, youth directing is an essentially religious function. 
In the last paragraph above, Barton refers to concerns that religious colleges might be required to treat same-sex unions as they do male-female marriages now. There is basis for this topic but Barton stretches the matter to include churches. The solicitor general Donald Verilli addressed this matter in a famous exchange with Justice Alito during oral arguments on Obergefell v. Hodges. Justice Alito asked Verilli if a college opposed same-sex marriage would that college suffer the same fate as Bob Jones University who maintained discriminatory policies based on race. Verilli acknowledged that such questions could come up if a right to same-sex marriage was recognized. However, Alito and Verilli did not discuss churches, as Barton implies.  Verilli didn’t say a favorable same-sex marriage decision would “call into question every single tax exemption in America for every church” or anything close to it.
For the most part, colleges are places of public accommodation and already operate under federal guidelines when it comes to employment and other civil rights. As Verilli replied to Alito, the question can’t be answered without knowing the specific facts. Some schools may have a better case for allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation than others. However, the issue was never the free exercise of religion by churches. In this context, it would be good to recall Justice Kennedy’s words on the matter:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.

With uninformed pundits like Barton headlining church conferences, no wonder many evangelicals are worried the sky is falling.  I hope Mr. Mitchell will consider giving equal time or at least informing his listeners that Barton was wrong and the First Amendment still exists in America.

David Barton's Legend Grows to Include Supreme Court Winner

David Barton was given a PhD by Glenn Beck and was sorta called “America’s Historian” in a World Net Daily article and speaks for over 400 (600?) groups per year.  Barton has also added NCAA Division One basketball player and translator for the Russian gymnastics team. Now, he can add winner of cases at the Supreme Court. Watch this invitation to hear Barton speak at an Assembly of God church in Texarkana, TX (full video here):

Barton has filed some amicus briefs (friend of the court) which anyone can do (e.g., here) but he is not an attorney and hasn’t argued before the court.  Of course, I realize Barton didn’t say this but I wonder if he will correct it. He has some responsibility for it since he says in his bio that he has “participated” in Supreme Court cases. The minister took the word “participated” and made it into “argued and won.” He also made Barton into a “Constitutional scholar.”
My point isn’t that Barton is responsible for the false things people say about him (although in Beck’s case, he should have corrected the misinformation). Rather, I am focusing my attention more on the social and cognitive factors that operate in the evangelical environment that elevate Barton to expert status. Here is one. This minister gave Barton a superhuman build up, using false information to do it. Since the minister wants Barton to motivate his congregation, he fails to tell his people about Barton’s misleading stories, his disgraced book about Jefferson and the general negative associations Barton has among actual experts, Christian and otherwise. And this minister, who probably did not intend to speak falsely, adds the stuff of legends.

Why the Aitken Bible Story is So Important to Glenn Beck and David Barton

Reinventing the Aitken Bible story is very important to Glenn Beck and David Barton. America as a covenant nation is important for different reasons for both men and the myth of Congress printing the Bible fits right in to their world view. However, as has been shown many times, the story is not what they make it out to be.

In his recent talk to Fellowship Church, Glenn Beck began his false narrative about Aitken’s Bible by shouting, “Don’t let anybody tell you we are not a Christian nation because are absolutely a Christian nation!” Then he incorrectly told the audience that Congress printed the first English language Bible in America. He ended the story by repeating the assertion that the U.S. is a Christian nation.

In a recent talk to Osborne Baptist Church, David Barton again implied that Congress wanted the Aitken Bible used in schools. Watch:

Barton finished his story about Aitken by saying.

The first English Bible was done in 1782, its got Congressional endorsement and its done for the use of schools? I thought the Founding Fathers didn’t want the Bible in schools. See, if you don’t know your history, you put up with policies you should never put up with. When you know your history, you have a different view of what public policy should be.

The point for both Barton and Beck is to influence people to think about America’s founding as a foundation for public policy now. Barton wants the Bible in schools so he makes up a story where Congress printed/endorsed (he has told the story both ways) a Bible for the use of schools. If the men who wrote the Constitution wanted the Bible in schools then it has to be Constitutional for the Bible to be used in schools now.

If the story is told straight then it isn’t as useful. It certainly could support the idea that the founders were friendly toward religion, but it doesn’t say anything about federal policy toward Bible reading in schools. If the rest of the story is told, then it isn’t as useful either. Aitken wanted Congress to appoint him as the official Bible printer, but Congress declined. He wanted his Bible to be the authorized Bible for the new republic, but Congress declined. Furthermore, Congress didn’t put a nickel of tax payer funding into the project.

When listening to either Beck or Barton speak, be aware that the history lessons may not be completely true and that the real object is to persuade you to believe something that isn’t true so you will do something you might not otherwise do.

David Barton Tells Half-Truth to the Wall Street Journal

David Barton just can’t stop it.
In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, Barton says his book, The Jefferson Lies, is “upcoming.” He also falsely says that Virginia state law prohibited Jefferson from emancipating his slaves.
On July 2, Fergus Bordewich wrote a review of two books on Thomas Jefferson. At least one of the books mentioned David Barton by name as an example of an author who elevated Jefferson to counterfactual heights.  Barton was offended and so the WSJ allowed him space to defend himself (might require an account to read it all).
First, Barton defends Jefferson against the charge of having children with Sally Hemings. My reading of that material is that one cannot be sure about the truth. Barton is more sure of himself there than he should be.
It is intriguing that Barton calls The Jefferson Lies “upcoming.” Naturally, he failed to mention that another description of the book would be “removed from the shelves” or “debunked.” I have established that Simon & Schuster is not going to publish it so it is now a mystery who will publish the second coming of the book voted by History News Network readers as the least credible history book in print.
Regarding Jefferson and slavery, Barton sticks to his false claims about Virginia law. He says Virginia limited emancipation starting in 1691. In 1723, Barton says Virginia law prohibited freeing slaves. He is correct that in 1782 Virginia allowed emancipation but then takes us down a rabbit trail. He says slave owners had to provide income for young, old or infirm slaves. That sounds like all of them. However, slaves between 18 (females) or 21 (males) and 45 could be emancipated (see the case of Robert Carter who freed all of his slaves). Jefferson freed exactly two of his more than 200 slaves during that period of time, both members of the Hemings family. It not only was legal to do, Jefferson did it twice, and other slave owners freed some or all of their slaves.
Barton then does what he often does. He pulls out something true but fails to tell us when it was true. Barton said the 1782 law required freed slaves to leave the state. Not true. It was not until 1806 that the requirement to leave the state was added to Virginia law, and even then the legislature could exempt a slave upon request. Thus, there was a 24 year period where Jefferson could have freed his adult slaves to remain in Virginia.
In his WSJ defense, Barton reveled in author Andrew Burstein’s reference to him as a “self-taught historian.” In Barton’s case, self-taught means unable to self-correct. He is still making the same mistakes that caused Thomas Nelson to pull The Jefferson Lies from publication.