Tag: david Barton

David Barton adds to history and the Bible at the same time

Today Right Wing Watch has a clip of David Barton claiming that the Founders based our republican form of government on Exodus 18:21. He added that some Founders actually referred to the Exodus passage as the basis for electing people to various office at the local, state and federal levels. Here is the clip:

Barton claims that “God set out elections at the very beginning.” He added that Israel was a monarchy later but before that “God established elections.”

However, that is not what happened according to Exodus 18. To get the context, I cite here Exodus 18:13-26. In this passage, Moses is lamenting to his father-in-law, Jethro, that he has to judge disputes of the people all day long. His father-in-law responded to Moses’ complaint with some good advice.

 13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening.14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?”

15 Moses answered him, “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.”

17 Moses’ father-in-law replied, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20Teach them his decrees and instructions, and show them the way they are to live and how they are to behave. 21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.”

24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves.

Moses did not put the matter to the people in an election. He simply chose able people who could serve as judges over the people. It is remarkable to me that Barton would claim that this passage is the basis for popular elections when the Bible is clear that Moses did the choosing and appointing.

Barton then insists that the Founders referred to Exodus 18:21 as the basis for Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution. That section states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

In the short clip, Barton does not give any names; he just says “the Founding Fathers who wrote that cited Exodus 18:31 as the basis.” I will have to study this a bit more but an initial search for confirmation of this has come up empty.

On Barton’s Wallbuilder’s website, Barton links the verse to early writers but he actually adds the reference to their writing. For instance, consider this reference to Noah Webster. Barton quotes Noah Webster and adds the reference to Exodus 18:21.

Founding Father Noah Webster delivered a similar admonition:

Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . [I]f the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.

However, in Webster’s book, the reference is not there:

Webster did not cite Exodus 18:21 as a basis for favoring elections as Barton implies on his website. Barton leaves a false impression that James Otis referred to the Exodus passage when, in fact, he did not. Elsewhere on the Wallbuilder’s site, he claims that Exo. 18:21 supports the Republican form of government but does not cite anyone who wrote the Constitution.

Even if a Framer did refer to the Exodus passage, that would not mean that Framer was correct in asserting that God established elections via the advice from Jethro. Many Framers believed that leaders should fear God and be honest. However, this does not mean they took the concept of representative government from Exodus.

Clearly Jethro’s advice was enlightened. Moses needed help and delegating authority was a wise approach. However, Jethro did not advise Moses to nominate some good people and then let the people vote.

Top Ten Posts – 2011

To reflect on 2011, I have listed here the ten most popular posts in terms of visits this year. Two of the posts were written in prior years but were visited frequently this year. In addition to being popular, I think they are representative of the stories and issues which I wrote about this year.

1. The Trail of Tears remembered

2. Uganda update: Anti-Homosexuality Bill on tomorrow’s agenda

3. Committee chair says Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill may not be considered

4. What would dominionists do with gays?

5. A major study of child abuse and homosexuality revisited (2009)

6. NARTH is not primarily composed of mental health professionals

7. Only the gay die young: Examining the claims of shorter life expectancy for homosexuals (2007)

8. The evangelical blackout of research on sexual orientation

9. William Penn founded the Quakers and other tall tales from David Barton

10. Was the Jefferson Bible an evangelism tool?

Thomas Jefferson, civil government and religion

David Barton will be coming out with a book called The Jefferson Lies next spring. I noted here that he is skilled at spreading them which will make the book entertaining at the least.

As a service in the effort at offsetting lies about Thomas Jefferson, I thought it might be helpful to point Barton to a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper. The letter, written on February 10, 1814 sets out Jefferson’s argument that British common law was not influenced by Christianity in any direct manner. Thus, any indirect claim that our law was based on Christianity indirectly via influence from Britain is also suspicious. Barton promotes the notion that American law derives from the Bible. He has also argued that Jefferson did not mean for the state to separate Christianity from the operation of the state.

Jefferson, on the other hand, wrote to Thomas Cooper that Christianity came to Britain after common law was established. Jefferson began his letter,

DEAR SIR, — In my letter of January 16, I promised you a sample from my common-place book, of the pious disposition of the English judges, to connive at the frauds of the clergy, a disposition which has even rendered them faithful allies in practice. When I was a student of the law, now half a century ago, after getting through Coke Littleton, whose matter cannot be abridged, I was in the habit of abridging and common-placing what I read meriting it, and of sometimes mixing my own reflections on the subject. I now enclose you the extract from these entries which I promised. They were written at a time of life when I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way. This must be the apology, if you find the conclusions bolder than historical facts and principles will warrant. Accept with them the assurances of my great esteem and respect.

Then, Jefferson included a portion of his writings on the subject from a past effort. He notes that the belief in the Christian influence on British law has been assumed by various writers, but not proven. He says they have all quoted each other as authorities.

Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Prisot’s, or on one another, or nobody. Thus Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate also; Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and Wingate; Hale cites nobody; the court in Woolston’s case cite Hale; Wood cites Woolston’s case; Blackstone that and Hale; and Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own authority.

The crux of the matter for Jefferson is that Christianity was not adopted by the British as common law. He wrote:

For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. Another cogent proof of this truth is drawn from the silence of certain writers on the common law. Bracton gives us a very complete and scientific treatise of the whole body of the common law. He wrote this about the close of the reign of Henry III., a very few years after the date of the Magna Charta. We consider this book as the more valuable, as it was written about fore gives us the former in its ultimate state. Bracton, too, was an ecclesiastic, and would certainly not have failed to inform us of the adoption of Christianity as a part of the common law, had any such adoption ever taken place. (my emphasis)

Then Jefferson ends his argument by noting that Exodus was meant for the Jews and the teachings of Jesus were meant to be followed as conscience dictated not by coercion of the state.

In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are. For instead of being contented with these four surreptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the whole leap, and declared at once that the whole Bible and Testament in a lump, make a part of the common law; ante 873: the first judicial declaration of which was by this same Sir Matthew Hale. And thus they incorporate into the English code laws made for the Jews alone, and the precepts of the gospel, intended by their benevolent author as obligatory only in foro concientiae; and they arm the whole with the coercions of municipal law. In doing this, too, they have not even used the Connecticut caution of declaring, as is done in their blue laws, that the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict them; but they swallow the yea and nay together. Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland’s question why the ten commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England? we may say they are not because they never were made so by legislative authority, the document which has imposed that doubt on him being a manifest forgery.

Note at the end that he denies that the 10 Commandments were ever a part of the common law of England. As for America, one cannot read this letter and think that Jefferson supported the concept, popular among proponents of a Christian America, that the “laws of God shall be the laws of their land.”

David Barton promotes The Jefferson Lies

In an email to supporters, David Barton discloses the title of his upcoming book on Thomas Jefferson — The Jefferson Lies.

 
Barton is well qualified to speak about distortions of Jefferson’s work and beliefs since he has spread so many of them. I wonder if he will recant any of them in this book. He could start here, here, here, here, here, here, and/or here.
I am actually glad to see this. Publishing a book on Jefferson via a major publisher could provide the trigger for a broad conversation about Barton’s historical revisions. Perhaps, historians, including those that teach at other Christian institutions, will rise up en masse in response. I can imagine that we will see scathing book reviews in various religious publications which might wake up some Christians.
For more on David Barton, see this link.

The American College of Pediatricians versus the American Academy of Pediatrics: Who leads and who follows?

Just for fun, let’s compare the American College of Pediatricians with the American Academy of Pediatrics.
In August, David Barton and Rick Green at Wallbuilders said the ACP is the leading association of pediatricians in the nation. Even after their error was pointed out by the AAP and a reader of this blog, Rick Green said yesterday on air that the AAP “has more members and has been around a little longer” but both Barton and Green stuck by the story that the ACP was the leading group. However, ACP’s own comparison demonstrates significant differences between the two organizations. The following chart comes from the ACP website:

Note that the ACP does not provide Continuing Medical Education or a professional journal. Access to other professional programs (Red Book, Prep program) is offered via higher fees, but the AAP or affiliated groups actually provide the services. In other words, if there was no AAP, there would be no continuing education or professional publications.
A hallmark of a profession is the provision of training, certification, and continuing education. The ACP does not none of this independently. The ACP has been around since 2002 and the AAP since 1937. Annually, the AAP spends millions on professional publications and continuing education; the ACP receipts in 2008 were less than $60,000.  The AAP has over 60,000 members, the ACP about 200.
Specialty groups have a long history in the professions and they can have a place, but it is not in the lead. If the ACP disappeared, members of the group would probably miss it, but nothing would change about pediatrics as a medical specialty. The ACP relies on the AAP for the CMEs and research information required to stay in practice.
Who is leading and who is following?
Additional information about gender identity issues and ACPed:
ACPed leaves out crucial information on gender dysphoria
Interview with Kenneth Zucker on gender identity issues
Common sense on gender identity dysphoria
Interview with mother of child with gender dysphoria
ACPed removes member who called for gender disorder treatment