Ok, I know that these videos are getting a little redundant as of late, but I think they inspire good discussion on this blog. As a result, I hope to continue our discourse on this issue by presenting a seminar by Dr. Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church in Wichita Falls, Tx. The reason I believe that this seminar is unique to the other Christian nation apologists we have dissected on this blog is the fact that Jeffress presents a quasi-militant, "Us v. Them" approach to counter the "secular agenda" of professional historians.
What must be kept in mind when watching the following videos is the fact that Baptists of the 18th century were among the most vehement supporters of a church/state separation, and opposed a "Christian nation" doctrine. After all, 18th century Baptists understood that a "Christian" nation was a difficult term to define. Or in other words, who's brand of Christianity should we embrace?
Here is Dr. Jeffress' Seminar:
Part #2:
10 comments:
Dr. Jeffress is beyond ridiculous in his argument. In video #1 he mentions the Barton-inspired delusion that "52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were Evangelical Christians." We have already debunked this myth on our blog. Chris Rodda also debunks this garbage here at this link:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/4/22/154912/655
Jeffress then quotes the fraudulent "Washington Prayer Diary" when discussing Washington's religious beliefs. As we all know, this diary has zero credibility of any kind…except at the Our Founding Truth website.
Anyone with even an elementary understanding of early American history already knows these truths. Jeffress is either a clever fraud preying upon the ignorance of his congregation, or he desperately needs to pick up a history book. Either way, he isn't really worth our time.
He's an embarrassment. But, he's also, alas, fairly influential (from what I understand; I see him on the TV quite a bit and airtime ain't cheap). It's folks like him who make me feel as though I am justified in tackling these "Christian Nation" claims so relentlessly. Sometimes I feel like I'm just tackling an extremist strawman; but these folks do have mighty influence and these phony David Barton quotations get repeated endlessly.
Yep...that's why I never feel bad when our humble little blog goes on the "attack." After all, we are competing with those that have HUGE influence over thousands (if not millions) of followers.
JR: Sometimes I feel like I'm just tackling an extremist strawman...
Extremist, yes. Strawman, no, Jon. These folks certainly exist.
I realize y'all have a mission [that I don't share], and as you know, I support it. A lot of bad scholarship out there, generated not by Christian Nation liars, but 19th century hagiographers who tried to turn "52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution" into evangelical Christians.
I only ask that we keep it all fairly current, and be as specific as possible in our criticisms.
I myself don't watch these videos as they're a waste of time. I would ask that some sense of what is said in them would be put into text, and then rebutted.
Otherwise, we can just change the name of this blog to "David Barton Sucks YouTube" and be done with it. I would not want to see that happen.
.
How many times have I heard sermons like this one in my lifetime.
.
I grew up in a Baptist church and members of my family are ordained ministers involved in Baptist teachings. One still is a missionary in Brazil. I know the drill by heart.
.
But, Jefferess shows us something special that is evolving within the Bapistry now--you can see the hint of it in some of what B. Tubbs has written about.
.
I remember picking up 'this book' at a book store many years ago. Baptists knew that Catholicism had great power in many countries and they were deathly afraid of a take over in America.
.
Jefferess alludes to that with a "joke" in his talk.
.
In other words, it looks like Christian Fundamentalism is now the leading voice in American Christianity. And, in case no one knows it, Fundamentalism is--pretty much--what Baptist teaching is all about.
.
.
By the way, can anyone tell me why my computer tells me "patalk.com" is loading as I access this site?
.
Beats me. That's strange
TVD states:
"I myself don't watch these videos as they're a waste of time. I would ask that some sense of what is said in them would be put into text, and then rebutted.
Otherwise, we can just change the name of this blog to "David Barton Sucks YouTube" and be done with it."
I agree that the videos are often a waste of time due to the nonsense they contain. However, I think the "David Barton YoutTube bit is a little strong. Lindsey has already pointed out that we only devote 8-9% AT MOST of this blog's posts to these kind of issues...a far cry from the discussions we usually have here at Amercian Creation.
Well, 8-9% is a significant figure. But I have a 0% problem with the POV.
But must I watch one of these videos, some guy in some church somewhere saying some stupid stuff and spreading a few urban legends like Washington's [no, it wasn't his] prayer book?
Oy. Lord have mercy. My blogbrothers and -sisters, have mercy.
Are there any legitimate points in there? Is the whole thing absolute crap, chapter and verse?
As for the "'Us v. Them' approach to counter the 'secular agenda' of professional historians," as Lindsey puts it, I have a certain sympathy for that approach---although not an endorsement---because there is indeed a secular agenda of professional historians, a "scholarly malpractice," at least according to James H. Hutson, the highly respected chief of the manuscript division at the Library of Congress.
[We did read that one, yes?]
The "Christian Nation crowd"---and I call them that myself---may be paranoid, but as we know, paranoia doesn't mean they're not plotting against you. They may be battling against the professional academic establishment with only hoes and pitchforks [read: imperfect arguments], but this does not mean that they are savages. They simply lack the proper weaponry to answer in kind.
Imperfect arguments may contain more truth than perfect ones that exclude inconvenient information, as Dr. Hutson notes, and notes well. I'm just asking if we have to entertain them---and we must---that the poster be the one to suffer through them, so we don't have to. I'll put my trust in the executive summary, and we can go from there.
.
Like the endless summer, argumentation about our national roots might never end. I declare--it is a subterfuge as there was a definite purpose to the Founding of the United States and it is KEY to the questions of our beginnings.
.
It doesn't matter how many angels can dance on the head of a pin--but, what counts might be what Jack Webb used to say on the tv series, Dragnet, "Just the facts, m'am--just the facts."
.
The purpose our society was founded has to be seen in the Declaration of Independence the Colonies declared away from the English Monarchy.
.
Perhaps this seems redundant and picayune to some; but, it is the stated purpose in our Founding Document. Our society was created to secure humanity's natural rights for its legitimate members.
.
But, instead of detailing them, our Founders most wisely left that open to future generations.
.
We have some--apparently--exceptionally well developed legal minds among us. They must be able to comment on how "certain unalienable rights" get to be defined as time unfolds. Universal education and health care seem to be such to me.
.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
.
Post a Comment