Jon Rowe is correct to attempt to define orthodoxy, because as David Barton uses it, he (Barton) is engaging in sleight of mouth. And I suspect he knows he’s doing it.
One of Barton’s core arguments is that 52 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence were orthodox in their Christian faith. When Barton is speaking to a television audience, he might even go a bit further and say, “evangelical,” instead of “orthodox.” Barton may, as Miettinen has spelled out, have a method to justify his position, but Barton’s audience is clearly getting a very different message.
And why does he make this argument of high level of orthodoxy, and even occasionally substitute the word, “evangelical?”
Well, the answer is simple. It’s what his audience wants to hear. And here’s the part Mr. Miettinen misses when he says that Rowe is, and Barton is NOT clinging to the unhistorical definition of Christianity: Barton is not a historian.
Rather, Barton is a politician. He’s been a high-ranking member of the Texas GOP and a paid consultant to the Republican National Committee, including a stint as a GOTV spokesman for the 2004 Bush campaign. He continues to lead groups of pastors into the fold with special DC tours. Barton is an advocate, not a scholar.
I suspect Mr. Rowe’s clarification of the Founder’s orthodoxy, or lack thereof — AS MODERN LAY-FOLK UNDERSTAND IT — is quite a threat to Mr. Barton’s story, or at least with his audience. Maybe Rowe’s use of the term orthodox Christian doesn’t follow some hifalutin rule of history departments, but it sure breaks down the opposition. What if Barton’s audiences knew that several of the signers were unitarians? You see, creeds aside, there are few more important notions to Christian Right Evangelicals than the deity of Christ. Jesus was God. Unitarians, Socinians (Jefferson’s likely position), and Arians (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses) are all heretics from an Evangelical perspective — even if they call themselves Christian.
It is doubtful that modern Christian Right Evangelicals would support Jefferson or Adams for elected office today, were their true opinions on the public record. Even David Barton knows that, which is why he uses tortured logic to re-present them in a more “helpful” image. Jon Rowe knows of their heresy as well, and he’s exposing it, effectively driving a wedge into the Barton myth. Good for Jon.
[...]
I am an Evangelical. I think we need about 100 Jon Rowe’s, though it would be even better if they too were Evangelicals — people from in the camp to right it. Fortunately, much of what Jon is doing is popularizing the work of Gregg Frazer, who is an Evangelical. We need more Rowe’s because Barton, in a phrase Evangelicals will have special appreciation for, “tickles the ears of his audience” — that is, he tells them what they want to hear; not what’s true. If he did tell the truth, it would be too nuanced to be of remunerative value to him, or political value to his partisan patrons.
If this was a Christian (founded) Nation, then for Mr. Barton, it means vote Republican. For his listeners, most of whom will agree to give their vote to the GOP after hearing his presentation, it means something more…
This was our country. It was stolen. We need to take it back.
This is a powerful motivator to the culture wars.
There's more. Read the whole thing.
18 comments:
I proposed awhile back that we just change the name of this blog to "David Barton Sucks" and be done with it.
Me, I don't have a dog in this fight per se. I look at Barton's website and see many quotes and arguments that I see nowhere else. [It appears Barton has corrected the false, second-hand ones from his early career.] But I've never used the site as a basis for my own posts, at least that I can remember.
What I do see is a lot of his critics characterizing [or caricaturing, I dunno] his views and then railing about them. No direct quotes, just the kind of muddle that they accuse HIM of.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? If I had a bigger agenda [mine is more a POV], I'd spend my days hunting down the errors of Barton's critics, and this could be the David Barton: Angel or Devil Blog.
This is from
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/11/20/115859/98
a blog Mr. Rowe seems to frequent. The charges are so vague, I don't know how they could possibly be evaluated for truth. But someone disposed to be opposed to Barton's thesis would walk away thinking something's been "proven" here.
In Barton's best seller, THE MYTH OF SEPARATION, there are some alarming statements presented to the reader. David believes that Christians were the ones who were intended to hold public office. pg. 26 Thus , Jews and other sects were not allowed to serve as elected officials. Contrary to traditional viewpoints, like Dr. Estep's in REVOLUTION WITHIN THE REVOLUTION, Christianity was the official religion and other faiths were not given the freedom to worship in the nation. pg. 39 Separation applied mostly to denominational differences. pg. 43 A summary of the work is found in the quote on page 46, "The doctrine of separation of church and state is absurd." The author claims that general Christianity is the established religon of the country. pg. 64 The most important political institution in the nation after 50 years was Christianity. pg. 135 Barton advances a theocracy position as that of the founding fathers. He says that early court rulings made Christianity the official faith of the nation. pg. 47 His conclusion on how to restore America to its original intent is to do it politically. He wants the church to become active in politics at the local level. pg. 266 Barton became vice chair of the GOP in Texas. His friend, Ralph Reed, reached similar heights of power in Gerogia.
When Barton speaks, does he use "evangelical" interchangeably with "Christian" re Jefferson, Adams or Franklin? I dunno, but Jim Babka says he does. If he does, he shouldn't.
As for what Barton formally presents at wallbuilders.com, we should read it for ourselves. Some interesting stuff there that I was never taught in school.
I realize that a number of people dislike the fact that Barton tends to be a regular topic on this blog. And while I agree that there are more interesting things to discuss, I do think that the "Barton bashing" is worthwhile in a couple of ways.
First off, it is important to refute Barton's (or any person's) distortions. Note that I use the word "distortions" instead of "lies." In Barton's defense, I think calling the man a liar is a bit harsh to say the least. The man has just as much of a right to scrape away at the remnants of history as do the rest of us. However, if he wishes to take a particular angle, he should not be surprised when attacks come his way. This is how history is done. As I have said before, if you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen. Even the most successful historians (Joseph Ellis, Gordon Wood and Gary Nash to name a few) have been the recipients of a large number of attacks on their work. In fact, the William & Mary Quarterly dedicated a whole issue to the "rebuttal's" of Wood's book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Simply put, this is how the game is played.
Second, David Barton's objections to "secular" history and his insistence upon returning to the "true" story of America's "Godly heritage" illustrates just how politically charged the "Christian Nation" issue has become. Both sides of the isle have their "David Barton's" ready and willing to do battle, with a whole host of foot soldiers willing to follow their respective leaders into historical combat. What this all demonstrates is how the study of history has become a battle for America's communal understanding of popular culture, and NOT an inquiry into the actual historical record. Instead of seeking an understanding on how the founders viewed God, government, etc., the argument has become one in which each side, armed with their historical quotations, seeks to "outgun" the other. As a result, nothing is solved.
What I would like to see is for both sides to ask themselves this question: So what if the founders were religious/antireligious? Is that really the argument here? I know I am sounding a bit elementary here, but I really do think it is that simple. If we uncover new evidence that proves our founders hated God/religion is that going to stop the current "Christian Nation" crowd? My guess is no. And this argument goes both ways.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the "Christian Nation" argument really isn't as much about the founders as it is about America today. This political/religious/historical custody battle for the legacy of the founders, in reality, has very little to do with actual historical pursuits. Instead, it is simply a crusade to prove that our current understanding of popular culture is the right one. As Thomas Jefferson was fond of saying, "The earth belongs to the living and not the dead."
First off, it is important to refute Barton's (or any person's) distortions.
By all means, we should do so. But all I hear are "distortions" of what the man actually says. Brad, there's not a single substantive charge in what you write here. And listen, I have no doubt that he stilts this or that. Advocates do such things. I certainly think we should keep him honest.
He made some heavy mistakes in his early career by trusting sources from the 1800s that were not reliable. That was foolish, but it was an understandable mistake. We all tend to trust "authorities."
But I don't want to hear anything more about what David Barton "says" without someone quoting chapter and verse.
I beg us, please let's end this madness, this ad hom, this talking about not the topic of religion and the Founding, but talking about some critic talking about what David Barton talked about about the topic of religion and the Founding.
By the time we get so many filters, the topic is unrecognizable.
Barton took it on the chin for his early errors. He then got donations enough to [claim to!] buy thousands of original source documents, primary sources.
At wallbuilders.com, he has a page withdrawing some of his original unconfirmed quotes.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=126
What does he get for his trouble? Hate. Like this:
Continued Alley, "For Barton to withdraw these quotes is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that they were wrong to begin with."
http://candst.tripod.com/boston2.htm
The lesson here? When a man is down, even after he rises, keep kicking him.
Barton realized his mistake(s), and that the jackals would keep attacking. I do not see how any principled person could disagree with what Barton writes below.
Time to clean up, indeed, and that's what I had believed was the purpose of this blog in the first place. Our own act, in my view, needs serious cleaning up. We trust and quote the second-hand sources allayed against him more than he ever did in the first place.
"As the Church/state debates continue, we are all called to a higher standard of scholarship. Advocates of a secular society use the slightest discrepancy to advance their own intolerant and bigoted agenda. Ignoring their own weaknesses and failures, they attempt to discredit both the message and messenger of America's religious history. Their efforts are futile, however, for the religious foundations of America, to include the interactions between church and state, are well-documented and easily-unearthed. Now is the time to clean things up. "
Good for you, Mr. Barton. In the meantime, I'll mostly ignore you and seek the truth for myself.
Good for you, Mr. Barton. In the meantime, I'll mostly ignore you and seek the truth for myself.>
I always seek the truth for myself, but I'll use wallbuilders, and others when I need clarification, and other information on a quote, etc.
I consider David Barton an expert on the Founding era, besides the 52out of 55 signers of the DOI were clergy comment, your work is excellent, and I support you one hundred percent. As a matter of fact, I believe the MAJORITY of evidence defends your position.
OFT
In the words of a great man: Trust, but verify.
TVD: "In the words of a great man: Trust, but verify."
Oxymoron, no?
No, my sophistic friend, and it's not a contradiction, either. One proceeds with trust differently than he proceeds with distrust. In fact, the tenor of our conversations is marked by the latter, which is why I find them so trying and unenjoyable.
But in either case, one should verify. The tragedy of the issue of David Barton is that although he's accurate well over half the time, and I'd bet well over 90%, those more interested in holding fast to their POV than in seeking the the truth discard him out of hand. Quite savagely, IMO.
It's unfortunate that it's David Barton who's on the cutting edge of challenging the secular orthodoxies of 20th century revisionism with genuine facts and quotes. I'd certainly prefer an Ivy League Ph.D without a history of error. I could appeal to authority instead of constantly defending against the ad hom.
Against the Genetic Fallacy, don't you know. Although it's a sin against both logic and honesty, it's one of the most effective sophistic techniques.
TVD writes:
"Brad, there's not a single substantive charge in what you write here. And listen, I have no doubt that he stilts this or that. Advocates do such things. I certainly think we should keep him honest."
There's that typical Van Dyke charm we've come to expect! If you read carefully I was NOT attacking Barton. Instead I was basically saying that both sides are guilty of the exact same thing. Both sides have their Barton's.
TVD: "No, my sophistic friend, and it's not a contradiction, either. One proceeds with trust differently than he proceeds with distrust. In fact, the tenor of our conversations is marked by the latter, which is why I find them so trying and unenjoyable."
hmmm ... perhaps you can make an effort to be less insulting?
TVD comments: "[...] those more interested in holding fast to their POV than in seeking the the truth [...]"
That others continue to post *evidence* and suggest perspectives that are consistent with the evidence is not the same as proposing perspectives inconsistent with the evidence while being consistent with their POV.
To be honest you appear to be embracing some particular ideology (which you do not divulge) and seek to defend it from all evidence.
TVD: "It's unfortunate that it's David Barton who's on the cutting edge of challenging the secular orthodoxies of 20th century revisionism with genuine facts and quotes."
"secular orthodoxy"?
What is that? Do you imply that secularism has some axe to grind with religion? If so, please define what you mean by secularism (I think you've got this wrong). You've insisted others substantiate their critique of Barton, perhaps you can lead by example?
Regarding Barton's fabrications they have been enumerated sufficiently. However, regarding *your* claims of his contributions; can you give one example of a genuine "cutting edge" fact or quote by Barton? (granted the fraudulent ones qualify, but I'm skeptical of anything else).
Do you imply that secularism has some axe to grind with religion?
Surely you jest.
Regarding Barton's fabrications...
Unproven to be fabrications even once. Not once. You continue the slander. His errors were trusting sources from the 1800s, not fabrication, a far more serious charge.
You've insisted others substantiate their critique of Barton, perhaps you can lead by example?
See my essay on "scholarly malpractice" featuring James H. Huston. As for Barton himself, I passed along several quotes on Thanksgiving. My annoyance with your sophistry and distrustful tone is that you ask for evidence, then ignore it. You are a unsatisfiable pit of skepticism, and your charges here against Barton and then me show your that. Since your POV is not derived by reason, reason cannot get you off it, and it's a waste of time to try.
There's that typical Van Dyke charm we've come to expect! If you read carefully I was NOT attacking Barton. Instead I was basically saying that both sides are guilty of the exact same thing. Both sides have their Barton's.
Sorry, Brad, but I don't see them on both sides. I see a conscious effort to discredit and destroy David Barton. When we speak of his [or anyone's] "distortions," we should be specific. As you can see by Mr. Abbott's comment above, unsubstantiated slurs like "fabrications" are routine for one side.
But I regret being uncharming to you. It's not your modus operandi to proceed with distrust. Sorry.
BPA: "Do you imply that secularism has some axe to grind with religion? "
TVD: "Surely you jest."
Is that an example of sophistry, unsubstantiated accusations, or just ignorance?
I gave you substantiation. Typically, you ignored it, and continued your negation game. Ben, please stop wasting my, and our, time. The next time you do some actual research and contribute something substantive here will be your first, and I look forward to it.
I know Chris Rodda has said so much that she wants to destroy Barton. Me, I just want to argue against the thesis with which I disagree.
Someone who argues something close to the Christian America claim who is indeed a bona fide scholar, who unfortunately has allied with some "crankish" figures -- but then again as a libertarian who always votes Libertarian in Presidential elections so have I -- is Herb Titus, former Dean of Regent University School of Law and JD from Harvard University.
He's a friend of Jim Babka's (supports "Downsize DC" as I do) and Babka invited me to debate him on his radio show. If it goes thru I'll let you know when it's broadcast. But for a bona fide scholar who argues America's Judeo-Christian foundations, Titus is the real deal.
BPA: "Regarding Barton's fabrications..."
TVD: "Unproven to be fabrications even once. Not once. You continue the slander. His errors were trusting sources from the 1800s, not fabrication, a far more serious charge."
You accuse me of slander quite eagerly. Are you so certain that my representation of Barton is less accurate than your representation of me?
Barton claimed that Jefferson (in the famous letter to the Danbury Baptists) said: "That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."
The actual letter is easily found online at the library of congress.
BTW, I noticed when I Googled the fraudulent quote Barton attributed Jefferson, there were only 9 hits. Strange that when I added "Barton" to the search I got 34 hits.
In any event, from what 1800 source did Barton lift the fabrication from? I can't find it, but will concede this (1st) point if *you* can.
TVD: "I gave you substantiation. Typically, you ignored it, and continued your negation game."
Tom, I have no memory of you substantiating "that secularism has some axe to grind with religion"?
What did I miss? ... or is that an attempt at misdirection?
I'd be happy if you can demonstrate that there is a secular conspiracy against religion, but am certain you cannot ... well no unless I/we accept your definition for the term 'secular'.
My essay on "scholarly malpractice," featuring "respected" scholar James H. Huston. Yes, I would like to think you have "no memory" of such things and are not being willfully disingenuous. I'd prefer to think you're an honest person.
Please don't argue google hits again.
Tom: "My essay on "scholarly malpractice," featuring "respected" scholar James H. Huston. Yes, I would like to think you have "no memory" of such things and are not being willfully disingenuous. I'd prefer to think you're an honest person."
Don't waste my time.
Please, respond with substance and dispense with the personal insults.
Secularism is not anti-religious. If you think it is your are deluded paranoid or both.
Secularism is separate for religion but is not antagonistic toward it. The absence of something does not require a prejudice. There is no chocolate in my home, but that is not because I hate chocolate (quite the contrary).
Secularism is consistent with facts, ideas, ideals and principles which can be expressed in terms that are preferably backed by evidence but certainly not in contradicted by it.
Does the religion you embrace ignore evidence? I hope not.
Jon,
I responded to Babka on Pos Lib.
I didn't find his "defense" of you very impressive. Nothing you should have endorsed.
You routinely blame Barton for the feeble-mindedness of his followers. In that spirit, you should be careful of the defenses of yourself that you call attention to.
Post a Comment