I write this after running across one Pastor Paul Blair, Fairview Baptist Church who heads Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ. You can look at the political context in which David Barton operates. It's a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who gay and Muslim bash and are paranoid about Hate Crimes laws that protect sexual orientation leading to the criminalization of Christianity!
From their website:
An estimated 1200 people gathered on Friday night with over 800 returning Saturday for this year’s event.
David Barton, Founder of Wallbuilders, shared from his vast collection of original documents regarding the irrefutable Christian faith of our Founding Fathers. Mr. Barton also shared results from recent elections and challenged Christians to make their voices heard at the ballot box this November.
And then this from the website's mission statement:
From Enoch to Noah; Moses to Samuel; Elijah to Nathan, Isaiah to Daniel; John the Baptist to Paul; from Jonathon Edwards to George Whitefield; John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg to John Witherspoon; from Charles Finney to Dwight Moody to Billy Sunday – prophets and preachers of God have preached faithfully the Gospel of Jesus Christ and stood firmly for righteousness on this earth, to the common man and also to the king.
Fundamental, evangelical preachers nearly all agree that God established three great institutions on earth – the family, human government and the church. We know and preach that the family must be built on the Rock of Jesus Christ. We know and preach that the Church must be built on the Rock of Jesus Christ. So too, government was designed by God to be subject to and built on the Rock of Jesus Christ.
This Nation was founded upon those principles. Read carefully the words of the Declaration of Independence:
“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…”
I came across this group from (where else?) Worldnetdaily. Here is a taste from their article:
You got that? This group believes, with Barton's help, that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of fundamentalist Christians and America's political theology was fundamentalist Christianity.
According to President John Adams, colonial pastors were the single group most responsible for America's independence.
"They were the best educated of citizens, understood the precious value of liberty from tyranny and taught their congregations a true biblical worldview," he said.
The only problem is that it isn't true. This group has no understanding of the ACTUAL political-theological-historical dynamic of the American Founding. And I think it's because actual history doesn't fit their present day political desires, where prooftexting the Bible into law is as American as Apple Pie.
They don't recognize that the most notable patriotic preachers like Jonathan Mayhew, Charles Chauncy, and Samuel West were theological unitarians and universalists and imbibed in natural law and enlightenment rationalism. Indeed they were EXPLICIT theological enemies of "the Great Awakening."
They don't recognize that J. Adams, Jefferson and Franklin were explicit theological unitarians and that men like Washington, Madison and others left no evidence of Trinitarianism or belief in the Bible as the infallible Word of God.
They don't recognize that the Laws of Nature and Nature's God is NOT shorthand for the Bible, but a natural theology discovered by reason, that perhaps fits within the classical and Christian natural law traditions (ala Aristotle-Aquinas-Hooker) or perhaps is something more modern (because the authors of the DOI, Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin, were men of the Enlightenment; Blackstone did NOT write the DOI; he was an English Tory who opposed the American Revolution).
They also fail to recognize the natural law thought in John Witherspoon. That when he taught politics, he didn't teach Princeton students the Bible or Calvinism but natural law and the rationalism of the Scottish Enlightenment (he termed it "moral philosophy"). Again, things discovered by reason, not what is revealed in the Bible.
Barton's involvement with these groups, in my opinion, taints his research and makes it hard for him to be taken seriously as a professional historian.
34 comments:
It never ceases to amaze that some people keep insisting that the founders, of whom they profess great respect and reverence, all of whom having had a fairly keen ability to communicate, had to resort to vague and "poetic language" to express their otherwise clear and undeniable intent to mandate that America be a Christian Biblical Nation.
At he risk of bringing down the wrath of the non-soup aisle contingent, I would like to point out again that Mr. Barton is not a professional historian. To insinuate him into this class insults true historians like those in the poll to the right. He is a professional advocate that manufactures and uses a peculiar brand of distorted* history as a means to a very distinct end. And this content is made freely available so that other activist proponents in the same cause can use the misinformation as Mr. Blair does in the video or as is found in endless email forwards touting the "truth" of our Christian founding.
*consisting of manufactured quotes, blended quotes, and edited quotes to change the meaning and intent of the original authors (beware the ellipse). These are not a few careless accidents and the multitudinous errors always paint a narrative consistent with Mr. Barton's, and associated group's, particular goals.
This methodical distortion should be contrasted with, and not equated with, honest errors and differences in interpretation by true professional and amatuer historians who attempt to reduce the biases that they introduce into their work.
(Disclaimer: This kind of manufacture and use of dishonestly distorted historical data should be condemned no matter who the manufacturer or user.)
This brings me to a question I have asked before but never got an answer:
Does anyone have a source on the first comment made by Blair? The one where he says that on Sept 7, 1774 the Reps. gathered and asked a pastor to conduct a Bible study and prayer meeting? This isn't the same myth that is passed around regarding Benjamin Franklin's petition to pray (which was rejected) is it?
Anyway, I have heard this claim made on several occasions and would like to know if it's true or not.
Anyone???
Blah blah blah. Guilt by association.
Barton is far less responsible for Rev. Blair than, say, President Obama was for Rev. Jeremiah Wright, as a 20-year congregant of Wright's.
Once again [JRB in this case], we get a blanket condemnation of Barton with no particulars. This is not discussion; it is grenade-throwing.
But JRB is right that Barton, like our friends Chris Rodda and Ed Brayton---neither of whom are errorless themselves---is not an historian, he's an advocate, although I daresay he makes a better living at it than they.
Barton is far less responsible for Rev. Blair than, say, President Obama was for Rev. Jeremiah Wright, as a 20-year congregant of Wright's.Nice deflection. Apples, meet oranges. Perhaps, being versed in these matters, you could provide us with the name for the type of logical fallacy you employ here.
Once again [JRB in this case], we get a blanket condemnation of Barton with no particulars. This is not discussion; it is grenade-throwing.Not every comment has to be a bill of particulars. The evidence is easily available. That you choose not to condescend to examine it does not amount to there being none.
But JRB is right that Barton, like our friends Chris Rodda and Ed Brayton---neither of whom are errorless themselves---is not an historian, he's an advocate, although I daresay he makes a better living at it than they.This is a false equivalency and you should know that. To make errors is human, to manufacture errors to prop up the cause is something else. Or, as someone might say - no particulars but nice grenade tossing.
Just tired of these Barton reruns--fabricates evidence, etc., etc. I won't defend his every statement and argument, but many or most of his mistakes where from his amateurism at scholarship and use of secondary sources. Most or all of which he has corrected. He is still right more often than he is wrong.
But you simply discount everything he has to say. This is called the genetic fallacy.
As for the president and his former pastor, the analogy is not direct, but it provides a sense of proportion that is sorely lacking here. For Barton to accept payment for a speech to a fringe organization is certainly no more an endorsement than is sitting in a fringe pastor's church for 20 years as a congregant and financial supporter. There is no fallacy here, and if there were, you'd have been able to argue it instead of replying with vague innuendo.
Brad, this might help:
Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 16 September 1774Phyladelphia Septr. 16, 1774
Having a Leisure Moment, while the Congress is assembling, I gladly embrace it to write you a Line.
When the Congress first met, Mr. Cushing made a Motion, that it should be opened with Prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay of N. York and Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina, because we were so divided in religious Sentiments, some Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Aanabaptists, some Presbyterians and some Congregationalists, so that We could not join in the same Act of Worship.-Mr. S. Adams arose and said he was no Bigot, and could hear a Prayer from a Gentleman of Piety and Virtue, who was at the same Time a Friend to his Country. He was a Stranger in Phyladelphia, but had heard that Mr. Duche (Dushay they pronounce it) deserved that Character, and therefore he moved that Mr. Duche, an episcopal Clergyman, might be desired, to read Prayers to the Congress, tomorrow Morning. The Motion was seconded and passed in the Affirmative. Mr. Randolph our President, waited on Mr. Duche, and received for Answer that if his Health would permit, he certainly would. Accordingly next Morning he appeared with his Clerk and in his Pontificallibus, and read several Prayers, in the established Form; and then read the Collect for the seventh day of September, which was the Thirty fifth Psalm. -You must remember this was the next Morning after we heard the horrible Rumour, of the Cannonade of Boston.-I never saw a greater Effect upon an Audience. It seemed as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on that Morning.
After this Mr. Duche, unexpected to every Body struck out into an extemporary Prayer, which filled the Bosom of every Man present. I must confess I never heard a better Prayer or one, so well pronounced. Episcopalian as he is, Dr. Cooper himself never prayed with such fervour, such Ardor, such Earnestness and Pathos, and in Language so elegant and sublime-for America, for the Congress, for The Province of Massachusetts Bay, and especially the Town of Boston. It has had an excellent Effect upon every Body here.
I must beg you to read that Psalm. If there was any Faith in the sortes Virgilianae, or sortes Homericae, or especially the Sortes biblicae, it would be thought providential.
It will amuse your Friends to read this Letter and the 35th. Psalm to them. Read it to your Father and Mr. Wibirt.-I wonder what our Braintree Churchmen would think of this?-Mr. Duche is one of the most ingenious Men, and best Characters, and greatest orators in the Episcopal order, upon this Continent-Yet a Zealous Friend of Liberty and his Country.
I long to see my dear Family. God bless, preserve and prosper it.
Adieu.
John Adams
Funny, JRB, I just ran into that quote today, at least the part about Sam Adams.
The fathers of the revolution---the Continental Congress---were far more publicly religious than those who composed the constitution and for whom we tend to reserve the term Founders.
In fact one of the early commentators [Jasper Adams? Joseph Story?] noted that several of the very most religious retired to their quiet lives after independence was won, having no interest in the politics of the constitution, or politics at all, really.
Tom,
With Barton, I see more than just accepting money. Rather he's influencing their ideas; given that he's sorta smart and slippery, he couches his words more carefully. He'll call men like John Adams "serious Christians." Well, in some respects, Adams was a "serious Christian." Mormons are, in a sense, "serious Christians."
But to these folks that means a Christian fundamentalist. Barton is feeding into their misunderstanding of history and I think he knows it.
Jon, I don't follow him, don't quote him. I don't know what he "knows."
But I notice Barton just added this essay to his website on "What is a Christian Nation?"
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909
I don't have time for it this very moment, but let's discuss what he actually says.
I skimmed over Barton's article. Perhaps later we'll dissect it. Not at all convincing.
Parts of it define "Christianity" so broadly in an attempt to sound reasonable that it makes Christianity into something meaningless and nominal (the "nominal" or "demographic" Christian Nation claim is something I think no one disagrees over).
And his notion that "biblical Christianity" produced all the things he said it did is entirely disputable.
Further Barton won't address the hard test cases of the CN thesis: Story, Marshall and J. Adams whom he cites for his proposition were unitarians. And J. Adams clearly went off into heterodox land and elevated reason over revelation during the time period in which Barton cites him. Is all this "Christianity" or "biblical Christianity"?
Did the Bible in some general sense influence American Founding era politics? Sure. But the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God? Not really.
And regarding the ideas in the DOI, FPs and Constitution, "biblical Christianity" had little to say. Barton's article intimates otherwise.
Barton should not be critsized at a historian, as he is not one. He is an activist engaged in what many quality as a culture war.
"But you simply discount everything he has to say. This is called the genetic fallacy."And the fallacy that you commit is reading something not in print. I have not stated that I discount everything he has to say. I stated that he was not a professional historian and that he has and still does rely on deceptive methods. I did not make a religious or political argument.
I don't disparage you or Dr. Frazer or Mr. Tubbs or anyone else around these parts for advocating their positions, even if I disagree. But if deceptive methods are continually employed in presentation of data, ahem Mr. OFT, they should be called on it.
but many or most of his mistakes where from his amateurism at scholarship and use of secondary sources. Most or all of which he has corrected.
On what does this claim rest? For years he has been and continues to sell products riddled with misinformation. What effort does he employ to correct his faulty work product?
He is still right more often than he is wrong.Pure assertion.
The bottom line remains, Mr. Barton is not a professional nor credible historian.
Well, I wrote [scroll up]: "But JRB is right that Barton...is not an historian, he's an advocate..."
We're all agreed, then. Let's move on. Examine his claims.
Jon's main thesis was Barton's "tie" with Rev. Blair.
My simple counterargument is that President Obama's active financial support of Rev. Wright was far more an endorsement that Barton taking Rev. Blair's money to give a speech, a counterargument that hasn't been refuted, and can't be. Condemn one, condemn the other.
I continue to object to these blanket slimings of Barton. I linked to the latest version of his thesis---errors corrected, we assume---so harping on his previous work does nothing to address his Christian nation thesis. Examine his claims.
If "deceptive methods are continually employed," then I certainly hope you do call him on it. At this moment, the bag is empty.
Jon, if his current thesis is too generic, then I suppose further criticism is unwarranted. But he his argument for Christianity is more than simply "nominal" or "demographic."
Your counterargument has always been that the Founders weren't Bible-thumpers along the lines of today's fundies-evangelicals. He doesn't claim that.
And his notion that "biblical Christianity" produced all the things he said it did is entirely disputable...
Disputable? Sure. But here he explicitly writes "Christian and Biblical principles," which does not narrow the Founding to sola scriptura or even just the Bible.
You bring up "hard test cases" of the unitarians, but in that era, their non-Trinitarianism was based on interpreting the Bible, not the substitution of "reason" for scripture.
We cannot say that America isn't a Christian nation because Story, Marshall and J. Adams were unitarians. Barton claims America only for Christian and biblical principles, not orthodox theology. [Indeed, he enlists endorsements for the thesis from observant Jews like Dennis Prager.]
Barton's claims are far more substantive than mere "nominalism," but are far less extravagant as they're made out to be. Let's stick with the facts.
The true "hard test cases" that must be addressed are quite straightforward, as to why a completely heterodox Thomas Jefferson said stuff like this, an argument that completely supports Barton's thesis and enlists Jefferson quite effectively:
Why was Jefferson a faithful attendant at the Sunday church at the Capitol? He once explained to a friend while they were walking to church together:
"No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example." Notice that Sunday services were held at the Capitol, a US government building. This is far more fundamental than the theology of Founding-era unitarians. They are a legitimate Square Two, but this is Square One.
"No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example."
I won't nail Barton for this because it's featured in James Hutson's quotebook. And Hutson admits there it's unconfirmed. But it is unconfirmed and likely apocryphal.
As far as the substance goes, yes I think Jefferson did believe society needed religion and "Christianity" was the best religion in a comparative sense because of Jesus' moral teachings. But that's why he went to church. That's different than supporting Christianity because it is true and other religions are false.
It's not an "orthodox" defense of Christianity but a unitarian defense of Christianity.
Likewise Franklin stated in his Mufti of Constantinople quote that he'd support whatever "religion" the people chose, be it orthodox Christianity, Islam or ???
Franklin, like Jefferson probably wished society would remain "Christian" but disbelieve in the Trinity, eternal damnation, and certain non-essential parts of the Bible. Is this still "Christianity"? Would Barton's followers think this is still "Christianity"? Would Barton?
In terms of Barton not claiming that all or even most of the FFs were evangelical prooftexters; he does nothing to dispel the notion. He's slippery. He gives the Rev. Blairs of this world winks and nods with articles like this.
And not all or even most of the unitarians supported Trinity denial on biblical grounds. Many of them supported Trinity denial on rationalist grounds as well. For instance, the two most important unitarians of the Founding era were Jefferson and J. Adams, because they weren't 2nd and 3rd Presidents. That's something that can't be ignored or argued away.
Yes, Jon, but you're arguing the exception as the rule. This is the flaw in your method, and indeed, that JAdams and Jefferson felt the need to keep their un-orthodoxies under their hats tells us much more about the Founding era.
Franklin's quote doesn't quite your characterization of it. His defense of Islam stood only for for good ol' American religious pluralism, that anyone can speak---and contra Rev. Kowalski, proselytize, Mufti or revivalist.
"Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."
What can't be argued away is the bulk of Barton's thesis: his critics are interested in finding only the occasional error and they avoid the lion's share that is true.
With that said, you're correct that Barton only highlights the things that favor his case. As advocates, not historians, do. But his critics do exactly the same thing.
Yes, Jon, but you're arguing the exception as the rule. This is the flaw in your method, and indeed, that JAdams and Jefferson felt the need to keep their un-orthodoxies under their hats tells us much more about the Founding era.I think it tells us something about the social dynamic of the era. But I'd hardly call them exceptions. If Washington, Madison and everyone else were clear orthodox Trinitarian/the Bible is infallible types, you MIGHT have a point. But they weren't. GW and JM were probably unitarians. According to David Holmes so likely was Monroe. And JQA vacillated between unitarianism and trinitarianism his whole life and I think ended in the unitarian camp.
Enough important figures were either explicitly heterodox and/or refused to affirm orthodoxy such that it takes us out of the "outlier" realm.
and/or refused to affirm orthodoxy..
Negative inferences only. You cannot "claim" Washington and the rest. We can only guess at their beliefs.
And again, you emphasize the private man over the public man. The public Jefferson attended religious services held in government buildings, far stronger an argument [actually two arguments in one!] than any negative inferences about anyone's private beliefs.
I can claim that Washington was not an identifiable orthodox Trinitarian Christian who believed the Bible the infallible Word of God.
Re Jefferson & Church services the WHY is as important as the action. And it wasn't to affirm the orthodox doctrines of the Anglican Church or Christianity as the only true religion, others false.
I keep stressing orthodoxy because orthodoxy is tied to the exclusivity of Christianity. The unitarian approach to Christianity turns Christianity into a more generic moralizing creed where all virtuous people, even those who are not self consciously "Christians" (perhaps even atheists!) can be accepted into the creed.
Re public actions, when Jefferson Madison and Washington PUBLICLY spoke to Native Americans, they addressed their Great Spirit God as the same ones Jews and Christians worship.
That says something. Whenever they had the chance to include religious outsiders into the civil religion, they did.
I keep stressing orthodoxy because orthodoxy is tied to the exclusivity of Christianity. The unitarian approach to Christianity turns Christianity into a more generic moralizing creed where all virtuous people, even those who are not self consciously "Christians" (perhaps even atheists!) can be accepted into the creed.Even the "civil religion" of America was more than a "generic moralizing creed." There is a God in there with very specific charateristics that don't fit atheism, deism, Buddhism or Hinduism.
[Islam we shall leave for another day.].
It was that God who was worshiped in the halls of Congress!
You keep stressing orthodoxy because it's the best tool to undermine the notion of America as a Christian nation, although David Barton nowhere claims America for orthodoxy. He uses the term "Christian and biblical principles."
As for George Washington, you can claim him only by negative inference, which is by nature inconclusive.
As for including other gods like those of the Native Americans' the word is subsume, to claim their God as the Christian God, the true [and only] God. It's a 2000-yr-old Christian technique. See Acts 17, or skim this.
http://www.pbc.org/files/messages/4460/0439.html
"Nowhere" is too strong a term. Barton did claim 52 out of 55 members at the CC as orthodox Christians, after ME Bradford. I'm not sure if he's still endorsing the figure. Using Bradford's method you could claim all 55, including Franklin, as orthodox Christians because what they looked to was formal affiliation with a church that professed orthodoxy. And all of them qualify under this test. Even Wilson whom Bradford labeled a Deist because at the time, I suppose, he couldn't find Wilson's nominal affiliation with (I do believe, I am going to have to double check this one) the Anglican and Presbyterian churches. From what I remember Wilson like Franklin (the other Deist) had at times been nominally associated with those churches but was not lifelong members of either.
Maybe we should try to email Barton and press him. Does "Christian" and "biblical" mean orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, the Bible as infallible, eternal damnation because I'd imagine to the overwhelming majority of his followers, it does.
You might remember some of the debates we had with Hercules Mulligan who is not stupid and does a much better job arguing his position than OFT. To him "Christian" and "biblical" meant the same thing and all equated with Sola Scriptura, orthodox Trinitarianism and eternal damnation.
The 52 out of 55 question is a valid one. I don't know if he still says it, and if he does, you and JRB can give him both barrels with my full support.
I'm going with Barton's latest update of the thesis. He has erred in the past, and Chris Rodda did her best work dismantling him on the Northwest Ordinance, although I have not crosschecked her. However, I make it there are over 100 truth claims at that weblink, and anyone interested in the truth will examine at least the best 50, not the worst 5.
Does "Christian" and "biblical" mean orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, the Bible as infallible, eternal damnation because I'd imagine to the overwhelming majority of his followers, it does.I don't know if eternal damnation really figures into the Founding, although the D of I refers to a "Supreme Judge of the world" [capital S, capital J, and language inserted not by Jefferson but by congress, if I recall correctly], a very specific notion of God not found in the aforementioned atheism, deism, Buddhism or Hinduism.
This last bit goes directly to Square One.
"I keep stressing orthodoxy because orthodoxy is tied to the exclusivity of Christianity. The unitarian approach to Christianity turns Christianity into a more generic moralizing creed where all virtuous people, even those who are not self consciously "Christians" (perhaps even atheists!) can be accepted into the creed."
This "either or" false dilemma needs to be examined. I still have not seen a good definition of Orthodox or Unitarian. I also think it dangerous to simply this issue so much so that we can only use two terms. Not all so called orthodox Christians belived that everyone should believe like them and use the government to enforce this. Nor do they today.
In order to set up a definition of Christian nation, Barton’s essay early on uses quotes by Associate Justice David Brewer that includes:
“America was ‘of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation’ because Christianity ‘has so largely shaped and molded it.’” 7
7. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 40.
Immediately following the above statement in the original, Brewer gives his rationale for defining America as a Christian nation:
“In order to determine what we ought to do for the future of the republic we must review its history, inquire into the causes which have made its growth and influenced its life, ascertained which have been the most controlling and which have helped on the better side of its development, and why they have been so influential.”7
This is a statement that I can wholeheartedly get behind. However, if we are to inquire into the causes of what makes us “us” today, the term Christian nation is too narrow. If the question is, “what religious tradition or traditions have most influenced the nation?” then Jewish and Christian traditions is obviously the correct answer. However, what makes us “us” today has its roots in areas outside of Judaism and Christianity as well (science has been fought tooth and nail by the Christian establishment and continues to be fought tooth and nail by fundamentalist Christianity today. I believe this goes for fundamentalist Judaism and Islam also.)
We would better call ourselves an "Enlightenment nation", a phrase that would be inclusive of all faith, philosophical and legal traditions from antiquity until now that influenced the principles of the founding and would also embrace science and the scientific method endorsed by the founders as vital to the nation’s growth and prosperity – and how right they were. "Enlightenment nation" would be inclusive of all Americans and would set up no implicit tests for inclusion. AND, being a fuller and more realistic reflection of our history,it would meet Justice Brewer’s rationale for determining the future of the Republic.
There, I have solved the culture wars. Now that that's over, I wish Mr. Barton all the best.
We would better call ourselves an "Enlightenment nation", a phrase that would be inclusive of all faith, philosophical and legal traditions from antiquity until now that influenced the principles of the founding...
Hah---that's a more expansive definition of the Enlightenment than the facts could ever bear, and precisely why claiming all good things for secularism [or notChristianity] has led to the rise of Barton, et al., against such revisionism.
The question is, how much of the faith, philosophy and law were already in the Christian tradition.
[As for your statements on science, true, there is the Galileo thing, but you'll also find many medieval scientists were churchmen.
And perhaps the Galileo story is not so black and white as "common knowledge" makes it...
http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp]
Tom: "[...] that's a more expansive definition of the Enlightenment than the facts could ever bear, and precisely why claiming all good things for secularism [or notChristianity] has led to the rise of Barton, et al., against such revisionism."
For certain, secularism is anti-theocracy, and enlightement is anti-dogma, but your words infer (for me) a false dichotomy.
Enligthenment is not synomymous with secularism, and secularism is not synonymous with anti-theism.
I think it is fair to say our nation is a product of both the Enlightenment and of Religion, and that we are governed by law whose text is secular, but which is often inspired by Religion.
Personally, I don't see how the founding could have taken place without the enfluence of both the Enlightenment and Religion.
Several points...
First, there's plenty of ignorance and misinformation to go around, when it comes to the debate over America's founding. I really get frustrated with the one-sided attacks on Barton here, as if David Barton is primarily responsible for all the ignorance that's out there. I would argue that there's just as much (if not more) ignorance or misinformation on the Left as there is on the Right, when it comes to early American history.
Second, Barton speaks to hundreds of churches. Most of them are filled with honest, sincere, well-intentioned people who are genuinely (and with GOOD reason) concerned about the moral decline in our nation. Sure, there are some ignorant wackos and such, but please don't paint a broad brush.
Third, Jon mentions hate crimes laws. There are some valid concerns that (eventually) preaching against homosexuality from the pulpit will bring civil or criminal penalties against pastors and churches. There are some situations in Canada and Europe that reinforce these concerns. For that matter, check out the Sedition Act from early in our own history.
Fourth, what so many Barton critics fail to realize (and what TVD is trying to point out) is that Barton's popularity is really a backlash against left-wing secularism.
Brian,
You make a good point. Though I think the difference in America is that we have a First Amendment and current jurisprudence makes no exception for "hate speech," nor do I think it ever will.
And if one day you are put on trial for voicing your conscience on homosexuality, I pledge on my honor as a gentleman to contribute to your defense, pro bono.
I think a lot of the "criminalization of Christianity" is overblown. Present American law, in many ways, is really disappointing; I'm a libertarian-anti-statist; so you can understand why I have a problem with the current regime. However, capitalism and technological wonders have brought us to a point where the average, indeed the average poor Joe, in America lives in a great deal of material comfort, while having to deal with taxes that are too high and ridiculous govt. regulation.
What I'm trying to say is that all of us in general and conservative Christians in particular have it easy in a RELATIVE sense compared to what folks in the past have suffered.
There is not serious persecution of Christians as compared to what the early Apostles went thru.
And Drs. MacArthur and Frazer, despite the personal differences I have with their theology and worldview, understand this precisely because their political-theological outlook makes them immune to culture war hyperbole.
And I've met the mouthpiece of the Philadelphia seven or whatever you call them. I lived in the area and was at one of the gay pride events, years before he got arrested.
He was not preaching the Truth in love. He came across as worse than OFT, but not as bad as Fred Phelps. You are a much better witness for the evangelical Christian faith than Michael Marcavage (or OFT for that matter).
Still, 1) he shouldn't have been arrested or charged with any crime. Maybe I'm saying that because 2) clownishness really doesn't bother me but entertains me. Most of the gays there were laughing at Marcavage and company. And I only wish that all of them did. One stereotypical but true talent gay men in general have (after for instance Paul Lynde and most recently seen on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy) is acerbic wit and talent in comedic put downs. The gay community certainly has enough of that kind of talent at its disposel to use that as their primary weapon against the Michael Marcavages of the world.
Yes, free speech might survive, but not much else. Mr. Tubbs' concern is not only a theoretical one. It's here.
Plenty of pro bono work out there for you, Jon.
Tom,
That's part of the bureaucratic tyranny in present day Western Civ. It's not the same thing or even remotely close to being thrown to the lions (I think Christians need to appreciate this).
And what a ridiculous story; I wonder if there were no such anti discrimination laws (or even if there were) and the photoshop owners said "look, I'll take your $$ and do your business, but here is how I feel about same sex marriage, and now you know, I'm giving you the option to take your business to a photoshop who doesn't see it this way, in fact I'd prefer if it you did,"...if the lesbian couple didn't take their business elsewhere. Forcing someone to take someone's business and make more $$. The irony.
Brian: "Barton's popularity is really a backlash against left-wing secularism."
Nicely said.
There appears to be (have been) a polarization of our population due to a focus on "left-wing secularism" and "right-wing sectarianism".
I am hopeful this religous divide will begin to diminish.
Jon, to many people, some things are more important than $$.
That story isn't silly. It's not only the present, it's the future. Your friends at PL find the governor's objections in New Hampshire laughable. But they find all concerns like Mr. Tubbs' laughable, irrelevant and at best a nuisance.
I tried to get them to take Gov. Lynch's reservations seriously, but they prefer to steamroll over them. The culture wars continue, but let's not pretend New Hampshire is about principle and not the naked exercise of power.
The New Mexico case was not about principle, it was the "new majority" steamrolling. The principle of the conscientious objector was born back at the Founding and the debates over the Second Amendment and is a long-held American principle. As we slip and slide into a "post-Christian" world, the state's naked power consumes all. Funny, that.
__________
Ben, the divide grows. I imagine the Christian nation wingnuts would exercise their power if they could, but it peaked way back in the Reagan era, not Dubya's. Even then, they didn't get very far on theocracy, nor is it proven that they ever sought that.
But see the above on the pendulum quite decisively having swung the other way of late, and in my view---and backed by evidence---that side of the pendulum more willing to use it as a weapon.
Tom,
I doubt any significant numbers sought out a real theocracy. My comment was that the manner of expession by the far right resulted in an over-the-top response by the left wing ... and vice versa.
Perhaps, and I'll agree for the sake of argument, since the provocation vs. overreaction debate never leads anywhere.
Tom: "Perhaps, and I'll agree for the sake of argument, since the provocation vs. overreaction debate never leads anywhere."
There's some great symbolism in that ;-)
Post a Comment