His official bio on the WallBuilders Web site says nothing about Barton’s educational background, probably for good reason: It’s not relevant to what he’s doing. Barton earned a bachelor’s degree in “Christian Education” from Oral Roberts University in 1976 and later taught math and science at a fundamentalist Christian school founded by his father, pastor of Aledo Christian Center.
Despite his thin academic credentials, Barton has managed to become a celebrity in the world of the Religious Right based on his research allegedly “proving” America’s Christian character. He has appeared on programs alongside TV preacher Pat Robertson and fundamentalist radio honcho James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. Barton gives hundreds of lectures every year, rallying fundamentalist shock troops to oppose secular government and church-state separation.
All the while, Barton, a tall man who frequently sports boots, a rodeo shirt and a cowboy hat, presides over an interlocking network of for-profit and non-profit groups that have produced a tidy sum for himself and made him a star in the world of the Religious Right. In 2005, Time magazine named him one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
AU on David Barton
My American Creation co-blogger Ray Soller sends me this article from AU on David Barton by Rob Boston. As far as I know, Boston is one of the earliest "deconstructors" of Barton. A taste:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
From the article:
"The Providence Foundation, based in Charlottesville, Va., poses as a benign group dedicated to promoting a “biblical worldview.” In fact, the organization seems to be aligned with Christian Reconstructionism, an ultra-fundamentalist theology that seeks to scrap democracy and impose a harsh Old Testament regime on modern-day America."
This is a huge leap(though possibly true) with no evidence. The things I have read from this guy are no where even close to advocating basing society on the ten commandments. If they are this far off on this guy then I am fairly sure that they exaggerate Barton as well.
I am no fan of Barton(see my comment under Brad's post on Barton)
True, King. The Boston article is thick with innuendo and guilt-by-association, and you point out just one example.
Here is the quote used by Barton regarding the Ten Commandments.
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves . . . according to the Ten Commandments of God." -- James Madison
Jim Allison does a respectable job documenting this history of the bogus quote.
Barton defends his use of the quote with; "While these words have been the most controversial of all unconfirmed quotes, they are consistent with Madison's thoughts on religion and government. They are consistent because the key idea being communicated is self-government, not religious laws or establishments. Our future rests upon the ability of all to govern themselves according to a Biblical standard. Madison could have easily offered the thought."
In defending the quote, Barton evades two points. (1) the quote has no evidential basis. Thus Barton's prior use, and his defense (above), are bogus if not fraudulent. (2) speculation as to what Madison could have said does not mean he is likely to have done so. As a founder, Madison was perhaps the most prolific. However in none of his writings did he express such a sentiment with regards to the ten commandments. If such language is absent from his writing, it is still possible he "could have offered such a thought", but it is unlikely as it would be out of character.
Regarding Madison on the basis of our government;
SECTION 15, Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his RELIGION according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all his other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consider the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as THE BASIS AND FOUNDATION OF GOVERNMENT," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785
... where Madison's phrase "Declaration of those rights" refers to the Virginia's Declaration of Rights.
I've capitalized a few phrases to emhasis Barton's summary.
Barton choose to summarize Section 15 as "Religion ... [is] the basis and foundation of government."
Tom,
This was the most glaring one so I cited it. But no doubt they do the same thing to Barton that they get mad about when he does it. And the game goes on.........
This is a propaganda war and truth is incidental. That is why a guy like Jon that doe a credible job of pointing out the flaws on both sides in invaluable.
Well, King, my problem is that the Rob Bostons and Chris Roddas of the world really don't have much of an affirmative case for their position. So they find a guy like David Barton, hoot and holler over one vulnerable point and ignore the other 100 that are pretty good.
Then they claim they've "proved" that America isn't/wasn't a Christian nation or founded on Judeo-Christian principles or whatever, and claim victory.
I hate defending Barton's sometimes-shoddy work, and you're right about one thing---the combatants in these things seem unconcerned about truth, only winning. [And that's not a bad definition of a sophist.]
When Boston writes:
"[Barton is] arguing that a proper “biblical worldview” means that fundamentalist Christianity must reign supreme over all areas of life –; including government."
...that's complete nonsense, and demonization. Barton by no means is selling such theocracy, and even their favorite bogeyman and whipping boy, Dominionism, advocates that America should some day choose a Christian theocracy, not that it should be imposed.
The irony that Boston's less honest than Barton is lost on his supporters.
When Chris Rhodda (et al) make claims that the US isn't a "Christian Nation", they would all confront the claim that our nation is a Christian Theocracy (as any reasoned person would).
They do not attack the claim/fact that our nation's founding was born of a people of Christian heritage and tradition.
At the same time, they do (often/occasionally) confront claims that our nation is founded in Christian principles. This is a grey area, as some Christian principles support the founding (at least in the minds of the founders), while other Christian principles were in conflict with it. In addition, there are principles that do have origins in Christian theology that also supported the founding, as well as non-Christian principles that did not.
In the absence of specifics, to claim our nation was founded on Christian principles is as erroneous as it it truthful.
"that's complete nonsense, and demonization. Barton by no means is selling such theocracy, and even their favorite bogeyman and whipping boy, Dominionism, advocates that America should some day choose a Christian theocracy, not that it should be imposed."
This part jumped out to me too. Barton is a moralist perhaps but no theocrat. Neither is the guy from Providence Foundation.
Barton is guilty of many of the things that Jon calls him on though. He oversimplifies things that are complex to recruit people to his cause.
The following is from the website of The Providence Foundation:
The Need
Jesus commissioned believers to "make disciples of all nations," which, according to Matthew Henry, means to "do your utmost to make the nations Christian nations."
I would guess that what they mean by Christian nation and to what degree they are trying to achieve that end can be contested. Mr. Boston may or may not be exaggerating and I don't mind that he's called to account. He may well be able to substantiate the harsh ("...scrap democracy and impose a harsh Old Testament regime...") but didn't see the room to expand the article. Anybody got his email?
Their mission is to train devoted disciples to take positions in government, law, media, etc., in order to establish nations guided by a Biblical world view. Old Testament law is certainly within that realm. And they do seem to be rather active in transforming America law and politics in the direction of Biblical governance (upcoming events):
America's Christian History & Biblical Governance
Principles for Transformation of Law & Politics
Including Tours of Jefferson's & Madison's Homes (Monticello & Montpelier)
July 2-4, 2009
One would have to say that Boston may have a point.
One would have to say that Mr. Boston has no point except dogging David Barton, and is less honest, for the reasons expressed above.
Further, JRB, when you write "Old Testament law is certainly within that realm," you are not being exactly honest either. Nobody wants to stone disobedient children or gay folk according to Leviticus except fringe characters who talk shit but have never lifted an actual stone. So just drop it.
Yes, King, David Barton is indefensible on such things. But his squirrelinesses have nothing to do with truth, or the purpose of this blog.
As for Chris Rodda, I like her, for the record. I have never found her in error. But I would never take the time to write a book devoted to David Barton's errors, much less accost him with it. The truth abides without him, and despite him.
JRB,
I have a book they put out called "Libertating Nations" right in front of me. They flat out state they do not want a theocracy or a nation of all Christians. Here is the quote from the Introduction, "A Christian Nation is one that is founded upon Christian principles, whose laws and institutions reflect a Christian worldview."
It goes on to talk about applying Biblical principles to all phases of life. This is not a Theocracy. They go on to state on p.121, "establishing a Christian Nation does not mean to set up an ecclesiastical state where the civil government leaders dictate how everyone is to believe and worship."
It does start to get a little dicey on the next page though as he starts to talk about obeying God and his law. But this is sprinkled with some support for separating government and religious functions. Then again he quotes someone calling Israel a theocracy.
What is my point? This is a propaganda war where truth is secondary. Each side uses broad definitions and is attacked for it. I think Boston might have somewhat of a point if he had explained what he meant and not jumped to conclusions.
I do not agree with the Religious Right in that they seem to focus on influencing society with their dogma more than biblical principles. They also ignore truth and good ideas that do not fit in what they think is a biblical "worldview".
BUT, they have just as much a right as anyone else with ideas based on a philosophy to seek to influence society with those ideas and philosophy as long as they are not forcing things on people. I would say the same to the extreme secularists.
bpabbot stated:
"At the same time, they do (often/occasionally) confront claims that our nation is founded in Christian principles. This is a grey area, as some Christian principles support the founding (at least in the minds of the founders), while other Christian principles were in conflict with it. In addition, there are principles that do have origins in Christian theology that also supported the founding, as well as non-Christian principles that did not."
This is the issue I have with that crowd. How can people who do not understand the Bible say what is and is not a biblical principle? Some say that revolution is not found in the Bible but it is constantly found in the Old Testament. Some say that natural rights is not found in the Bible but do not look at Genesis and understand that man is made in God's image. They also do not look at the charge given Abraham to establish righteousness and justice.
I could go on and on. This debate has really gotten down to people who are pro-abortion, pro-science, and pro-gay marriage against people who are not. They argue it out tooth and nail and the truth gets lost. Biblical principles entail a whole lot more than that. But those who are afraid that Jerry Falwell is going to force them to have a baby they do not want tune everything else out.
Thanks TVD for creating a strawman argument and then calling me dishonest. There is more to Old Testament law than stoning....you should check it out sometime.
KOI, thanks for the response. I don't know anything about The Providence Foundation other than what I read at their website last night. My only suggestion with respect to Mr. Boston is that he be given a chance to defend his position before jumping straight to equivalency. Barton has been challenged and has had to drop the clearly indefensible but seems to have somewhat dug in his heals on other tenuous positions.
TVD makes out that Barton has only made a few innocent errors in "scholarship" and I contend that his dreadful historical scholarship is the result of finding what he wanted to suite his goals and then "getting it out there" to be used over and over and over again by the trusting and unsuspecting.
Call me dubious about their claim not to want control over the civil authorities to dictate belief and worship - why are they expending the effort? By shaping government to be Biblical and to incorporate Biblical law is as exclusive a goal as to seek implementation of Sharia law.
What is civil law missing that Biblical Law will add? Well, for one thing, an expectation to worship only within the constraints of one religious viewpoint. It doesn't take stoning to coerce obedience, pay to play comes to mind - "you're either one of us and with us or your not" can be a pretty strong motivator when it comes to dishing out employment and education opportunities. What does a Biblically run government do with the others?
There's a near 2000-year history of the tangled and ugly engagement of church and state that provides a model for this, with the church often assuming as much or more power in civil affairs than the nominal "civil" authority. All the while maintaining enough plausible distance to get the "civil state" to actually do the heavy lifting of applying the match or dropping the blade.
Funny thing about wielding secular power, it has a tendency to corrupt in a secular way. That is why I'm always so mystified with religious movements and their leadership seeking to gain more influence in the civil governance, especially to talk of "Biblical Governance." To control governance, directly or indirectly, is to control the secular coercive power of the state to enforce dogma. Official establishment of one religion or sect is tyranny against all others. What would Jesus think?
All that being said, Barton is actively seeking to impose on government an exclusionary system of religious belief while Boston and Rodda (since she was brought up)seek to preserve a broader tolerance and freedom of religious faith and secular thought. Of the two approaches I believe that Boston and Rodda are more clearly in line with the founding principles of governance.
And, of course, "your not" should read you're not. As always, I blame lack of coffee.
Jrb Stated:
"By shaping government to be Biblical and to incorporate Biblical law is as exclusive a goal as to seek implementation of Sharia law"
It depends what they mean by biblical law. I am not sure to tell you the truth. It makes me a little nervous.
If it is the Ten Commandments then I think they are nuts. If it is the sacrifices and all they are nuts. If it is some of the structures of civil law then I can go with it depending how they interpret it.
Aquinas wrote a lot about the different types of law in the Old testament. He thought some would apply to society now and other parts would be pure evil if applied now. I think it is part of Summa. Tom would know.
Thanks TVD for creating a strawman argument and then calling me dishonest. There is more to Old Testament law than stoning....you should check it out sometime. ..
Oh, really, JRB? Please give some examples so we know what you're talking about. Because since you weren't specific, it just came off as animus and innuendo.
King,
If the "biblical law" does not mean law that goes beyond civil law, then it is hardly worthy of being called biblical. Is the entire Christian Nation vs Secular Nation really about whether we call our laws Christian and not about the laws themselves?
Regarding Sharia law, I have some personal experience. My wife is from Malaysia. The most common application surrounds marriage and death.
In marriage the Sharia law insists muslims marry muslims. If they choose otherwise they will be subject to harassment. Meaning a representative will be appointed to shadow and harass the non-muslim until he/she converts. Another application regarding marriage is sanctioning polygamy (a muslim man may marry up to 4 women in Malaysia). However, many Muslim women are becoming bold enough to seek divorce.
Regarding death, if an individual converts to Islam, when he dies the religious authorities will claim the body, often to the exclusion of the non-muslim family.
Sharia law also seeks to allow for accommodation of religious worship. For example, Friday afternoons are nearly exclusively reserved for prayer, which employers are expected to pay for.
No need to mention politics ... all politicians are Muslim.
In the west we hear of more extreme examples involving stonings and honor killings, but these are very rare and illegal.
What I wonder is ... if biblical law were applied to the US, would it be unexpected that those authorities insist that Christians marry Christians? ... and if they married a non-Christian would daily harassment of that individual be permitted?
Would non-Christians be barred from political office?
Would accommodation of Christian prayer become the norm for all government funded institutions?
These may all sound like small things, but I think it is these small things that have led to our Nations' prominence in the world.
TVD - if you read what I wrote as filled with "animus and innuendo" then it's because you read that into what I said. The writer cannot be responsible for the biases of the reader. Is Old Testament Law within the realm of Biblical world view? Yes, of course. Did I mention stoning and barbarism? No.
I'm not the expert on OT Law but it's my understanding that monetary compensation was often substituted for wrathful blood letting during the penalty phase.
You assume my meaning and the first thing you do is accuse me of being dishonest. You could have asked.
So let me get this straight, JRB. When you wrote
Their mission is to train devoted disciples to take positions in government, law, media, etc., in order to establish nations guided by a Biblical world view. Old Testament law is certainly within that realm...
...you were thinking of "monetary compensation was often substituted for wrathful blood letting?"
And you were charging the Providence Foundation with trying to make that American law?
OK, man, I take you at your word. At best, an unlikely thesis, however.
As for Mr. Abbott dragging in sharia, one should first be aware of the differences between the Bible and the Quran/Hadiths. These differences show why the abstract "one size fits all" approach to religion fails, and his own scenarios serve as a reductio ad absurdum to his own argument.
Lots of animus and innuendo there Tom ;-)
I'm curious. Can you offer some specifics?
I'm not really interested in chatting with you anymore, Mr. Abbott, as I don't find my good will reciprocated. When you write something I find absurd, I'll note it, then move on.
What I wonder is ... if biblical law were applied to the US, would it be unexpected that those authorities insist that Christians marry Christians? ... and if they married a non-Christian would daily harassment of that individual be permitted?
Why is such absurd?
Where I grew up the local Baptist authorities practically forbid marriages to Catholics (and vice-versa). I am quite confident the sectarian authorities would have been willing to place legal barriers against their flock marrying those they found did not measure up to their biblical standards.
In any event, if my concerns / experience are absurd to you, are you suggesting that biblical law would have a positive impact on individual liberty?
If so how?
"...you were thinking of "monetary compensation was often substituted for wrathful blood letting?"
What I was thinking at the time was that Old Testament law is certainly within that realm of the Biblical world view. That is all...a fact statement.
The idea of monetary compensation was merely to demonstrate that there is a larger dimension to Old Testament Law than stoning - as a mild rebuttal to your assertion that I was committing "animus and innuendo." I made no charge that the Providence Foundation was trying to make that American law - once again you set up a straw man argument.
As to "Their mission is to train devoted disciples to take positions in government, law, media, etc., in order to establish nations guided by a Biblical world view," this is almost verbatim from their web page. It is a neutral statement of how they see their purpose. I wrote nothing to insinuate a positive or negative valuation. Again, not trying to be provocative. Just trying to provide a little information that I thought pertinent to KOI's first comment.
At best, an unlikely thesis, however.
Not only unlikely but unstated and not implied.
Like I said, you could have just asked.
Abbot,
I think you are equating things that do not need to be equated. Paying restution for killing you neighbors animal is a long was off from making someone marry someone else.
I understand you have probably been around so control freak Christians. I have too and can relate. It does not mean everyone is the same though. I see a lot of difference between the way Providence Foundation states things and Barton does let alone the nut cases that want to stone people.
This does not mean I agree with them on all points. But I do think they good points they have are ignored by false labels. Each idea should be discussed on its merit. The Barton said it so it must be crap stuff needs to stop unless the idea is crap.
I'm asking now, JRB, for some specifics on their nefarious plan of bringing the US under Mosaic Law. If you had had something in mind, one would think you'd have said it by now.
King,
It is not my intent to "equate", but to inquire.
In any event, I'm now confused. Are all the biblical laws which would be brought to bear on society actually civil/secular laws with ties to a the bible?
Are none of these laws explicitly religious?
If so, except for the superficial (and I think vain) elevation of Christians over non-Christians, what is the point?
Regard "control freaks", it is my impression that they aspire to positions of control ... and that all governments are full of them.
...for some specifics on their nefarious plan of bringing the US under Mosaic Law.
Oy. I'm not quit sure why you keep taking what I wrote out of context and keep making up things that I said other than to provoke an argument that I wasn't trying to have. I DID NOT CALL THEIR PLAN NEFARIOUS (h/t to Garrett Morris, President of the New York School for the Hard of Hearing). I was just providing information based on an earlier comment. Really. That was it. I was in a peaceful, can't we all just get along and love one another frame of mind when I wrote it. OK, I was numb from writing to 1:30 in the morning (work, it just never stops), but still, I was not trying to be provocative. Oy.
I just summarized their words from their web page. Something along the lines of world domination under Biblical Law. They plan to do this through education and training. OK OK, the world domination language was a little snarky, but not inaccurate. I apologize ahead of time for creating such a hostile and threatening atmosphere.
As to the specifics, such as what part(s) of Old Testament Law they would seek to impose and how they would implement the Law, you'll have to ask them. Maybe they aren't even thinking OTL - but you have to admit that most people think OT when discussing Biblical law.
Maybe there's some other kind of Biblical law that they have in mind. Maybe they're not even thinking Biblical law, although when they talk Biblical governance and transformation of law and Biblical world view it's not really and unfair inference to assume that they mean some kind of Biblical law. You'll have to go to their web site and see if they explain their understanding of what constitutes Biblical governance and how they plan to transform the law to accommodate that.
As to nefarious, that is in the eyes of the beholder. Is Biblical governance contrary to the American founding spirit? Well I have to say yeah - specifics can be found in the constitution. I would also venture that it is extra Biblical (perhaps in a nefarious way), but that opens a new can of worms that others are better qualified to argue.
I see that I didn't provide a link to The Providence Foundation website.
Bpabbot,
I am not totally sure what they mean by using Biblical law. I am not saying I even agree with them. I am more a Biblical principles guy. Principles are found in lots of different arenas and need not conflict. I know some say 'principles' and all they really want to do is just tell young mothers they are murderers and gays that God hates them.
I am sincere though. I start with the character go God expressed in Exodus 34:5-7 and go from there. As I stated before who could opposed infusing society with compassion, grace, patience...... and justice? Tough and complicated subject that most try to oversimplify. Then they turn it into a mudslinging contest.
I respect your questions by the way and I do think you are pursuing honest inquiry.
King, I'm in complete agreement that society could use more compassion, grace, and patience.
I don't see how subjecting society to Biblical law would be constructive toward those ends.
In fact, I think it evident that our Founders recognized that it would be destructive toward those ends.
If I sound like I'm arguing against you, it is not intended. In fact, I'd guess you have a similar sentiment.
I'm reading you as carefully as I can, JRB, but can't find the specifics you object to. Basically, the word "Biblical" seems to set your teeth on edge, but since you don't seem to know what the Providence Foundation actually means by that, we're not talking about anything specific you object to.
I defend these people only in the abstract against careless and routine slanders; perhaps they have some specifics I'd object to meself. But absent any evidence...
"Biblical worldview" is something Jurgen Habermas argues for as a [the?] foundation for Western civilization, and he's not even Jewish or Christian. I content myself with arguing from his POV, a far more neutral one with no skin in the game.
Although the Providence Foundation offers a fellow named Vishal Mangalwadi, who argues that India's progress into democracy and what Habermas calls "universal egalitarianism" is a result of not the Enlightenment or secular humanism, but of the Biblical worldview brought to India by the British colonization. That would not be out of line with Habermas.
That's far more interesting, since India doesn't have 2000 of Christianization to sort through to see what's what. Call it a controlled experiment, with the results quite relevant to religion and the American Founding.
Bpabbot,
I am not advocating the law in general sense. As a Christian I believe that Christ came to fulfill the law. With that said, there are certain parts of the Old Testament Law I think are sound for civil government and others that I think were part of the law that was fullfilled. I look to where Jesus asked he who had no sin to throw the first stone type thing.
I hope this make sense but it is hard to explain in a comments section. I have been invited to contribute on this blog maybe I will do a post on what I am trying to say. Aquinas talked about the different types and uses of Old Testament law a lot. Maybe Tom can chime in here since he knows Aquinas' writings a lot better than I do?
King, I share your view of Jesus and the law he sought to fulfill. I wish all who follow the religion inspired by Jesus' living testament would come to share a passion for a perspective congruent with my understanding of Jesus' morality.
However, I am doubtful that many, if any, Christian Nationalists do. Their words are so full of divisive and exclusive language I can't understand how they are able to reconcile their position with the example of Jesus :-(
King, I'm still catching up on my study of Protestantism, but what I think you're trying to articulate is what's called "dispensationalism," that Jesus' Law of Love per John 9 doesn't stone the adulteress, but spares her, saying to her fellow sinners, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
The Law of Love and of mercy takes the place of mere "justice."
It fulfills the Mosaic Law, although it doesn't replace it. What she did was still wrong. It's what you said about the difference between "proscriptive" [what is wrong] and "prescriptive" [what should be done about it].
The modern Christian, even most of the cementhead ones, know the difference between Mosaic Law and Jesus' "fulfillment" of it. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice."
TVD - look at my first comment, the one that incurred your wrath and the one for which you accused me of being less than honest. There was no offense that warranted a defense.
It's not so much "Biblical" that sets my teeth on edge, it's "Biblical governance" and the explicit drive to teach "Principles for Transformation of Law & Politics" so that America and the nations of the world can be "Christian nations" (this mission is stated on their site - no guesswork involved).
There's an article - Qualifications for Godly Officials - available at the Providence Foundation website that gives a hint as to how they view applying the Biblical worldview of civil law (which, perusing the site it becomes obvious that the reference is to the Mosaic law):
It is also important for Godly leaders [JRB - those without a sufficient fear of God not being qualified: again from their website] to have knowledge of specific application of civil law. They should understand God’s civil laws and how they apply. For example, understanding and applying the appropriate penalties God sets forth in the Bible for violating criminal law would alleviate many of our criminal problems today. In brief, penalties for violating the civil law were: 1) Restitution for theft. 2) Corporal punishment and/or fines for minor offenses. 3) Death for serious offenses against life or incorrigibility. 4) City of refuge for accidental death.
Sounds fairly OT to me. As far as death for incorrigibility I refer you to the inquisitions and to the Puritan experiment in theocracy, Biblical governance. Unbelievers, heretics* and infidels beware.
*Christians that choose the wrong version of doctrine (ouch).
Am I saying this will happen? Given a survey of history....... breaking out the magic eight ball.... quit possibly if they are successful in getting enough "Godly leaders" into civil government to transform law & politics to conform with their idea of Biblical governance.
These appear to be people that are only incidentally concerned with individual salvation through faith in Jesus Christ or the achievement of individual virtue and morality. These people appear to want to establish God's Kingdom on earth. You know, dominion of civil society. Maybe not all at once but they'll keep on chugging.
This should be enough to make even George Washington's teeth on edge.
Tom you've raised in interesting point.
I'm find your understanding of Mosaic Law and it fulfillment to my liking (not that the opinion of an atheist is of any consequence to theology).
However, if Biblical law were to apply to our society would it favor mercy or sacrifice (punishment)? ... and how may such an application of sectarian law strike a balance that would be preferred over a civil/secular solution?
Tom,
Didn't Aquinas talk about the different kinds of law in the Bible? I remember reading that he said some of it would be dangerous to apply to civil law today.
JRB,
We are back to what I read from earlier in their book. Their definition of Christian Nation is not a Theocracy. They seek to apply Biblical principles and some law to society. That does not mean that they want to stone people, reistitute sacrifices, ..... I think it is a poor choice of words for sure. But if you look at the practical things they advocate most of it is reasonable even to the atheist. They are just trying to make sure that these ideas are labeled Christian thus proving that God deserves the credit for America's progress. See the previous comments by bpabbot and myself for clarity as to what I am getting at. I think Tom does a good job of explaining it in his comment.
This next comment is general not toward anyone it is something that is beginning to trouble me about this whole secular humanist push to label America as a Secular Nation as far as the ideas that shaped it:
One of the things that Ed Brayton stated about Barton and others like Alan Keyes two years back that really hit me and inspired me was that people who cannot teach a biology class because of their lack of education on the topic should not be seeking to control school board policy. Or for Barton, that if he does not have a degree in History he should not be going around as a pastor saying the stuff he says.
I thought Ed was right and still think so. Some people who have never even read a biology book want to decide what goes in it and what is taught. This is wrong. But it is equally wrong to make accusations against the Christians when most who do so have not read the Bible in depth(if at all) and do not have at least some informal teaching. This goes for people like Boston who accuse Providence Foundation without even reading the books.
Even if he read the book he would have to have a good working understanding of the nuances of Biblical law and Mc Dowell's understanding of it to comment.
This is being written by a Christian that called up Barton's people while back and asked them to shut up. I think I had a more mild discussion with the Providence Foundation people because on the surface(I read two books and other pamphlets and still feel I have a surface understanding) I think they are more mild. I still do not like much of what any of these groups do because it always seems to veer off into electing a Republican who will put an end to abortion.
But they do have some good ideas at times and people ignore them because it is painted with the brush: of FUNDIE TALKING POINTS. If someone who cared enough about what people like Ed and Jon say to call them up and ask them to shut up is stating that it is not all bad then I would hope people would listen. We cannot throw the baby out with the bath water.
KoI –
First, I am in complete agreement that society (all societies) can use more compassion, grace, and patience. And I'm in complete agreement that religion, when used to inform the individual in virtue and morality, is not incompatible with participation in civil society. I'm also of the opinion that people can be quite capable of being just, virtuous, moral, and compassionate without participation in religion or a particular religion. I’m also aware that everyone is capable of committing grievous harm on others, regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Just as you’re concerned that Boston may be making unsubstantiated or indefensible claims and that The Providence Foundation got short shrift in the example you cited I’m concerned that you are making the same error in assuming that Boston hasn’t read their materials or that he does not “…have a good working understanding of the nuances of Biblical law and Mc Dowell's understanding of it to comment.” In just the couple of days that I’ve poked around their site and having read excerpts of and commentary on their materials I am still of the opinion that he “may have a point.”
Although I posted a bit of evidence that the Providence Foundation, in their own words, is likely fond of the OT law (as proscription and prescription) I make no claim as to if/how they would plan on bringing about “Biblical governance” or how the would implement the Law if the could, whether old-school OT or tempered with Jesus' message of justice with mercy. I merely allude to the historical record as to how it has been done.
I’m also with TVD in that I’m not overly concerned, at least at the moment, but many in the Christian nation movement have stated that they have all the time in the world - it should be noted that I did not insert a rapture commentary - and that they can be patient. Although I think that I am concerned given the positions of power that they have obtained and the amount of money that they control. I'm also happy that less radical Christian elements also share in the concern.
When Rob Boston or Chris Rodda or Jon Rowe or Ed Brayton “hound” people like Barton they are not just participating in a propaganda campaign – they are striving for honesty and integrity. Yes, I've heard the argument that there are greater Truths manifest in the lesser untruths - can't say that I'm on board with that one. If we, as a nation, should care about accurate history and not want to see it falsified and distorted then for political advantage, as some would say, they are doing the work of the angels. If you want to see, or don’t mind seeing, our historical record falsified and distorted in order to build a narrative to support a particular cause or world view then I guess they aren’t doing the angels work – probably Satan’s. To merely conflate the two sides as propagandists is a false equivalency. Unless, I guess, you feel that there are no objective facts to adhere to. in which case I guess it's wide open.
And by you, unless specified otherwise, I am not pointing at anyone here - it is the royal you as in the royal we.
Jrb,
I do not think that Jon is a propagandist at all. I have commented many times that he is very objective and bring balance. I disagree with him on some of the points he makes but not on anything major.
Ed does get into some of this at times when he mudslings. I have called him on it when I think he is doing it. But I have stated numerous times that I think Ed is honest and consistent. He goes against the grain of what he readers think when he thinks he needs to.
I do not know Rodda nor have I read the book. I did call her out one time on Ed's site about the whole "Liars for Jesus" attitude. I have been in the same circle as the Barton's of the world and find them at time deluded but not liars. At least not intentionally.
I have not read much of what Boston has written but the post was a stretch. I feel that if Rodda or someone else was on the opposite side they would have called it lies. It is not lies it is omissions and exxageration. If I called it lies I would be wrong.
I am all for finding the truth but lets not ignore the fact that this whole thing is slowly becoming a pissing contest where people are so consumed slamming the opposition the pursuit of truth starts to be lost. This is a very complex issue and cannot be simplified to the degree that some want it to be.
I stand by what I said though, if Ed and others want to make statements about who is qualified to say what then it has to go both ways. That is why I respect Jon a lot. He takes the time to go through the Bible and try to understand the nuances.
JRB stated:
Just as you’re concerned that Boston may be making unsubstantiated or indefensible claims and that The Providence Foundation got short shrift in the example you cited I’m concerned that you are making the same error in assuming that Boston hasn’t read their materials or that he does not “…have a good working understanding of the nuances of Biblical law and Mc Dowell's understanding of it to comment.”
My Evidence:
The Providence Foundation, based in Charlottesville, Va., poses as a benign group dedicated to promoting a “biblical worldview.” In fact, the organization seems to be aligned with Christian Reconstructionism, an ultra-fundamentalist theology that seeks to scrap democracy and impose a harsh Old Testament regime on modern-day America.
In 2003, McDowell penned an article giving the “biblical” perspective on slavery. The essay was based heavily on the writings of R.J. Rushdoony, the late Christian Reconstructionist theologian who espoused some forms of slavery as well as executing people for adultery, homosexuality, witchcraft, worshipping false gods and a variety of other offenses.
McDowell’s article, posted on WallBuilders’ site, says the American form of slavery was wrong, but notes, “In light of the Scriptures we cannot say that slavery, in a broad and general sense, is sin.”
He makes this bold statement and his evidence is that the guy made a speech on slavery(one subject of thousands in the OT) and quoted the view of a reconstructionsist. So this is evidence that he is a reconstructionist. It is a huge leap with horrible support.
I think it happens because of the way Religious Righters are demonized, attacked, and their motives always questioned as if they have some sinister plan they will not admit. It goes back to the whole "Liars for Jesus" thing. A whole lot of assumptions are made and then people run with it.
Exactly, King. It's like saying all Democrats are like Code Pink.
JRB, if that group wants to institute [with or without force]
1) Restitution for theft. 2) Corporal punishment and/or fines for minor offenses. 3) Death for serious offenses against life or incorrigibility. 4) City of refuge for accidental death...
then I share your objections. But neither of us knew that at the beginning of this discussion, and we still don't know for sure.
However, many mainstream Muslims envision that the US will one day willingly embrace sharia as the natural progress of things, likewise without force. Sharia, of course, has pretty much the same view and dynamic of law as this OT stuff.
We of course do not call them nutjobs or single them out for ridicule or even alarm.
I went and read the chapter about government in a Christian Nation in the book "Liberating the Nations" by the PF and they were advocating individual rights, freedom of religion, decentralization of power....
My only issue is their weak argument that all of the ideas of American government they advocate come from specific things in the Bible. He seeks to say that the Hebrew Republic had and Executive Branch pre King days? He also seems to ignore some of the stoning, the refusal to let people of other faiths in and things like that....
It seems to want to claim all the good stuff for the Bible and eliminate all the troubling stuff. I think this is Jon's issue. He is right in this. They must explain the fulfillment of the law and admit that some good ideas exist that did not come from the Bible. Until they do the Frazer's and the Brayton's of the world will see the cake and the fact that they want to eat it too!
But they are by no means Theocrats at all unless they are using this book to suck people in and then nail them with a hidden agenda later. I highly doubt it. This leads me to believe that Barton is not a Theocrat either that people just do not understand the topic well enough to see the major differences.
A small, really small, group of nut balls want to impose the entirety of Mosaic law and start stoning people and anyone who think the Bible played a major role in our Founding and in good governmental principles gets lumped in as a "Liar for Jesus" nut job!?
Go to Ed's blog today and see Micheal Heath's(usually a brilliant and balanced guy) comment under Dumb ass quote of the day where he says that history proves that Palin is the greatest liar in history and then uses his best evidence as her passing off a fake quote by Barton in a speech.
Since when does a mistake and perhaps ignorance turn into being dishonest? My propaganda war and pissing contest theory stands. People assume the worst right off the bat.
I agree, trying to pull the American republican model out of the Bible is at worst sophistic and at best, still unconvincing. This plays into the skeptics' hands as well, because it's a crummy argument.
And since the skeptic only needs to disprove an argument, that's considered a "victory." But that's not the same as truth.
If there were a plethora of well funded and well connected and influential groups in America calling for Islamic governance and transformation of law and politics to achieve their end (Sharia law, etc.) then I would have the same level of concern as I do when groups like the Providence Foundation do so.
And if their tactics included distorting and falsifying the historical record to do so, I would only hope - and assume there would be - that there would be people and groups out there that would work to preserve the record.
I should note that advocating keeping the record in tact is not necessarily a call to suppress the message - that would be a separate issue.
As far as skeptics not necessarily providing the truth, when skeptics work against obvious mistruths initiated and propagated for political gain - especially for political gain - they are in effect preserving truth (don't conflate the objective record with opinion about the objective record). And when I say mistruths I mean obvious distortions that can be objectively verified against the preserved record. To KoIs point, some people may pick up and use these untruths without knowing they are passing on false information, and to some degree I'm sympathetic to the argument that they are innocent bystanders, but all the more reason for people like Boston and Rodda and Brayton and Rowe. And this doesn't provide cover for the well funded groups and individuals that can afford to fact check.
KoI - Since when does a mistake and perhaps ignorance turn into being dishonest? My propaganda war and pissing contest theory stands. People assume the worst right off the bat.
I think that you just threw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. There was plenty of evidence presented in addition to the one example that you objected to. The record on Palin has been compiled since she burst onto the scene as was pointed out. This is not a case of someone just expressing a knee-jerk reaction or "assume the worst right off the bat."
I think that you were right to challenge Heath's assertion and initiate that discussion but think that your declaration of victory for your propaganda thesis is premature. I also think that you misread his initial argument (the most dishonest elected official v. worst liar of all time) and are also conflating rate with magnitude of results (Hitler v. Palin). I think there's plenty of evidence that Palin is a pathological liar and, as was pointed out, there's a pretty convincing record at Andrew Sullivan's blog as well as Brayton's and face it, the entire interwebs.
It's the reader's/listener's burden to assess the argument and cut out the chaff from the wheat and not get bogged down and then throwing up their hands in indignation at the first instance of opinion or hyperbole declaring the argument null and void.
JRb,
I will make you a deal. I will read Rodda's book if you will read The Providence Foundation's book.
As far as Michael Heath goes the first part of his assertion had some evidence with the VP debates. His second one about history had zero. I asked for it several times and he gave none.
The thing that lacks total credibility is to make that kind of statement and give as your first piece of evidence that someone made a mistake with a date in History.
That is ridiculous. He is usually really thorough though. That is why it shocked me. It also showed that the most balanced of Brayton's crowd has a blind spot on these issues. Many were hurt by the church and I think are blinded at times by bitterness. Equating Sarah Palin with monsters in Histor
I hit the wrong button
anyway to equate her with Hitler in anyway is crazy. That is what the first comment did with its sweeping generalization. He tried to clarify and use frequency supposedly. That is impossible to tell. It was hyperbole as you stated. If she did it they would call her a liar.
My thesis stands and will can pick this up later. I am not declaring victory but I am off to a good start thanks to Mr. Heath doing the very thing that I have been pointing out here on this thread.
KoI - I will make you a deal. I will read Rodda's book if you will read The Providence Foundation's book - [me - I assume that we are talking about America's Providential History, if not let me know].
Deal. I was leaning that direction but I'm currently at some stage of reading 3 other books. I even bought Rodda's book a while back and it keeps getting bumped to the back (although I've read a lot of it at either Talk to Action or it's own website). I should add that I was skeptical of Rodda's work too and, like TVD, did enough fact checking to have a feel that she is fair and meticulous in her research and not just presenting a polemic.
I've been able to read some America's Providential History quotes on line but I think we all know what can happen there (some had ellipses which always raises a caution flag).
And, I'm always being led to follow through on posts and comments here, often seeking out and reading original sources when available (damned curiosity).
I guess this is to say that even though I'll take you up on the deal I'll have to spend a bit of time just clearing the decks.
With all this reading I'm either going to have to become independently wealthy or go on the dole.
JRB,
I have a copy of the book I was talking about which is more proscriptive of what they want to do. I will send it to you if you want.
The books name is "Liberating the Nations". I will work on reading Rodda's book. I am not saying she is wrong in her facts. I have not read much of her writing. I am a little disturbed about the tone of the title.
I also have some issues(see comments above) with PF but think they have some good ideas. But that is a surface understanding. This has been a good dialouge that I hope we continue.
I should add that I was skeptical of Rodda's work too and, like TVD, did enough fact checking to have a feel that she is fair and meticulous in her research and not just presenting a polemic...
For the record, Ms. Rodda is indeed a polemicist, as she examines only one side of the issue, interested in only Barton's errors and in not the majority of things he gets right.
That said, except for her rhetoric, which includes the word "lies" as routinely as the word "the," I have found her largely accurate.
As for normative Islam, JRB, and its belief in the eventuality of the universal application of sharia, that's too big a digression for this blog. I took a quick look at world surveys [there are too few American ones], and I believe they support my contention. The interested reader will also google "sharia" and "UK" [or "Canada"] to see how the issue is playing out with our closest relatives as we speak.
As for the US and the immanence of sharia, we continue to agree that it's no more likely than the Dominionists getting hold; however a google of "Islam" and "Dearborn" [Michigan], particularly the university's installation of ritual washing facilities, may be of interest.
I'm on the fence about them meself, but I'm fond of pointing out toward our Dominionist friends that under our laws---no matter how "Christian" the Founding was---what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Post a Comment