A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.
As cited in the article "Wallbuilders Shoddy Workmanship" by Rob Boston (in the magazine Church & State), Barton admitted he had made the quotes up. He was pressured into publishing a pamphlet entitled "Unconfirmed Quotations" in which he admitted such. The word he used was "spurious" which, for anyone who doesn't know, means "of falsified or erroneously attributed origin" (4). In other words, he made them up.
Which is likely untrue. Barton used some bum quotes, but they were already in circulation, some for over 100 years. Barton never "admitted" making stuff up, and it is unproved, based on my understanding of this entire circus, that Barton can be rightly be accused of ever "making stuff up" on any occasion.
For anyone interested in the facts, which you won't get from the provided link. Whether or not Smith's allegation is sufficient for a defamation trial, I dunno. But it's Smith who is wrong here, and as our pal Chris Rodda likes to put it, that makes him a "liar."
2 comments:
WS Smith wrote:
As cited in the article "Wallbuilders Shoddy Workmanship" by Rob Boston (in the magazine Church & State), Barton admitted he had made the quotes up. He was pressured into publishing a pamphlet entitled "Unconfirmed Quotations" in which he admitted such. The word he used was "spurious" which, for anyone who doesn't know, means "of falsified or erroneously attributed origin" (4). In other words, he made them up.
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-fort-worth/exposing-david-barton#ixzz1aDVfaNF3
Which is likely untrue. Barton used some bum quotes, but they were already in circulation, some for over 100 years. Barton never "admitted" making stuff up, and it is unproved, based on my understanding of this entire circus, that Barton can be rightly be accused of ever "making stuff up" on any occasion.
For anyone interested in the facts, which you won't get from the provided link. Whether or not Smith's allegation is sufficient for a defamation trial, I dunno. But it's Smith who is wrong here, and as our pal Chris Rodda likes to put it, that makes him a "liar."
Hmm. Crickets so far on the above reply. I am unsurprised. Lots of big talk, but when the facts come out...
Who's the "liar" here? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Post a Comment