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.
Throckmorton's criticism of Barton is justified. I've actually heard Barton make the claims about Exodus in person. It would be fair for Barton to say that Exodus 18 contains a biblical precedent for republican (small r) government. That's a defensible claim. It's also fair for Barton to say that many of the Founders were familiar with Exodus 18 and that Noah Webster (and however many others he can specifically source) cited Exodus 18 when urging citizens on how they should vote. But Barton clearly overreaches by claiming that Exodus 18 formed the basis of the Founders' conception of popular elections. As a side note, these are the kinds of errors I've seen with Barton. And it's certainly fair to point them out. I don't think it's legitimate to call him a liar, as I think Barton honestly believes what he's saying about the Framers. But he does frequently overreach and jump to conclusions. Thanks for sharing.
Mr. Tubbs,If I posed as if I were an expert on a particular topic and made an assertion that could be easily falsified, than I am lying. I'm lying by posing as an expert who has researched and validated a set of facts where I've done no such thing. I've purposefully misinformed my audience regarding the effort I put into my presentation of falsehoods.In addition your point that Mr. Barton believes he's telling the truth is absurd in many cases. Consider how he frequently changes the words of his cherry-picked quotes to change their meaning. Or fails to reveal John Adams is doing a parody of people who believe in the Holy Ghost in spite of owning the letter this passage comes from; where the text which follows clearly reveals Adams' position - a position Barton conveniently avoids when lying to his audience about Adams' belief regarding the Holy Ghost. There are an overwhelming number of incidents where we can easily demonstrate that David Barton purposefully lies about the facts. I have never heard the man speak and not repeatedly lie.Therefore he's lying from at least two aspects, by posing as if he's validated his facts when he has not, and his purposefully misinforming his audience on many, many facts he knows are not true but presents than anyway as if these facts are certainly true. Purposefully misinforming one's audience is a type of lying - a particularly reprehensible form since it results in public policy decisions not based on lessons learned but instead false arguments which can't withstand scrutiny. David Barton is not only a liar, but with few peers as a liar when it comes to the church-state matters on our history. He's actually made a living as a liar about our history. He distinguishes himself as a liar.I'm sure there are other ways where Mr. Barton lies beyond the two I present here.
Post a Comment