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.
This should get interesting. But I have to wonder if Chris would not get somewhere faster if she toned it down. I told her this a long time ago. Most Evangelicals are decent people. I fully understand that most live in a bubble and never question what Pastors, Radio People, or other people them deem credible tell them. With that said, they are not liars. Most of them are honest people. I see huge holes in Gregg Frazier's arguments but I do not think he is lying. I am sure he see holes in my arguments but I am not a liar. Point being that if she came off less hostile she would not be so easily dismissed. I know these people well and she just was with one blog post. If her goal is to get the people that she believes Barton deceiving to realize the quotes and contexts he uses are not correct then she is not succeeding in anyway. I am going to look up some of her better points and challenge the guy from a Christian angle. He is called to give an account for the hope that is within Him. If he offered his page for questions they he needs to answer them. But I can understand his point too in that she comes off as hostile.
Well, I wrote the same thing to Warren Throckmorton, that the hostile tone would result in Barton's supporters circling the wagons, and in these culture wars, probably attract more people to the besieged Barton than it would peel off.I'm not sure I was correct about that, but we'll see. In the long run the hubbub might lose Barton the cover and credibility from national figures like Huckabee and Gingrich, who might decide a) to read the books and be appalled or b) decide discretion is the better part of valor anyway.[And it's not as though Huckabee and Gingrich are hot items like they once were.]And it was a twist of fate that the left-wing churches getting involved and crying racism was what brought down Barton's house of cards with his publisher. It was about left-wing and right-wing in the end, as the Barton circus always has been.
Oh, and great to see you again, Joe. Cheers.
Tom,Thanks... I missed our interactions a great deal. Been busy building my own site and social media presence and am finally ready to pick this up again. As for Rodda I warned her long ago to change her tone if she wanted to be heard by the people she feels are being deceived. I like her, I really do but she got punked here. Probably has no chance now with that crowd. I am going to try and help her by taking her better stuff and coming to him from a Christian angle. He is essentially right on most of what he says in that a lot of what Barton is in error on is swallowing a camel while straining out a nat. His overall points are untouched while people nit pick at what he says. His bad for being a pastor and trying to write as a Historian. Gave people that want to destroy the Religious Right all the ammo they need to take him out. I think he can fix this and Rodda can have a chance to be heard if things are toned down. They both are heard only within their own circle. That is not true influence.
Barton has a thesis: The Founding [and Founders] were far more religious than current "common knowledge" has it, and far less hostile to religious expression in the public square than the last 65 years of Supreme Court decisions might lead one to believe.Then he uses [or tortures] factoids in support.But what is the thesis of his critics? That the Founders were all deists and creatures of the Enlightenment, not the "Judeo-Christian" tradition? That they were "strict separationists," referring to the "wall" between church and state?Well, that's the net gist of it, but they do not argue that thesis affirmatively. Instead they refute Barton on a large number of factoids. [The refutations are often correct, mind you.]Barton attempted to argue that not even Jefferson was a strict separationist.He argued not well and punted many factoids, but does that mean that Jefferson was a strict separationist, or does it just mean that Barton did a lousy job?In other words, if Barton was a bad advocate for his thesis, it doesn't make the thesis wrong. Neither does it make his critics' thesis correct---if they even admit to having one. [They seem to prefer attacking to defending.]
Tom,He thesis is correct but he goes the same wrote that Jon and Greg Frazier do: Trying to figure out who was and was not a "Christian"Which is impossible to answer because of the can of worms it opens up. The better question:Was the founding of America heavily influenced by the Western Theological Basis for Government and Rights? Which is absolutely and more so than people think as we discovered by going back even before Aquinas to find rights theories based on imageo dei. All proven by Brian Tierney. Whom we will return to in the weeks to come. I am going to do one post every Sunday. Try to comment some throughout the week. I have an online business so I am on Social Media a lot. This is going to be my get away....
Tom,I did message Rodda and offer to try and help get them to answer her. They have to answer Christians. We shall see if she responds. Posted about it on Main Page. Think it is the first Barton Post I have done.... :)
Post a Comment