This is my official return to American Creation as a Contributor after a long absence and one aborted attempt last year to find time to do this. With that stated, my first post is going to be on something I almost never post about on this blog: David Barton. I have avoided writing posts in the past and rarely comment on those that do. This was because there is a real danger in poisoning this blog by bringing in all the supercharged hysteria found in the "Culture Wars". I believe this because this is mainly a History blog and the job of the Historian is to be a dispassionate umpire that calls the balls and strikes as he sees them.
However, I learned one very important thing in being a History teacher over the years. This is that the only reason to really study the past is to understand the present. The reason for this is obvious. We cannot change the past but we can learn from it. So, I think it wise from time to time that we do bring up the present here at American Creation in order to better understand the History we seek to study. With that in mind, I present to you a response I left to Chris Rodda at Free Thought Blogs with my take on the whole David Barton mania in general.
More specifically in regards to his book being pulled, Rick Green's challenge for anyone to find inaccuracies in Barton's work, Chris Rodda's response, and his back to her. All of which has been chronicled in recent posts by Jon Rowe. Here is my response to Ms. Rodda:
I have just re-engaged back with American Creation and have read the posts that Jon is linking here. I left a comment on one of your posts on Facebook under my Brand page “3rdWAVElands” and would love to hear a response. I have a proposal for you:
If you can give me your most simple and undeniable way in which Barton uses bad history I will take to the blog as a Christian and get them to pay attention. I disagree with you at times but find you to be a fair person. But I am going to call it as I see it on both sides if this thing is finally going to be settled.
If that is your goal I think I can help you. They cannot dismiss me the way they did you. I am a Christian and share many of the same theological and political beliefs as they do. I struggle with a great deal of the latter but still can work with them and speak their language. Recently, I have joined a bunch of Facebook Groups with libertarians and Tea Party evangelicals with the goal of trying to get them to unite.
That may sound like a bad thing to you but in fact if the liberty movement can make end roads with the Religious Right a lot of this national stuff will stop. I personally do not believe homosexuality is right according the Bible but it is not worse than me sleeping with married(separated but still married) women the last few years when I got fed up with the church. As far as society goes I am a firm believer that the state should not have a say in marriage at all or it should be hyper-local at best. No way the Federal Government should be involved in marriage. As far as abortion I believe personally that it is morally wrong. This is both philosophically and theologically. But I know their are other issues that the Bible talks about too that get ignored.
In fact, I find it laughable that the Religious Right that purports to stand for “Constitutional Values” started a 25 year crusade to stack the Supreme Court as their only goal. This by solely focusing on the Presidential races. In the end, their golden child Roberts may have ended their influence. 25 years and no overturn of Roe v Wade but Roberts did pass Obamacare? This has pissed off the "liberTea" movement, as I think it is best labeled, and they are fighting mad. More and more at the Evangelicals that put Roberts there than even Obama who they hate.
What they miss is that our government was just given the unlimited power to tax for the first time in our history. This was the very thing the founders declared independence over. The whole Declaration of Independence was a response to King George telling them he could tax them anyway he pleased. Thus, relegating them to slaves.
The ignorance of History in the liberTea movement is amazing. Someone recently contacted me about helping them with something political wanting my support(I helped a candidate here in Florida with Social Media and have gotten a lot of connections in doing so) talked to me about the Federalist Papers. I told that person I was wanting to finally get around to reading the Anti-Federalist papers and she had no idea what they were? It is not a bad person but it really shocked me that someone so involved in the "Get Back to the Constitution" movement did not know that.
Sorry for the long comment but I think we both want to see accurate History put out there and for people to make up their own minds. When I get you and Ed Brayton away from your followers and over to American Creation where all the supercharged rhetoric gets eliminated you get to see that you are well meaning people that just want to see the truth come out. I am a product of Ed’s willingness to discuss things with people that are trying to be intellectually honest. I went on his blog to tear him a new ass. I left respecting him and his passion. Same with you.
I was one of the zealots you guys seem to be trying to reach to show them that the Religious Right is in error on some key points. I was never all that fond of them but was still heavily influenced because in that world you get isolated from the “evils of this world” and live in a bubble. A bubble I have found that 99 percent of the world lives in. I have traveled enough and talk with enough people overseas to know that most never question it one bit and are taught from birth to listen to the holy man or guru.
Thank God for me that I was atheist skeptic and had to change my mind to believe in the Bible. A choice some might think absurd but nonetheless a choice based on study, questioning, and soul searching. I also was raised a Socialist by my grandfather the famous labor leader William Winpisinger and have converted to "Old School" Conservatism. This through much study, questioning, and soul searching. Same way he came to be a Socialist. I disagree with much of his politics now but he is still my hero because he believed honestly from the heart and knew why he believed.
My point to you Chris is that we can disagree and still work to see that people are presented all sides and encouraged to choose what they believe is right. This is what "Free Thought" is all about. So let me know your best, simple, and most undeniable case against something Barton wrote and I will put the heat on this guy to answer it. Starting with the Proverb he quoted. This is because if he just dismissed you without merit that makes him the fool.
I can see both sides and just want the truth to come out.
23 comments:
This has pissed off the "liberTea" movement, as I think it is best labeled
We prefer "teabaggers," if you please.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagger
I dunno what this is all about, Joe, but if your reappearance means running this blog back through the gutter of amateur history and culture war, I withdraw my welcome back, brother.
Tom,
This blog has this posted 3 times in the last 4 posts. My point in writing this post is to see if either Rodda or Mr. Green will show up to answer the other. Figuring this blog has been more or less of a safe place to keep all the hysteria and hyperbole at bay. Which would allow a chance for a discussion to take place to get to the bottom of all this. I commented on Mr. Green's blog explaining that I believe he needs to address any concerns.
I did this, and told him so, because I am tired of going on blogs that discuss topics I am interested and where all points of view are allowed except those of a Christian. Sooner or later if you "sound" like David Barton they start calling you him and dismiss you.
He needs to address the bad quotes and clean up the mess. This is his opportunity to do so.
Not to worry I do not plan to push this if I do not hear from other side. I am an idealist and tend to want to believe that an honest search for truth is what they all want. The realist that is trying to grow up within me is starting to doubt that this is anything more than people talking to their own circles and demonizing the other. Both camps do it and it pisses me off.
To me worth a shot. To others I might look crazy.
Joe,
Here is a good rule to keep in mind: If you are going to do a research oriented post or a post that offers critical commentary where you take apart and analyze someone's arguments and research, you don't necessarily need to limit your space. But if you are going to do an op ed oriented piece -- which this seems to be -- you should limit your space to no more than 800 words.
.
.
I wonder what makes you think you can see both sides of the argument? Your bias seems quite clear to me.
.
You to be a Christian and an idealist. As such, you already claim to know the truth. How can anyone accept your word if you use your beliefs as proof of anything?
.
Joe, I can't stop Jonathan from having his fun and fanning this Barton thing. As a courtesy, he limits the noise to links offsite.
See, the whole Barton thing isn't history, it's politics. Barton gets the fire because of his association with the Religious Right. And so Chris Rodda---a professional activist herself on the left*---doesn't do history, she does David Barton. Since she focuses on what he gets wrong, we still end up with a one-sided view of things.
This is not history, it's something else, and it's usually uninformative and not pretty.
If you don't read David Barton, you don't need to read his critics. Works for me, anyway. We're more a journal than a newspaper.
_____
*e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/mikey-weinstein-a-traitor_b_1172823.html
I welcome your effort and share your goal “to better understand the History we seek to study.”
But, I think you have “run off the rails” a bit with this paragraph:
“What they miss is that our government was just given the unlimited power to tax for the first time in our history. This was the very thing the founders declared independence over. The whole Declaration of Independence was a response to King George telling them he could tax them anyway he pleased. Thus, relegating them to slaves.”
As a fellow “history teacher,” I often get the rather simplistic “no taxation without representation” mantra, plus references to the “tea tax” from some of my students, as the essence of the American Revolution (AR) and subsequent War of Independence.
My reply is that the AR was much more than a mere tax revolt (I also tell them we will shortly get to Shays’ and the Whiskey rebellions, which were essentially tax revolts – and yes I know, there were other issues as well).
Then we read the Declaration of Independence, and discover that only one (#17) of the twenty-seven grievances says anything about taxes: "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent" (Parliament had imposed taxes such as the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act of 1765 without the colonists' consent).
As you noted, “The ignorance of History in the liberTea movement is amazing.”
The Tea Party is more about the growth of the nanny state and the deficits that come with it. Higher taxes is part of the equation, but the point is that the limits of taxes necessarily go hand in hand with limiting the growth of the welfare state.
On the whole, if the Tea party could freeze taxes at their present levels and downsize the government to accomodate that level of revenue and balance the budget, that would be satisfactory.
And so Taxed Enough Already [TEA] would take a deal where taxes aren't raised any higher.
Phooey. The tea party is mostly about giving recognition to those Americans who have fest disenfranchised for so long. They see themselves are "real Amuricuns" no matter how it's cut. But, they're really people who have sold their mind to a movement.
.
Phil, I understand that you grew up among the fundamentalists and are really really angry at them. They were tyrants of the mind, if not your body, of your life.
Today in 2012, the tyranny is different. Instead of believing in too much, the New Tyrants want you to believe in nothing at all.
Our Founding Fathers were hypocrites. All men are hypocrites except maybe Jesus.
The New Tyrants want to destroy your belief in anything. You think I'm lying? To them, even the Gettysburg Address is bullshit. I'd give you the link if you weren't such a backstabber, Phil, who has betrayed my friendship numerous times. Forgive me for not giving you the knife to do it to me once again.
Get yourself right, my brother. And Happy Birthday, belated.
.
This is not the place to debate the meanings of friendship; but, friends support the development of each other to his or her fullest potential. Have I ever acted in a way to infringe on the development of your potential?
.
I am opposed to the idea that adults should organize in contrivance to close the minds of little children--to me, that is the most god awful form of tryanny imaginable. It is at the core of what Fundamentalist Evangelicals believe they are called to do. Proverbs 22:6
.
Anyone who has actually read what you've written over your years as a commenter at this American Creation blog knows this is how you feel, Phil.
Do you think nobody has been listening? Well maybe nobody has been listening. Except me and all.
But it's time to let it all go, brother. If there is a hell, those people will have hell to pay.
That's all up to God, not you or me. And they should thank God that you're not their judge. Or me for that matter.
They'll get a better deal from God than you'd give them. And vice versa.
Jon Stated:
"Here is a good rule to keep in mind: If you are going to do a research oriented post or a post that offers critical commentary where you take apart and analyze someone's arguments and research, you don't necessarily need to limit your space. But if you are going to do an op ed oriented piece -- which this seems to be -- you should limit your space to no more than 800 words."
Not a problem. Can that include just using the page cut off so those that want to read more can and those that do not can move down the blog quicker? I know this was long but wanted to be true to what I said to Chris. Did not think it would end up being a blog post...
Phil Stated:
"I wonder what makes you think you can see both sides of the argument? Your bias seems quite clear to me.
.
You to be a Christian and an idealist. As such, you already claim to know the truth. How can anyone accept your word if you use your beliefs as proof of anything?"
We all have beliefs Phil. There are 3 general type of people:
1. Those that are empathetic and do not share them or want to discuss them
2. Those that are passionate and do want to share them and discuss them that are open to different points of view and rational dialogue
3.Zealots that are passionate about what they believe and want to share but are impossible to actually have a discussion with because they are no open minded at all. They have a cornerstone on the "truth" and everyone else is wrong and evil for being so...
Often times the zealots thing the majority that are reasonable and open minded are not.
Tom stated:
"Joe, I can't stop Jonathan from having his fun and fanning this Barton thing. As a courtesy, he limits the noise to links offsite."
Not always... But I hear you. I do not think you have ever seen me post on this before and if I do again it will be few and far in between. I wanted to give both Mr. Green and Chris Rodda a chance to prove to me that they want to have an honest discussion. Neither showed up so your point that it is not History is spot on.
Something I probably already knew but I like to give people a chance. Gary Amos and Brian Tierney are the most credible Christian sources on the Founding. Both have a very balanced approach. Amos gets linked in with Barton sometimes but don't we all? His thesis is totally different.
Comes from the same line of thinking about the proper frame for this discussion that I do:
What Christian principles were influential in the founding of America. That is something that is traceable and either proven or not. Who was and was not a Christian is a red herring that is unprovable. It is why those that despise the Christian Right stick to that frame. They know it is unprovable and can muddy the waters. Barton falls right into the trap.
Politically it creates a huge wedge issue that need not be between fiscal and social conservatives. Hate to interject the politics into this but as I said the point of studying the past is to understand the present. Sometimes that means understanding the present to know what to look into in regards to the past...
Tom stated:
"We're more a journal than a newspaper."
Not sure what this means?
JMS stated:
"As a fellow “history teacher,” I often get the rather simplistic “no taxation without representation” mantra, plus references to the “tea tax” from some of my students, as the essence of the American Revolution (AR) and subsequent War of Independence.
My reply is that the AR was much more than a mere tax revolt (I also tell them we will shortly get to Shays’ and the Whiskey rebellions, which were essentially tax revolts – and yes I know, there were other issues as well).
Then we read the Declaration of Independence, and discover that only one (#17) of the twenty-seven grievances says anything about taxes: "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent" (Parliament had imposed taxes such as the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act of 1765 without the colonists' consent)."
I fully understand the nuances to this and was not teaching a History lesson. As with any "Interposition" the reasons for declaring someone a tyrant have to be long and continuous. Thus, the abuses were recorded for many years back. The straw that broke the camels back was the final letter from the King telling them more or less he would tax them anyway he wanted. That was my point.
I am not ignorant of such things. Go through and read my posts on this blog. Then you will have the full context to critique my reasoning.
As for my musings on the current political situation you can visit here for more background into my views and the history I feel back them up:
Two Ideas That Impacted The History Of the Modern World
JMS stated:
"As you noted, “The ignorance of History in the liberTea movement is amazing.”
It ain't no better on the other side brother. It is actually worse...
Tom stated:
"Phil, I understand that you grew up among the fundamentalists and are really really angry at them. They were tyrants of the mind, if not your body, of your life.
Today in 2012, the tyranny is different. Instead of believing in too much, the New Tyrants want you to believe in nothing at all.
Our Founding Fathers were hypocrites. All men are hypocrites except maybe Jesus.
The New Tyrants want to destroy your belief in anything. You think I'm lying? To them, even the Gettysburg Address is bullshit."
About sums up the whole mess. French Revolution all over again:
All tradition is tyranny on the mind of man and holds him back from "Enlightenment" thus needs to be trashed.
I touch on this a bit here:
What The Caterpillar Sees As The End Of The World God see as the Beginning
Phil stated:
"I am opposed to the idea that adults should organize in contrivance to close the minds of little children--to me, that is the most god awful form of tryanny imaginable. It is at the core of what Fundamentalist Evangelicals believe they are called to do."
What does this have to do with anything I posted on? Come on Phil gotta flow with the stream brother. Keep polluting and it rejects you. I do not know if the authors of the posts have the ability to delete comments but if I do these types of comments that are off topic and filled with hyperbole and bitterness will be deleted from this point forward. Let's stay on topic. I too have taken what you said seriously over the years but I am afraid you are a zealot that thinks everyone else is. Not a good place to be...
.
I can think about being a zealot, Joe. Sounds like an interesting area. Why did you use it to describe me?
.
Curious...
Phil,
Because this is really not the place to come and tell all the fundamentalists that inhabit here(none) how much they all suck. It detracts from the discussion. In other words, you are talking more than listening. Hard to make head way doing that. Shame because I used to read your comments and take what you had to say into account. I would like to again but you seem like a man on a mission more than someone that is open to discuss the ideas presented here....
.
Who wrote this:
"However, I learned one very important thing in being a History teacher over the years. This is that the only reason to really study the past is to understand the present. The reason for this is obvious. We cannot change the past but we can learn from it. So, I think it wise from time to time that we do bring up the present here at American Creation in order to better understand the History we seek to study."
Post a Comment