Friday, April 27, 2012

Maybe We Need A Documentary

See John Fea's post on the matter. It seems to me one thing Christian Nationalist revisionist historians are good at is producing slick videos. Chris Rodda has produced some cool home made videos that debunk them. But I'm not aware of any kind of documentary oriented professionally produced videos/movies done by folks who want to "check" Christian Nationalist history. I know PBS has done some shows that deal with these issues; but I'm not sure if any of them have had a thesis of "checking" Christian Nationalism. Perhaps we should make one. (Though they cost $; we'd have to find a generous donor or donors to finance it.)

51 comments:

Phil Johnson said...

.
"...a lot of the credit in the afterlife..."
.
Pie in the Sky, right?
.
Whoopie!!
.

Chris said...

Agreement in toto! it would be SO easy to find content. Just start with all of the University of California schools that Rick Santorum said don't teach American History. You should be able to find enough backers for a project which find its basis in America hating:)

On a side note, I have seen your stuff on 'Monumental,' and it's been great. Barton's sob story about the one book on the constitution that didn't use footnotes was the single most gasped-at moment in theaters (I saw it in the theatre). I could produce an actual textbook from an actual college course which is way worse. I took the class when Glenn Beck was still on FOX News, and it was like Glenn was reading from this textbook.

Anyway, food for thought.

Chris Rodda said...

Jon ... I've been thinking about doing this for a while, and was actually just on the phone the other day with two people discussing who we could get to fund it, and from those conversations actually have a very likely person to fund it. It was kind of weird because just as I was thinking about how doing a real documentary might be possible I got two phone calls within an hour from people who called to ask if I could do things for them (one was a documentary filmmaker who called me to see if I had footage of something that I could give him), both of whom told me I should contact the same person who would likely fund such a documentary. Both of the people I was talking to know this person well. Can't say here who I was talking to or who the possible funder is, but I'll let you know privately after I contact him. If I can get the funding, which the people I talked to the other day think is pretty likely, we'll need to get a group together - you, me, Fea, etc. - to all work on this.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Chris R.,

That sounds great. Keep me informed.

Phil Johnson said...

.
For what it's worth, you'll do better getting a broader base of smaller fungind support from a greater number of people rather than a single or just a few angels.
.
You need to maintain your autonomy.
.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Barton's sob story about the one book on the constitution that didn't use footnotes was the single most gasped-at moment in theaters (I saw it in the theatre).

Is this unnamed "one book" by chance Kramnick & Moore's Godless Constitution, which is cited by every secularist and his brother, and is far better known than any of David Barton's pap?

If so, it would be an odd elision, a half-truth as it were. "Godless Constituion" is not just any book: it's the strict separationist's Bible.

Rebutted here by Daniel Dreisbach, BTW, a graduate of one of the nation's top law schools [UVa]and a PhD from Oxford as well.

http://www.leaderu.com/common/godlessconstitution.html

Put him in the video too, or be rightly excoriated for dispensing half-truths.

Chris Rodda said...

Well, I've never cited The Godless Constitution. In fact, I've never even read The Godless Constitution. So Tom's comment that "every secularist" cites this book is untrue, unless he's saying he doesn't think I'm a secularist.

I have, however, looked at the page in The Godless Constitution using the preview on Amazon that Barton uses to get his expected gasp from every audience he speaks to (it's a standard part of his usual presentation wherever he speaks). And guess what? Barton is completely misrepresenting that line from the book that he uses to get the gasps he's after.

Barton claims that nobody who refutes him ever documents their work (which, of course, is not true), the uses The Godless Constitution as his proof of his lie. But to make this work, he only quotes the first sentence of Kramnick & Moore's notes on their sources. In the gasp-getting line that Barton cherry-picks, the authors said that they had "dispensed with the scholarly apparatus of footnotes." That's all that Barton reads, and then he goes into his sarcastic bit about professors saying you should trust them just because they have Ph.D.s. (This is where Barton is guaranteed a sanctimonious laugh from his audience, which has just finished their gasping.)

Barton just omits what Kramnick & Moore follow the gasp-getting line with, and that they actually do provide their sources, albeit in a bibliographic form rather than footnotes (i.e., they say what edition of Jefferson's writings all their Jefferson quotes in each chapter came from).

What Kramnick & Moore explained after the gasp-getting line that Barton cherry-picks is that the reason they didn't use footnotes was that the general public wasn't going to look them up even if they were there, and people familiar with the material wouldn't need them. This is absolutely true. I went to some pages at random pages using the Amazon preview, and didn't see anything mentioned or quoted that I didn't either already know the exact source of or couldn't find the source of in a matter of minutes.

In their bibliographical list of their sources, Kramnick & Moore also recommend that their readers read the original writings of historical figures they wrote about (i.e., they list and recommend the original writings of Roger Williams in the part of their notes on their sources for the section on Roger Williams).

But, Barton easily gets his audience to gasp at the audacity of these liberal elitist professors by misrepresenting what they actually said. Do you not think that is dishonest, Tom?

jimmiraybob said...

Chris Rodda,

Tom articulates his arguments against the Barton “haters” (i.e., critics) at this AC post from the beginning of the week:

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/cnn-religion-blogs-on.html

As best as I can tell, the critics fail because they are all strict separationists and fail to recognize the truth of the underlying accommodationist argument that Barton is making about Jefferson; thus, creating their own half truths or half lies. Or, something. Their failure to “supply the missing half of the truth” apparently negates concerns over the intellectual integrity of history argument. Or, something.

Honestly, I can’t follow it other than I assume that his apparent apologetics are aimed at correcting perceived ideological imbalance. This would seem to be consistent with what he writes above regarding The Godless Constitution.

Also, some bonus Aesop’s Fables.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Re the Godless Constitution scholars, they are the real deal and know the footnotes. Driesbach has a point re how they handled NY. Though the "religion is left to the states" point is really how he puts the facts together and draws meaning from them v. how they do. It's a matter of interpretation. How Dreisbach handled religious tests is also interesting. I know a number of them existed at the state level. I haven't seen any evidence of ONE notable Founder saying anything good about a religious test. And I've seen plenty saying those tests IN PRINCIPLE (that is regardless of what level of government they were administered) sucked.

It's one thing to tax citizens to support religion for the general good of the state. But something quite more controversial to bar someone from holding office because they don't hold to the "right" religion.

Phil Johnson said...

.
You all are giving Barton too much credit.
.
He is a crackpot.
.
He will go down as a joke in history.
.

Tom Van Dyke said...

So will his critics, Phil. That's the point. They think they get away with telling half the truth, but their supporters don't care and neither do Barton's.

It's all a flag-waving contest.

And Jefferson was as much an accomodationist as a strict separationist, JRB. But this discussion isn't about historical truth and understanding. It's about making videos.


It's all a joke. You got that part right, Phil.

Of course I knew it was the Kramnick book. It's not just "any" book. It's the strict separationist bible, whether or not Chris Rodda is familiar with it.

Chris Rodda said...

Why don't you give us some examples of how Jefferson was an accommodationist, Tom?

Phil Johnson said...

.
I think the Founding Fathers were visionaries who got down to the business of breaking up the log jams that were keeping the American society from moving into the promises of the future.
.
I wonder where the visionairirs are today.
.
We're standing at the threshold of the greatest economic boom the world has ever known.
.
What does American Creation have to say about that?
.
When do hisorians start thinking about tomorrow?
.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Mebbe, Chris. Or mebbe I'll just take potshots at you and leave out the parts you get right and see how you like the Rodda Treatment.

Because your unnamed mention of the Kramnick book without a proper explanation was a half-truth.

And until you substantiate or fix or withdraw this video where you misquote Barton, it's a waste of time correcting your errors.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/debunking-beck-university_b_665816.html

Barton does not say they were "ministers," proven by your own video. you screwed up.

An honest scholar would have thanked me for pointing out the inaccuracy and fixed it, not give me crap about pointing out YOUR error.

And when you fix that, Chris, I'll give you your answer about Jefferson's accomodationism. It's not really that hidden a fact. If you actually knew your American history, you'd already be telling the whole truth about it and not the half you think you know.

I'm not saying you're a bad person, Chris, but your anger is so great and your agenda so ruthless that you don't care about anything except destroying David Barton.

I'm just in your way.

John Fea said...

Jon: This is not just on religion and the founding, but it does appear to be the kind of thing you are after.

http://www.peopleoffaithseries.com/more.html

jimmiraybob said...

I posted this several weeks ago in response to the ministers flap, probably long after everybody had moved on (although Tom did respond). It took a bit of effort to do the transcription and it seems to still be relevant......

TVD – “claiming David Barton had said "ministers" when he'd actually said "trained for the ministry,"

From the first video at the link you provided.

Barton (recording): “Of the 56 guys who signed the declaration 29 held seminary degrees. So, we’re talking about more than half the signers of the Declaration were trained for ministry…”

Well, it’s pretty clear what is being implied here. But let’s see where Chris goes. First, she explains that at the time of the founding, seminary meant an institution of learning. Using the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary she quotes the definition of seminary as “…any school, academy, college or university in which young persons are instructed in the several branches of learning which may qualify them for future employments.”

Then she goes on to analyze Barton’s quote:

Rodda: ”…but, of course, the almost exclusive use of the word seminary today to mean a theological seminary allowed Barton and others who picked up his little trick, to just let their audience assume that half of the signers of the Declaration having seminary degrees meant that half of the signers of the Declaration were ministers.”

At this point she is merely saying that Barton was using a rhetorical trick to lead the audience to infer that half of the signers were ministers. I agree that using “seminary degrees” and then “trained for the ministry” in the way that he does, leaves a strong impression that they were ministers. I believe that this is the intent. You and others can disagree.

[this part is extraneous to the "ministers" issue, jrb - So, the difference, as far as I can see, is that Steve Kelmeyer explicitly stated that he was using a Franklin quote while...]

... Rodda is commenting on what she feels is Barton’s intended [implicit - jrb] take home message. One apple, one orange. Not the same

And, unless there’s someplace else that Rodda explicitly misquotes Barton on this (other than the video that you linked) then this pretty much dismantles your disagreement.

++++

Tom, you never got back as to whether I had or had not captured the correct "error". Did I? Is there another place that she explicitly says that Barton explicitly stated that they were ministers?

If not, then how do you screw up by stating a personal opinion? The interpretation can be challenged, not that I do, but this hardly seems equivalent to what Barton's doing by making explicit misrepresentations.

Chris Rodda said...

Translation of Tom's response to me asking him to provide some examples of Jefferson's accommodationism: "I got nothing."

Tom Van Dyke said...

Chris, have you repaired your error here?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/debunking-beck-university_b_665816.html

Fix it and I'll educate you about "accomodationism." Otherwise, take your nonsense somewhere else. I will not be shouted down at my own homeblog.

Chris Rodda said...

This is Jon's blog post, Tom. You have no right to demand anything of me, let alone tell me to leave if I won't comply with your ridiculous demand just because you blog at the same site.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Don't fix your bogus video then. I don't care, it's your reputation, not mine. But I'm not going to educate you on Jefferson's accommodationism until you do.

And you'll not shout me down either.

jimmiraybob said...

...where you misquote Barton...

Can you please accurately and specifically cite the misquote?

Tom Van Dyke said...

Ms. Rodda has apparently taken the video down. Good for her.

And I'll give her her promised reply, that permitting churches to borrow govenment buildings during the construction of Washington DC was an "accommodation." Jefferson himself attended some of the services, and indeed,

John Hargrove (1750–1839). The practice of delivering sermons in the Capitol in Washington began in Thomas Jefferson’s administration and continued for decades until after the Civil War (see Anson Stokes, Church and State in the United States, 1:499–507). All denominations were included in the invitations to preach, and the President, cabinet members, senators, representatives, and the general public attended.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=817&chapter=69469&layout=html&Itemid=27

How nice.

Chris Rodda said...

What are you talking about, Tom. I most certainly DID NOT take the video down!

Tom Van Dyke said...

Oh phooey. I got a 404 message and thought you did the right thing.

But I see you didn't do the right thing. That's a shame.

Jonathan Rowe said...

ALL:

Below is a comment Chris tried to post but didn't go thru:

Jon

---------------

There is no misquote, jimmiraybob. You know that because you watched my video, and anyone else watching my video will see exactly what you saw -- I'm explaining how Barton uses what you called a "rhetorical trick," which is the perfect phrase to describe it. And Barton's rhetorical trick works.

I just did a Google search for people saying that half the signers were ministers. Here are a few examples from around the web showing what people who hear Barton's seminaries/Bible school degrees/trained for the ministry bit think he means by it.

-----------------------------

"Jump to 1776. Where 24 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence had full seminary degrees! Nearly one-half of the signers of our Declaration of Independence were ordained Ministers."

"WALLBUILDERS.COM provided the concept and information for this article, please visit their website for more information."

http://www.calvarynuevo.org/daves-blog/one-nation-under-god/

-----------------------------

Half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ordained ministers of the gospel.

http://www.timetracts.com/Tracts/what%20can%20happen%20in%20one%20generation.htm

----------------------------

"Half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Pastors and Ministers."

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00a_1309975271&comments=1

----------------------------

"Over half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ordained ministers."

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/965320__ARCHIVED_THREAD____A_painting_that_represents_what_AMERICA_is_and_also_can_be____LIBTARDS_do_not_enter_.html&page=5

----------------------------

"That's for sure, nearly half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ordained ministers."

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1412006&page=5#post18858403

Tom Van Dyke said...

Chris, you traced none of those quotes directly to Barton. Now you're just wasting everyone's time, not just mine.

At least one of the links isn't even active.

"WALLBUILDERS.COM provided the concept and information for this article, please visit their website for more information."

Then quote the wallbuilders.com website directly. Your work here stinks and you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself. Even if you could prove he said it somewhere---which you haven't---your own video has you misquoting the evidence you yourself present. Barton doesn't say they were "ministers"---you say he says that.

You just don't get it.

Chris Rodda said...

As jimmiraybob has already asked, where did I misquote Barton? What is the quote that you are saying is a misquote? I went back and watched my video, and like jimmiraybob, can't find anything where I even directly quoted Barton. I showed a video clip of Barton himself saying what he says. If I didn't quote him, how on earth could I have misquoted him?

Tom Van Dyke said...

We covered all this last year. And I see you were here for it, JRB. This disingenuousness has wasted enough of this blog's time, pretending that this thread didn't already happen.

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/12/rodda-on-beck-u.html

I don't give a damn about Barton and a give even less of a damn about these little videos. If you want to see how a sane person goes about correcting David Barton, see Warren Throckmorton, with whom I have zero problem because he plays it straight.

Good day.

Chris Rodda said...

LOL, Tom ... Warren Throckmorton has linked to my videos and has often used my research! I'm glad he does this because people (like you) who just don't like me but are willing to listen to him are hearing from him many of the exact same things that I've said, and even sometimes being directed by him to one of my videos!

It's people like Throckmorton who we need more of, and he's someone we definitely need to appear in a documentary if we can find the resources to do one.

Chris Rodda said...

And Tom, you didn't say what my alleged misquote was last year either, so saying that we "covered all this last year" isn't going to work.

It's a simple question: What did I misquote? Just post the quote from me that you are claiming is a misquote.

jimmiraybob said...

Tom,

The links that Chris provides is to illustrate the effects of Barton's rhetorical trickery. The people at the sites aren't even quoting Barton, they are paraphrasing him. He sets them up and they draw an erroneous conclusion and then run with it for all its worth, propagating a false narrative.

As I've said before, this is nothing more that coercion of conscience through deceit. His audience, by accepting Barton’s evidence and arguments in good faith, are unwittingly incorporated into a false narrative. They are not given a choice unless they do additional work which I’m sure Barton et. al. are betting won’t happen. I think that this is everybody’s point.

Your charge of of a single alleged episode of misquoting on Chris' part, or two if you count her characterization of something else Barton said having something to do with Deuteronomy, remains unsupported. You apparently don't have a clear conception of what it means to quote vs. to paraphrase.

Until I read your last couple of comments I was about to hit send on what I felt was a lifeline of sorts – a different direction of discussion, but after reading “your work here stinks” directed at Chris and the cute implication of insanity directed at....well, I guess at everyone else disagreeing with you, I wasn’t feeling so charitable.

Quite frankly, I don't take the "sane" comment as much more than a little frustrated-hyperbole and have often nearly gotten there myself. (and probably have gotten there at other blogs - certainly at the pub after a pint).

One last thing, since we've gotten the Good Day signal, actually reading Kramnick and Moore’s The Godless Constitution before discussing it wouldn't hurt.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Chris, we did this in 2011 and again on March 24 of 2012, and you keep pretending we didn't. You've had 3 bites at the apple. Enough.

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/03/it-begins.html



Tom Van Dyke said...
Mr. Rodda, there's no way to double-check your work unless you quote David Barton directly.

Who watches the Watchers? Are you never in error?

I have no desire to start up with you. Your quibbles on Barton's phrasings aren't of great importance to me in the larger scheme of things.

But obliging myself to sit through one of your videos last September, I believe you misrepresented what he said.

If so, this doesn't make you a bad person or a "liar"; however, it would be better to quote him directly in black and white instead of the amorphousness of videos, where double-checking you is just as hard as double-checking him.

If you are indeed in error here, Chris, I'm not going to stalk you all over the internet and attack your credibility. I write about your work only when we are subjected to it here at American Creation.

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2011/09/rodda-and-barton-on-black-robe-regiment.html?showComment=1315365

September 6, 2011
Links/footnotes appear at the original
__________________

Everybody:

I hope you'll help out here. I hate sitting through videos of any kind, agree or disagree. They waste my time, because I read faster and life is too short.

In this video

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/debunking-beck-university_b_665816.html

The words appear on the screen

Beck University
Faith 102

David Barton's lie that more than half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers


Lie? I hear him claim they "trained for the ministry." The official University of Pennsylvania website says that prior to 1751,

"The four colleges then in existence in the English colonies -- Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, and Princeton -- were all schools for educating the clergy, rather than preparing their students for lives of business and public service.

Did David Barton claim they were ministers, or just that they "trained for the ministry"? Did I miss anything?

I don't want to start a war with Chris Rodda. She has always been treated with respect at American Creation when she's stopped by to comment here.

But am I missing something here? By Chris Rodda's own use of the word, people who are in error are "liars." If the University of Pennsylvania is in error here, then they are "liars" too.

And if Chris Rodda is in error here, then...

My question is only: Do we have a direct quote from David Barton saying more than half the signers of the Declaration were "ministers"?

Because looking at the prosecution's [Chris'] video, all I hear is "trained for the ministry" being mutated into "ministers," something I can't find David Barton saying.

Yeah, I'm offended by the words "Liars for Jesus," but right now, I just want to stick to the allegation made in Jon's original post.

Since we're "history detectives," surely we can get to the bottom of what was said in the 21st century with video evidence.

I don't want to call anybody a liar. I prefer to think when people are in error, they're simply mistaken, perhaps reading or hearing what they want to see or hear.

But after wasting my time looking at the video in question--I don't give a shit about Barton or his critics--I'm seeing one thing typed on the screen but another thing coming from Barton's mouth.

Let me---and us @ American Creation---know what you see & hear. Mebbe I'm in error.
March 24, 2012 6:15 PM

Tom Van Dyke said...

I know what "paraphrase" means, JRB. In Barton's case, more than half the criticisms I see are based on paraphrases, and that's the problem.

Surely you know what a "formal" objection is, to the method, not the content of the piece in question.

My objections here are formal. Quote the man directly and stuff the [needless to say uncharitable] paraphrases.

He shoots himself in the foot often enough on his own that uncharitable paraphrasing is a cheap and unnecessary trick.

Chris Rodda said...

One of the definitions of "lie" from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

"something that misleads or deceives"

Barton has clearly misled his audience. They have been deceived by his rhetorical trick, as evidenced by the website examples I posted of how his words are construed and paraphrased by others.

Game over.

Tom Van Dyke said...

In this video

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/debunking-beck-university_b_665816.html

The words appear on the screen

"Beck University
Faith 102

David Barton's lie that more than half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers"

Lie? I hear him claim they "trained for the ministry." The official University of Pennsylvania website says that prior to 1751,

"The four colleges then in existence in the English colonies -- Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, and Princeton -- were all schools for educating the clergy, rather than preparing their students for lives of business and public service.

Did David Barton claim they were ministers, or just that they "trained for the ministry"? Did I miss anything?

I don't want to start a war with Chris Rodda. She has always been treated with respect at American Creation when she's stopped by to comment here.

But am I missing something here? By Chris Rodda's own use of the word, people who are in error are "liars." If the University of Pennsylvania is in error here, then they are "liars" too.

And if Chris Rodda is in error here, then...


The bell tolls for thee, ma'am. The game was up long ago.

Chris Rodda said...

Wow, Tom, that was some piece of primary source research you just did there … LOL

Yep, the "official University of Pennsylvania website" does say what Tom quotes -- in an essay on the site by this guy -- http://www.westegg.com/ -- seriously, everbody PLEASE click on that link. That's who wrote the essay that Tom is getting his statement from that "The four colleges then in existence in the English colonies -- Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, and Princeton -- were all schools for educating the clergy, rather than preparing their students for lives of business and public service." Clearly an indisputable source compared to the mission of Yale, as stated in its 1701 charter, which was: “wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences [and] through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State.”

Tom Van Dyke said...

I was showing why he said that. You misquoted Barton.

My objection is formal. Do you know what that means? It means you misquoted him, not whether he was right or wrong.

Chris Rodda said...

Huh? You were "showing why he said that" by posting a factually incorrect statement from a source who obviously had no idea what he was talking about? That's priceless!

Well, the dog I was dog sitting just got picked up so I can get back to the work I have to do, so, although this has all been quite amusing, I must bow out now. I stand by everything I said in my video, which anyone who is wondering what the hell Tom has his knickers in such a twist over can go watch for themselves.

Tom Van Dyke said...

And you were factually incorrect when you misquoted Barton, Chris, which is exactly the point here. Now you understand.

bpabbott said...

Re: "You misquoted Barton."

I've been following along, but never saw a quote of the asserted "misquote".

Can we have something *objective* to look over?

Tom Van Dyke said...

Migod, Ben, this is getting absurd.

In this video

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/debunking-beck-university_b_665816.html

The words appear on the screen

"Beck University
Faith 102

David Barton's lie that more than half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers"

Lie? I hear him claim they "trained for the ministry."


And for the record, I'm not defending what Barton said. My objection is formal.

bpabbott said...

Tom,

I think you're on the wrong side of this one.

Chris has qualified her position in great detail. Barton has *not* corrected those who understood his remarks in the manner Chris claims he intended. Meaning, I think, that Chris is way ahead of Barton in terms of honesty.

Regarding Chris' assertion of Barton's dishonesty, I think the evidence is presently in Chris' favor. In the event that Barton makes an attempt to correct the improper inference of his words, I'll be happy to change my position. Until then, he is (at best) willfully allowing a lie to stand.

Personally, I still find Barton to have admirable intentions/goals. Goals that I share. Specifically, I understand him to want greater affluence and influence for America and its citizens. While we differ greatly on our world views, my objection is on (what I see as) a profound difference on the ethical flexibility of reaching those goals.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I answered your question above, Ben and I'd appreciate an acknowledgement, not a change of subject. Chris misquoted Barton. My objection is formal.

If you're not just skimming this mess, the whole bit on the gasp in the theater and the Godless Constitution is nothing but nonspecifics. Barton blahblahblah. I had to guess the book, and we still don't know what was in the gasp! passage.

This is the problem with Barton's critics. When they supply the specifics and quote him directly, they may be trusted. Otherwise, as with Barton himself, caveat emptor.

This is all formal objection, Ben. I trust you know what that means.

I do not read Barton, I don't quote Barton. If he is to be hanged, it must be for the right reasons.

Phil Johnson said...

.
Bloody noses and all...
.
Game over.
.
Reboot.
.

jimmiraybob said...

"David Barton's lie that more than half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers"

As to the matter of formal objection and with the new specified evidence produced:

The term "lie", as it's used here, clearly refers to Chris' characterization of an alleged deception. It does not imply or explicitly state a quote. She then puts this characterization in context by providing a video of Barton himself and her analysis of what she feels is the deception. The only thing approaching a "quote" is when she reproduces Barton's words by presenting his video/audio words. Quite clearly she does not, herself, make an "error" or misuse Barton's words in a manner that is consistent with a quote.

This court can think of other potential objections that would be worth discussing:

1) Is the use of "lie" appropriate?

2) Is the use of “lie” helpful or harmful, and in what contexts?

3) Does she make a fair representation of her argument?

4) How valid is the charge of lying/deceit by implication?

And so on.

This court, although somewhat sympathetic, also finds unconvincing the "the medium of video sucks" argument as bearing on the charge of misquotation or as bearing on a condemnation of the medium in all contexts. Clearly, Mr. Throckmorton (and others present) has used the same medium and methodology in a manner meeting with the petitioner’s approval.

It is the opinion of this court that the formal objection, as written, contains no substantial merit appears arbitrary and is therefore formally overruled. It is also the opinion of this court that a reasonable, or sane, reader/viewer of the evidence presented could, upon applying a modest critical evaluation, come to their own conclusion(s) to the merits of Rodda's argument and that a reasonable, or sane, reader/viewer, upon reflecting on the definition of quote/misquote, would not come to the same conclusion as summarized in the objection.

This ruling does not preclude the petitioner or other complainants from resubmitting/submitting additional substantive materials at a later date....moment.

Adjourned.

Also, a documentary sounds like a good idea. Also too, even though I disagree with Tom’s characterization of Chris’ work, I share his concern for concision as well as accuracy. I appreciate being part of the discussion, as always, and have no more to say on this particular matter. Peace out, yall. Rebooting.

bpabbott said...

Tom, you appear to be objecting to a pedantic literal reading of Chris' words don't qualify as fully truthful.

However, I didn't read Chris' objections as having a literal context, and think the spirit of her objection is spot on.

I'm no fan of elevated political rhetoric, and I'd prefer if Chris' expression was more respectful, but I have no problem with its accuracy. While I admit my conclusion isn't purely objective, I think it clear that Barton intended the implications, which Chris's has inferred.

Re: "not a change of subject", do you refer to me objecting to your objection (change of subject?) of Chris's objection of Barton ?

Phil Johnson said...

.
So, start a fund raising project. You can get up to %8,000.00 without the need of a license.
.
I'll be happy to make a donation within my budget. Nothing to do but to do it.
.
The iron is hot.
.

Phil Johnson said...

.
So, start a fund raising project. You can get up to $8,000.00 without the need of a license.
.
I'll be happy to make a donation within my budget. Nothing to do but to do it.
.
The iron is hot.

Tom Van Dyke said...

This ruling does not preclude the petitioner or other complainants from resubmitting/submitting additional substantive materials at a later date....moment.

Adjourned.


You're a litigant, not a judge. Excused.


While I admit my conclusion isn't purely objective, I think it clear that Barton intended the implications, which Chris's has inferred.

Recuse.

If anybody actually does the damn research on this get back to me. Anybody who accepts his critics' paraphrases of Barton as fair and accurate is an idiot.

jimmiraybob said...

You're a litigant, not a judge.

Big promotion. Big raise too.

Tom Van Dyke said...

JRB, I trust you to double-check my work here

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/david-barton-spins-jefferson-lies-on.html

in the comments section. As you know---or so I maintain---I'm only interested in the truth in this BS, not the grenade toss.