Thursday, August 15, 2013

Institute on the Constitution: The American View or the Confederate View?

That's the title to Warren Throckmorton's post here. A taste:
In his treatment of the founders’ religious beliefs during the IOTC course, Peroutka cherry picks quotes from founders to make them all sound orthodox. Like David Barton, Peroutka portrays the founders as orthodox in order to tie the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to “the God of the Bible.” Most founders were theistic, but that doesn’t mean they all believed in “the God of the Bible” in the evangelical sense or that they deliberately set out to create a Biblical government. What is remarkable is how infrequently religion is mentioned in the founding documents.


Tom Van Dyke said...

What is remarkable is how infrequently religion is mentioned in the founding documents.

God is in the Declaration 5 times. God is in the constitutions of pretty much all 50 states.

This "controversy" is the blind versus the stupid.

Bill Fortenberry said...

For what it's worth, I wrote to Michael Peroutka last week and asked him for his opinion of Throckmorton's claims (without mentioning Throckmorton). I said in my email that "I am concerned about the allegations that Mr. Peroutka's connection with the League of the South reveals his racist tendencies." I then asked, "Is there any way that he could send me a statement regarding his affiliation with the League of the South and answering the charges of racism?"

Mr. Peroutka wrote me back a few days later. Here is the relevant portion of the response that I received:

I believe that God created one race...the human race.

I reject all aspects of hatred based on perceived racial differences.

To my knowledge no one has ever accused me of such a thing (racism) until a man named Throckmorton recently began to publish ad hominem attacks against me.

Mr. Throckmorton has apparently written a blog containing this accusation and then written an article which quotes his own blog as authority. In his original blog, which I have reviewed, he actually superimposes words over a video of me. Those words seek to define a term that I used in a way that supports his conclusion regarding what I was saying. Thus he has materially altered my words to fit his accusation.

In my view, this goes beyond sloppy scholarship and constitutes false witness.

Please know that these charges regarding race are baseless.

While I don't definitively know the motive for these attacks, I have reason to believe that they may be based on a worldview dispute. In that respect, they may have to do with Mr. Throckmorton's documented support for the validation and acceptance of the practice of sodomy.

You may want to investigate the following link about the activities of Mr. Throckmorton.

As you may know, in our courses of study (and our other materials) we stand firmly against the cultural acceptance of this sin.

Aside from this, one thing that I find interesting is that I haven't seen Throckmorton post anything about lies being told in the course offered by the Institute on the Constitution. As often as he publishes such claims about David Barton, I expected to see him publishing post after post of lies that Peroutka was telling about the founders. The absence of such posts is making me lean toward the opinion that Peroutka's material is historically sound.

Warren Throckmorton said...

Mr. Fortenberry: At least Peroutka writes you back. Until yesterday, he did not answer any of my emails.

You can view the video in question and draw your own conclusions.

If the regime doesn't mean U.S. Government then what does it mean?

Bill Fortenberry said...

Well, just for example, Webster's Third New International Dictionary provides the following as the second definition of the word "regime" and as the only definition which has to do with government:

2a: a method of ruling or management: a manner of administration b: a form of government or administration ; specif: a governmental or social system c: the period during which a regime prevails

Obviously, this definition allows the common usages of this word in phrases such as "the Obama regime" or "the progressive regime." Both of these phrases have been used by League of the South sympathizers, and either of them could have been intended by Peroutka's reference to "the current regime."

Tom Van Dyke said...

Warren, if you're going to seek out the worst of the worst--these "League of the South" people--and then put words in their mouth, and d-bag them on it

Some Christians may resonate with the IOTC declaration that the American view is that the founders deliberately sought to create a Biblical foundation for law and government.


"they all believed in “the God of the Bible” in the evangelical sense"

Who said that? Direct quotes are necessary here, otherwise you're tilting at strawmen, Warren.

I appreciate you [mostly] not censoring me at your own home blog

but if you're to come to my own home blog, then be prepared to make your case on a level playing field, not surrounded by your supporters.

The choice is yours, bro. But play it straight up here, no home field advantage. If you've read this blog recently, even on my home blog, I don't even have home field advantage.


Warren Throckmorton said...

Tom I am not going to reproduce all of my blog posts here. The evidence regarding the League is over at You know that.

I produced the link to the You Tube video. If you feel I am putting words in Peroutka's mouth, then we disagree. For others, watch the video and see what you think. I have written Peroutka and asked him what he meant by the word regime. The other check on that is that he referred to the speech by Michael Hill that preceded him when he referred to regime. Hill leaves no question about what he means - the federal government in Washington DC. The League refers to DC as an evil empire and USSA. If Peroutka doesn't agree with the values of the League then why has he been a member since at least 2004, why did he pledge the resources of his business and family to the League, why did he honeymoon there, why did he say that the League taught him almost everything he knows, and why is a board member of the League? I have video up and cited the League sources. I haven't put words in anyone's mouth. Apparently, they don't like the words in their own mouths.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I produced the link to the You Tube video. If you feel I am putting words in Peroutka's mouth, then we disagree.

I want you to quote him directly when you make your criticisms. Have been undersatisfied with your rigor in this area.