Christian Nation - David Barton

I do it quite a bit -- especially when I'm reading controversial literature.

Paul commended the Bereans for their concern for truth. As disciples of Jesus -- the One Who identified Himself as Truth -- we must be very concerned about truth.

When I was a teenager, Bob Larson's books on rock music were regularly used as infallible references at the Baptist church I grew up in. Since I actually knew something about some of the music and groups Bob Larson attacked and allegedly quoted, I noticed that either I was profoundly deceived or Larson was inaccurate. I started checking Larson's references and discovered that his facts and quotes about rock musicians and songs were often completely wrong, out-of-context, or misrepresented.

I started checking other "Christian" books and was very disappointed to discover that Christian authors apparently have very little regard for truth or careful research.

If you don't stand guard over your mind, you can be led captive by those who do not truly represent Christ.

 

So you respect Barton, even though he has misrepresented the facts? Do you think this is acceptible for Christians? I don't.

I have no love for the ACLU. I simply expect Christians to act in accordance with their faith, and making false statements as Barton did is wrong. Period.

Then Barton should have no problem finding examples without making falsehoods.

There's no way anyone can read Amendment I and NOT see a wall of separation. That wall of separation protects us, as well as others.

 

Regardless of what others say, Barton made false statements. Period. End of story. That makes less than credible.

You're completely missing the point. Barton engaged in falsehoods and half-truths. That's unacceptible for a Christian.

 

I never heard of him either.

Maybe it's because I'm not a Republican.

 

Either he spread falsehoods and halftruths, or he didn't. The facts clearly show that he did. he is not to be considered credible.

How exactly does that means he's not spreading a falsehood, just because he was spreading someone else's falsehood? Or is it only wrong if a liberal does it, but when a conservative does it, it's okay? At best, that makes him guilty falsehood originated by someone else. In the very least, that makes him guilty of spreading rumor and gossip, something expressly forbidden by Christians.

This conversation is not about Bush. If Bush was guilty of spreading falsehoods, that does not give Barton, or any other Christian, permission to do the same.

 

No they are not. (I’m sure that there is probably some over-zealous criticism of Barton here and there, but almost all of his critics are exactly right.)

The funny thing about Barton’s “sources” is that they often disprove Barton’s assertions.

If he claims to be quoting secondary sources, Barton may have been misled. But any competent researcher knows that they need to treat secondary sources very carefully and verify the source’s accuracy, if possible, before going to print. Most of the Founding Father’s writings and speeches are readily available through a good research library or on the internet.

Barton lives in Aledo, Texas, (about 10 miles to the west of where I live) and he has easy access to the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary library and the Fort Worth Public Library to research his claims. I used both of these libraries, especially the public library, to check out David Barton’s alleged sources. I didn't know the first thing about looking up Supreme Court cases when I first starting checking out Barton, but it's a lot simplier than you might think. The Fort Worth Public Library has a whole bookshelf of U.S. Reports that officially documents all Supreme Court decisions. The librarians are very helpful and excited that people are actually using the materials. If he wanted to check anything out, he could have done it easily.

If he claims to be quoting primary sources, he did a miserable job of it. I documented quite a few major problems with his work a number of years ago that he has yet to address.

He has absolutely no excuse.

Nope. Not true.

What did you think of the example I posted last night? It’s pretty clear that dropping 347 words that undermine your argument out of a quote cannot meet even the most lenient definition of “accuracy.”

 

I never heard of him either.

Maybe it's because I'm not a Republican. </font>[/QUOTE]Since I didn't know anything about him, I had to start researching. This guy is really controversial.

There are several athiest web sites lined up against him with their talking points to discredit him. There are also several apparently Christian web sites with their talking points. It's really amazing, the athiest web sites and the Christian ones mostly use the same talking points.

Some of the points used on this forum are almost quoted verbatim from the talking points on those websites.

So many are so adamantly opposed to his views that I guess I'll have to become familiar with the guy and his works so I won't feel so left out.

No personal opinion yet.

 

I usually avoid this section like the plague.

I haven't read Barton, so not going to comment on the facts of that.

The quoted passage above, however, is a really troubling bit. As a trained historian, one is expected to research all the sources. If one is quoting material incorrectly, and if that person is a competent researcher, that inaccuracy will become apparent.

It never ceases to amaze me that anyone who can read thinks they can be a historian. They can't, and usually shouldn't try. Why would any one take the word of someone who "isn't a historian" on a historical matter is just bizzare. Would you want a historian fixing your plumbing or doing heart surgery on you?

And as for quotes from 19th or early 20th century books. Much written in that period is horridly researched psuedo-history that absolutely must be checked against the original source documents.

 

I don't find this amazing at all. If a person is in error, it doesn't matter if the person pointing this out is a believer or not, they will still see the same issues.

 

I don't find this amazing at all. If a person is in error, it doesn't matter if the person pointing this out is a believer or not, they will still see the same issues. </font>[/QUOTE]I would have thought their perspectives would ,at least , be a little at odds. But strangely enough, they were dead on most of the time.

At any rate, the likeness was striking. True enough ,facts are facts, but the similarities seem to go deeper than just facts. IMO

 

I don't buy that defense. For him to be so clearly wrong so many times shows that his research lacks credibility. We're not talking about a goof here and there. He made numerous major blunders. And, several of his blunders still have not been corrected. In fact, those blunders are now being repeated by other notable Christians, like D James Kennedy, without correction.

 

You don't stand up for Christ by propogating falsehoods.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, I criticize his work based on the facts, not by what anyone else says.

Holding a Christian brother accountable for his words is quite Christian.

If I state a fact in error, and I'm corrected, I accept that correction.

Christians should correct errors based on the facts.

As recently as 2003, his videotape "America's Godly Heritage" was being offerred on the Coral Ridge Hour and with Barton's approval. The tape was produced in 1992, so you'd think that Barton would have time in all those years to correct the errors on the tape. Some had been corrected from an earlier version, but most remain.

I have seen this tape, btw, and don't recommend it for the Christian.

Just curious. Do I need to read Benny Hinn's work to know he's a false teacher? I also don't recall anywhere where I said I hadn't read Barton's work. On the contrary, I've read excerpts of "the Myth of Separation" and have seen the tape "America's Godly Heritage". Barton errs. That's a fact. To correct Barton's errors is not only appropriate, but worthy.

 

Barton is telling untruths and distortions in the name of Jesus. Don’t you find that disturbing?

Christian scholars, especially Baptist scholars, have been among his strongest critics because they know our heritage of religious liberty and understand that Baptists were on the front lines of the fight to separate church and state. (Try doing internet searches for Isaac Backus, Roger Williams, Obadiah Holmes and John Clarke.)

The most un-Christian thing I can imagine is a person deliberately telling lies in the name of Jesus. It undermines the credibility of the gospel and can be devastating to the faith of many innocent people. Imagine the Christian teen who hears David Barton presentations (or those who have parroted his arguments like Carman, Jars of Clay, or their local pastor) and then go off to college to discover that Barton misquotes Supreme Court cases, mischaracterizes the views of prominent Founders, and promotes simplistic and one-sided views of history. It may completely sideline his faith since all the Christians he knows believe and promote falsehoods.

Furthermore, how can Christians be taken seriously in the mainstream when we say that Jesus is the Messiah when we won’t confront those in our midst who promote easily debunked falsehoods to the general public and try to change our national policy according their deceptions? (Yes, David Barton unfortunately has significant influence among “conservatives” in Washington.)

If I ever preach falsehoods, I hope someone points it out. I would rather be corrected by a brother or sister in Christ than to shame the name of Jesus with my life.

Well I’m not an atheist… I’m a devoted follower of Jesus and a Baptist. Many of Barton’s other critics are also Christians.

If the sky is blue, and both the atheist and the Christian agree on that issue, then it is foolish to insinuate that the Christian is a closet atheist or that the atheist’s observations are somehow illegitimate. In the same way, if an atheist can demonstrate that Barton has misquoted something, the truth of the matter cannot be written off as an expression of the bias of the atheist.

When I first started investigating David Barton’s claims back in 1994, I decided upon a methodology for my investigation:

1.) Verify objective source materials

These materials include Supreme Court decisions and the major writings of prominent Founders. These items, especially the Supreme Court decisions, are completely objective since I was merely checking to see if the quotes were accurate and the claims about the specifics of the documents were factually true – even if I didn’t agree with his conclusions.

2.) Verify subjective materials

This category would include quotes from historians and various quotes from speeches of prominent Founders. I intended to verify if Barton was simply quoting only those people who agreed with him, or whether Barton was trying to fairly present both sides of the issue.


I discovered very quickly that Barton did not accurately quote the texts of many Supreme Court cases (a completely objective basis of judgment) and often mischaracterized the parts he did quote accurately. In fact, he has such a bad track record of quoting famous and widely-distributed documents, how can I trust him when he is allegedly quoting from one of his rare books that I do not have access to?

The man has absolutely no credibility with people who have carefully checked his work.

I don’t either. That’s why you shouldn’t trust Barton.