Christian Nation - David Barton

[OCC]

Johnv said: "Just curious. Do I need to read Benny Hinn's work to know he's a false teacher?"

Just as you said this conversation is not about George Bush I will say to you:

This conversation is not about Benny Hinn.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by King James:
This conversation is not about Benny Hinn.

So, I will be more succinct. Do I need to read Barton to know his writings and videos promote falsehoods?

Regardless of that, however, I have done that, done some research, and find that he is in error with his facts. Period.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Let me give you a more "realistic" idea of "modern historians" and their "so called value." The Infamous Story of the Alamo has been passed down in Texas since the day the Alamo fell. It is in the historical documents of our age. Passed down from the women who survived and from the Mexicans who fought for Santa Anna. EVERYONE agreed to the basics of the story.

You know EVERYONE agreed, how?

Taking into account the de la Peña manuscript and other Mexican reports of Crockett’s execution, academic historians now favor that version of events.

Texas Observer 1999

Then, around 1970, someone announced they'd found a diary that was previously undiscovered, and how it totally blew the Alamo story to bits.

Someone?

The world was soooo excited. They actually started teaching from the stupid thing.

I sat back wondering - why was this ONE diary so important that it could discredit - by its mere existence, the stories that others had believed for so many years?

How does it discredit the other stories? Do you have any actual idea what was in it?

Was it Santa Anna's? Jim Bowie's?

Lt. Col. José Enrique la Peña - not a difficult name to find.

What made IT so special?

An original document from an actual eyewitness, a first hand account, is always special and that it was previously unknown.

What made THAT witness more valuable than others?

Who said that it did?

Why was its story so different?

As this is your story, the example you chose, you really should know these things.

Then a historian said, "Wait a minute! That's bunk!" People said, "No! No! This was from the Mexicans! You've only studied it from the Texan view point. This is the REAL story. This is the BALANCED story."

A historian? Which historian?

He demanded some carbon testing.

Turns out, the "ancient diary" was written on ancient paper, but with modern ink.

The paper was determined to be cira 1825, if that qualifies as "ancient", but according to Austin's own Dr. David Gracy, professor of Archival Enterprise in the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at UT and expert in forged documents, the ink is not modern and the diary is likely to be authentic.

So when David Gracy, a professor of archival enterprise in the graduate school of library and information science at UT, took to the podium to announce the results of his tests, a great many people straightened up and sat at the edge of their seats. There was utter silence as he vigorously and exhaustively recounted the extent of the tests on the ink and the paper, the comparisons of handwriting samples, and the logical arguments to support what he found. "Unavoidable is the conclusion that the journal is authentic," he declared in his almost inappropriate fashion, heatedly addressing many of his points directly to Groneman.

from: Blood, Myth and Ink

It was a TOTAL fraud someone created to sell at auction and make a fortune off of.

Someone, who?

"In addition, Dora Elizondo Guerra, the former the head of Special Collections and Archives at the University of Texas at San Antonio Library, described the use and availability of the manuscript during its tenure there. The Peña Collection, including the manuscript of Peña's Narrative, had been placed on loan at UT-San Antonio in the early 1970s by John Peace, Jr., where it remained until his son removed it to be sold in 1998."

It was at the University of Texas, San Antonio for twenty-eight years. It has now been donated to UT Austin.

It was a fake.

And what is your source for this? You've cited this story without giving one bit of evidence, one source or one relevant name. This is ironic considering the subject of this entire thread: accuracy and verification.

Sources:</font>

• 1998 Fort Worth Star-Telegram </font>
• 1999 Texas Observer Interview - Defender of the Alamo</font>
• 2000 Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin Conference on la Peña diary</font>
• 2000 Austin Chronicle Myth, Blood, and Ink by David Garza</font>

If it makes you feel better, as David Garza said, "The problem, of course, is that authenticity does not guarantee accuracy...But Crisp admits, too, that the issue at stake with the de la Peña diary is not just the simple question of how one man died, but the issue of how history is made and how voices are silenced."

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by King James:
This conversation is not about Benny Hinn.

So, I will be more succinct. Do I need to read Barton to know his writings and videos promote falsehoods?

Regardless of that, however, I have done that, done some research, and find that he is in error with his facts. Period. </font>[/QUOTE]Good for you brother. Hopefully you never make any mistakes so as to avoid being exposed to much criticism, etc. My point stands though. This conversation is not about Benny Hinn.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by King James:
Good for you brother. Hopefully you never make any mistakes so as to avoid being exposed to much criticism, etc. My point stands though. This conversation is not about Benny Hinn.

If I do make a mistake, and I have often, I have stepped up to the plate. I can't tell you how many times I've posted here saying "oops, I goofed", or "I was wrong about...", or "I've changed my tune". Barton still continues to propogate the errors he has made.

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by King James:
Good for you brother. Hopefully you never make any mistakes so as to avoid being exposed to much criticism, etc. My point stands though. This conversation is not about Benny Hinn.

If I do make a mistake, and I have often, I have stepped up to the plate. I can't tell you how many times I've posted here saying "oops, I goofed", or "I was wrong about...", or "I've changed my tune". Barton still continues to propogate the errors he has made. </font>[/QUOTE]That is a good thing. I do it as well. I don't see many people who wrong me apologize to me though but that's alright.

 

[Kiffen]

As to the Republicans and the GOP and the blacks of the south. I don't know where to begin explaining to you how wrong you are - other than to remind you that most historians say that the Republican Party was formed in the 1850's by anti-slavery activists.

I don't, for a minute, believe it was the dream party that was going to boost all blacks to equality with whites, but neither do I believe that the only reason for appointing black men to reconstruction was to rub the face of the south into their loss.

What Barton does is often take a FACT and then over amplify it.

FACT - Republican Party was anti-slavery

MYTH - Therefore the Republican Party was interested in advancing the cause of freed slaves after the Civil War by appointing them to political positions in the Reconstruction South.

TRUTH - Reconstruction was filled with corruption and thievery. Perhaps if Lincoln had lived it would not have been so corrupt (debatable?) but Northern radicals did wish to rub it in the former slave masters faces.

I place Barton on the same level as a secular historian as I do JM Carroll of TRAIL OF BLOOD fame.

 

[TexasSky]

On what basis do any of you base your assessment of David Barton?

Baptist Believer - you said he is telling half-truths. How do you know that? Have you asked him what his sources are? Have you checked his sources out? How do you know the people accusing him are not the ones telling the lies?

Johnv condemned him, while admitting he had never read his works.

So, what is the basis for your condemnations?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
On what basis do any of you base your assessment of David Barton?

I base them on his claims vs the actual facts. That's objective.

Johnv condemned him, while admitting he had never read his works.

I did? That's an error on your part. Kindly post where I said this, or retract your statement.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
On what basis do any of you base your assessment of David Barton?

On the basis of doing hundreds of hours of research on the history of the First Amendment and checking out David Barton’s writings and videos.

Baptist Believer - you said he is telling half-truths.

Actually I’ve said he’s telling complete falsehoods as well as half-truths.

How do you know that?

I’ve checked his alleged sources.

Have you asked him what his sources are?

I haven’t had to ask since many of his books reference his alleged sources in footnotes and endnotes. He has also referenced documents such as Supreme Court decisions and writings such as James Madison’s A Memorial and Remonstrance… which is readily available from numerous sources. (When an author gives a footnote, they are telling you the source they allegedly used.)

Have you checked his sources out?

Yes, that’s what I’ve been telling you this entire thread… I HAVE PERSONALLY CHECKED OUT HIS INFORMATION.

How do you know the people accusing him are not the ones telling the lies?

Because I had never heard of David Barton or any criticism about him until I saw his video, “America’s Godly Heritage”, one Sunday evening at church in January 1994.

I had just completed a “Church and State” course at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary the month before and was very familiar with many of the key founding documents and personalities from our course work and required readings. Furthermore, we had also studied, in depth, the development of our modern religious liberty stance through court decisions, especially Supreme Court decisions. We were required to actually read and discuss the actual content of the court decisions in class. Therefore, when I saw Barton’s presentation, I recognized many outright lies and distortions immediately. As soon as the video ended, I spoke to the pastor and the lay leader who had brought the video for us and expressed my great concern that we had just allowed someone to lie to our congregation. The lay leader (who actually leads a national youth ministry) scoffed at my concerns and suggested that I had been “brainwashed” by “liberals and atheists”, but the pastor asked me to back up my claims with solid research.

I spent the next six months digging through Barton’s material and discovered more problems than I had imagined. I presented the material to the pastor and he recognized that I was correct and Barton was dishonest. He asked the lay leader to meet with me and let me make my case. (At the time, this lay leader was adapting Barton’s materials – with Barton’s cooperation and blessing – to be used for some youth literature to be released toward the end of 1994.) I went in and made my case. The lay leader was extremely defensive (he had a lot of time and money tied up in Barton’s nonsense) and could not seem to admit that there were problems – although he decided not to use most of Barton’s materials when his youth literature was finally released.

I only saw criticism of Barton long after I had discovered problems on my own.

Furthermore, I worked in the two major local libraries that Barton has access to (Barton lives about 10 miles to the west of me in Aledo, Texas) and would have likely used exactly the same books that he did - if Barton actually looked anything up.

Johnv condemned him, while admitting he had never read his works.

Johnv did not say that. Apparently you have confused him with Jeff Weaver. In fact, Johnv has posted that he has some familiarity with Barton’s work.

So, what is the basis for your condemnations?

I’ve already told you: solid, objective evidence.

I finally dug up my copy of “The Myth of Separation” late last night. I’ll flip through it and try to post some more examples of his dishonestly this week.

I’m happy to help you check out Barton, but I’ve discovered that most people who connect with Barton are uninterested in facts and tend to get angry and spiteful instead of dealing with the sad reality that “Christians” sometimes lie to other Christians to make money.

 

[JGrubbs]

http://www.crm.tv/onenationundergod/?mid=

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
http://www.crm.tv/onenationundergod/?mid=

Thanks, I'll have to tape it. Unfortunately, I suspect there will be a lot of untruth told in "The Truth About America's founding".

 

[JGrubbs]

There is probably much more untruth taught in the government school history classes than you will hear on Dr. Kennedy's program!

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
... I suspect there will be a lot of untruth told in "The Truth About America's founding".

I'm really hoping that Dr Kennedy will prove Barton's previous errors wrong. I'm really hoping that Barton (who will appear in this) will make statement that are factually correct, unlike his past works.

I used to have great respect for Dr Kennedy (I still respect him as a man of God and good bible teacher, but I don't buy into his revisionist history diatribes). He spends too much time talking about the founding fathers, and not enough time talking about the Heavenly Father these days.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
There is probably much more untruth taught in the government school history classes than you will hear on Dr. Kennedy's program!

That's no excuse for Dr Kennedy, nor any Christian, to do the same.

 

[rsr]

Texas said:

"On July 4th I posted some quotes from our founding fathers that were from a book I have in my collection at home.

Several people thought these came from David Barton and stated David Barton's quotes were unsubstantiated."

Don't keep us in suspense. What is the name of the book? Obviously the author and Barton are drinking from the same spring.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TexasSky:
On what basis do any of you base your assessment of David Barton?

I base them on his claims vs the actual facts. That's objective.

Johnv condemned him, while admitting he had never read his works.

I did? That's an error on your part. Kindly post where I said this, or retract your statement. </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, John V. Please tell us what you have read by David Barton. Thank you.

 

[paidagogos]

A lot of things are being missed in this discussion. Basically, what this thread amounts to is a partisan dogfight either in defense or condemnation of David Barton. There are valid criticisms of Barton. On the other side, he is not a blatant fraud or intentional deceiver—let’s give the man the credit as being true to his beliefs. He does have an appealing basic thesis. It did not, however, originate with him; it has been bandied around for a long while.

In his overvaulting zeal, Barton has made some factual errors; he has made more interpretation errors. However, any historian of reputation, without exception, does. David does draw heavily on the primary sources. This is commendable. On the other hand, his historiography is lacking. He invariable reads original sources through twenty-first century eyes (specifically evangelical eyes) as do most, if not all, of his detractors, especially on this thread.

David’s detractors question his credibility but they are no more credible than he. Someone pointed out that many of the criticisms were culled almost verbatim from other websites attacking Barton. One wonders how solid their scholarship is. It seems that the self-righteous liberals believe what they want to believe too.

Although he makes many mistakes, there is merit to what David says especially in refutation of those pushing for a purely secular approach to government. Such a path is folly and untenable. He may not be right about everything (he doesn’t understand Southern history, secessionist political philosophy, states rights, personal liberty and self-determination) but he does have some good points. He is a good Republican.

My problems with David Barton focus more on his theology and religious beliefs. IHMO, there is a mile-wide streak of Christian Reconstructionism in his thinking. I reject that as un-Biblical and foreign to my theology. He must lean toward Post-millennialism to be consistent. His interpretation of American history is much in the vein of R.J. Rushdoony. Barton popularizes many of Rushdoony’s ideas. Rushdoony was the thinker who influenced a lot of bright boys—Jordan, DeMar, Gentry, Bahnsen, North, Chilton, Barton, Grant, and others. Most of the worldview books published today have an element of the Rushdoony philosophy, although some are several strata removed.

Let’s move this discussion along. How many you folks accept Barton’s Christian Reconstructionist principles?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Okay, John V. Please tell us what you have read by David Barton. Thank you.

Please read my previous posts. I'm now repeating myself. Besides, the claim that I said I never read Barton was directed to me in an innocent error. No harm done there, it happens from time to time.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
... what this thread amounts to is a partisan dogfight either in defense or condemnation of David Barton.

I don't know about others, but the partisan issue has not even been brought up, at least not by me.

There are valid criticisms of Barton. On the other side, he is not a blatant fraud or intentional deceiver—let’s give the man the credit as being true to his beliefs.

I've never said he's a blatant fraud or deciever. I said he was in error, and to date he has not corrected most of the errors. I have no problem making a case for his claims. But if he does, then he needs to reference accurate facts, for only accurate facts will bolster his claims. If he doesn't, then he runs the risk of falling into the same vat as Kent Hovind and Carl Baugh, who are both liars about themselves.

In his overvaulting zeal, Barton has made some factual errors; he has made more interpretation errors. However, any historian of reputation, without exception, does.

WHile true, a historian has teh responsibility to correct his/her errors. I don't excuse Barton from the same.

David’s detractors question his credibility but they are no more credible than he.

If those detractions are made upon specific statement, and made with specific facts, then it's not much of an issue.

Someone pointed out that many of the criticisms were culled almost verbatim from other websites attacking Barton. One wonders how solid their scholarship is.

I can only speak for myself. I have double-checked any statements I've made about Barton's claims, and I've limited my remarks to specific item-for-item points. I don't know how closely they resemble other sites, pro or con.

It seems that the self-righteous liberals believe what they want to believe too.

Again, I can only speak for myself. It is unwise to call someone a liberal based solely on the fact that Barton's claims are being called into question. If one of his claims is false, then it is false, and has no bearing on where a person falls on the liberal/conservative scale. Unless you're implying that conservatives should go ahead and pass off innocent errors as truth? Las ttime I checked, most conservatives believed that it is the search for, and adherence to, truth that is a prerequisite for being conservative.

Although he makes many mistakes, there is merit to what David says especially in refutation of those pushing for a purely secular approach to government.

I think the last few SCOTUS decisions on the 10C's make it clear that there is no requirement for the government to be completely devoid of religion. Only that they not make the respecting the establishmen of religion a focus.

He is a good Republican.

I never questioned that. It's just that he's a bad historian.

My problems with David Barton focus more on his theology and religious beliefs. IHMO, there is a mile-wide streak of Christian Reconstructionism in his thinking. I reject that as un-Biblical and foreign to my theology.

Yes, I've noticed that as well. But those were not at issue on this thread.

Let’s move this discussion along. How many you folks accept Barton’s Christian Reconstructionist principles?

Just a suggestion. It might be more prudent to put that on a new and separate topic, since this topic is most exclusively focused on Barton's "Christian Nation" claims.