David Barton and Wall Builders

[Rhetorician]

Hello all:

Who has followed or knows anything about "Wall Builders" and David Barton. I have some definite opinions about him and his scholarship. Any help would be appreciated.

If this needs to be moved to another thread by an administrator please feel free,

sdg!

rd

 

[Baptist Believer]

Who has followed or knows anything about "Wall Builders" and David Barton. I have some definite opinions about him and his scholarship. Any help would be appreciated.

Very little time this morning, but David Barton founded his Wallbuilders organization more than 30 years ago to promote state-sponsored prayer in schools and promote the idea that Christianity should be the preferred religion of the United States.

His first book, "To Pray or Not to Pray," had the premise that the total numbers of prayers of school children had declined from pre-1963 levels, leading to the devastation of our nation's moral, political, and social integrity. He used the image of God as a giant computer, measuring the rate and volume of prayers. When the rate and volume of prayers declined, so did God's favor. He illustrated his premise using before and after charts (pulled from two completely different sources -- if I remember correctly, one was a government source and the other (the later one) was a popular ladies magazine opinion poll).

He followed that up with his foundational work, "America's Godly Heritage" video and the book, "The Myth of Separation." The book and video contain all sorts of distortions of facts, misquote court documents, and invented quotes out of whole cloth. When I first ran across his work in the early 1990s, I had just completed a graduate course in religious liberty and all of the reading in primary sources was still fresh in my head. I also tracked down many of the Supreme Court decisions he cited and noted that he flagrantly misquoted many of them, or invented quotations from them.

Barton is a revisionist historian and his work cannot be trusted. There are some here who live him, but they have obviously not tried to go back and objectively verify items that are not a matter of opinion -- such as what certain Supreme Court decisions actually say.

 

[Revmitchell]

Liberals do not like him bevause he refutes their revisionist accounting of history. His research has not been perfect but whose has.

 

[Rippon]

Liberals do not like him bevause he refutes their revisionist accounting of history. His research has not been perfect but whose has.

As soon as I saw the title of the OP I knew you would show up and spout off your typical "You are a liberal if you don't agree with Barton" junk. You are the Van of the political threads.

Open your mind and fairly evaluate him --you have not done so. You just have a knee-jerk reaction --not good.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Liberals do not like him bevause he refutes their revisionist accounting of history.

Says the guy who doesn't bother doing the research, but simply condemns.

His research has not been perfect but whose has.

Barton has been refuted many, many times by Christians and non-Christians who know a thing or two about history and/or actually bother to check things out for themselves instead of letting other people think for them.

Barton's work is RIFE with problems.

 

[Revmitchell]

And then libbies attack you for not agreeing with them. Doesnt say much about their confidence in their position. Hard to have confidence in a weak position.

 

[Jerome]

The Gospel Coalition - "Thomas Nelson Ceases Publication of David Barton’s Error-Ridden Book":

thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/thomas-nelson-ceases-publication-of-david-bartons-error-ridden-book-on-jeffersons-faith/

Gregg Frazer of The Master’s College evaluated Barton’s video America’s Godly Heritage and found many of its factual claims dubious

 

[Rhetorician]

Hello all:

Who has followed or knows anything about "Wall Builders" and David Barton. I have some definite opinions about him and his scholarship. Any help would be appreciated.

If this needs to be moved to another thread by an administrator please feel free,

sdg!

rd

Hello all:

I have been called a "theologian" and a "church historian" by a well-renowned Baptist historian (but then again he is given to hyperbole!!!! lol!!!). So I did not want to be too critical of a brother here in public. But I did and have come to some of the same conclusions as some of you.

Bott Radio Network plugged his show "Wallbuilders" in after they dropped Hand Hannagraff (sp?) In the byline of the program they tout Barton as "America's . . . Great Historian" (or some such). I checked out their web page and no one there is credentialed as a historian.

I did not want to be quick to jump to conclusions. It also bothers me when I take my own education to the level of being a Pharisee. So I did not want to be too harsh concerning a fellow servant. Wanted to be more merciful than I am usually.

sdg!

rd

 

[Baptist Believer]

Hello all:

I have been called a "theologian" and a "church historian" by a well-renowned Baptist historian (but then again he is given to hyperbole!!!! lol!!!). So I did not want to be too critical of a brother here in public. But I did and have come to some of the same conclusions as some of you.

Every real historian has issues with Barton. I used to be more gentle about his work until I did extensive research and noticed how it is not just a matter of being sloppy or not understanding the primary sources -- it is clearly a purposeful deception.

Nine years ago I presented an example of the deception:

His dishonesty about the Abington v. Schempp Supreme Court decision.

RevMitchell rejected everything and resorted to name calling, accusing me of twisting facts and that I hate the truth.

But as you can see, nine years later he is still attacking people the same way. He is quite consistent.

 

[Reynolds]

Very little time this morning, but David Barton founded his Wallbuilders organization more than 30 years ago to promote state-sponsored prayer in schools and promote the idea that Christianity should be the preferred religion of the United States.

His first book, "To Pray or Not to Pray," had the premise that the total numbers of prayers of school children had declined from pre-1963 levels, leading to the devastation of our nation's moral, political, and social integrity. He used the image of God as a giant computer, measuring the rate and volume of prayers. When the rate and volume of prayers declined, so did God's favor. He illustrated his premise using before and after charts (pulled from two completely different sources -- if I remember correctly, one was a government source and the other (the later one) was a popular ladies magazine opinion poll).

He followed that up with his foundational work, "America's Godly Heritage" video and the book, "The Myth of Separation." The book and video contain all sorts of distortions of facts, misquote court documents, and invented quotes out of whole cloth. When I first ran across his work in the early 1990s, I had just completed a graduate course in religious liberty and all of the reading in primary sources was still fresh in my head. I also tracked down many of the Supreme Court decisions he cited and noted that he flagrantly misquoted many of them, or invented quotations from them.

Barton is a revisionist historian and his work cannot be trusted. There are some here who live him, but they have obviously not tried to go back and objectively verify items that are not a matter of opinion -- such as what certain Supreme Court decisions actually say.

David speaks the truth. It is an inconvenient truth to liberals. He documents well with original source material.

 

[Baptist Believer]

David speaks the truth.

Actually, he doesn't. But it is easy to understand why people think he does.

It is an inconvenient truth to liberals.

It has nothing to do with "liberal" or "conservative." It has to do with facts.

He documents well with original source material.

And you've touched on the issue right here. His extensive footnotes look extremely impressive. If you are not familiar with the original documents, it is quite understandable to be fooled. But it you actually go look up the sources in those footnotes -- like I have -- you will see that many of them are phony or misleading citations.

I urge you, do your own research. It has never been easier than it is today to actually look up the Supreme Court cases he cites, as well as many other foundational documents. Also, think about how he builds his case. Does it make sense? Spend some time doing your research and you will discover what I am saying is true.

If you don't do the research and check his sources, then you have no basis (other than prejudice) to claim that he is telling the truth. When so many people sound the alarm, you should suspect that there may be something wrong and check things out for yourself.

 

[Reynolds]

Actually, he doesn't. But it is easy to understand why people think he does.


It has nothing to do with "liberal" or "conservative." It has to do with facts.


And you've touched on the issue right here. His extensive footnotes look extremely impressive. If you are not familiar with the original documents, it is quite understandable to be fooled. But it you actually go look up the sources in those footnotes -- like I have -- you will see that many of them are phony or misleading citations.

I urge you, do your own research. It has never been easier than it is today to actually look up the Supreme Court cases he cites, as well as many other foundational documents. Also, think about how he builds his case. Does it make sense? Spend some time doing your research and you will discover what I am saying is true.

If you don't do the research and check his sources, then you have no basis (other than prejudice) to claim that he is telling the truth. When so many people sound the alarm, you should suspect that there may be something wrong and check things out for yourself.

I have done my research.

 

[rsr]

The real problem with Barton is that he's not a historian; he has tremendous amounts of information at his disposal but cherry-picks things that will advance his thesis and has no regard to context.

He's certainly not the only "historian" to do that. But he's especially egregious. If you read Barton you might think that Jefferson was a fundamental Baptist and maybe even a proto-abolitionist.

Jefferson's reputation has waxed and waned. FDR admired him and built the Jefferson Memorial. The Sally Hemings thing has severely dented his reputation recently.

Barton wants to make history simple. Black and white, good guys who are all good and bad guys who are all bad. That's not history. And to try to make Jefferson a simple person is just ridiculous. Jefferson was a man of (sometimes) admirable principles, a practiced liar, a man who could write soaring paeons to liberty and keep his slaves in bondage. He was a genius in fields ranging from mechanics to architecture to education and law. He preached limited government, yet purchased Louisiana without any authorization whatsoever. Jefferson was perhaps the greatest bundle of inconsistencies ever to be elected president. One thing he was not was simple.

 

[Salty]

Wiki on Barton - with 50 some footnotes.

 

[rsr]

Of particular interest:

Barton and Copeland: The Bible Says Soldiers Should Not Suffer from PTSD

 

[rlvaughn]

If you read Barton you might think that Jefferson was a fundamental Baptist...

I noticed this thread when Rhet started it, and have followed it without having time to comment. I was thinking almost the same thing this morning -- that a reading of David Barton will almost prove the founding fathers to all be fundamentalist Christians. But I do think there is some benefit in David pushing his agenda. There are others whom if you read you might think all the founding fathers were angry atheists. I think that is what David is pushing back against, and hopefully that causes others to look for the middle ground apart from the simplicity of the extremes and come to a clearer view of the truth in the middle.

I heard David speak once at a church in Nacogdoches. He was an interesting speaker, even if one doesn't agree with all he has to say. I had an opportunity to shake his hand there, and had the opportunity to see him in action as the long-time co-chair of the Republican Party of Texas. That doesn't give me any particular insight into the man, just that on the surface he seemed like a nice guy. For that reason, perhaps, I tend to view David as pushing back at agenda he sees as harmful to America. That doesn't justify historical errors and omissions, but maybe my experience causes me to extend a little more grace than to view him as purposeful deceiver.

 

[SolaSaint]

BB I agree with your posts. I use to follow him on Wallbuilders and loved his shows. I heard a few historians rebuke his work and I ignored it. Then I saw a clip of David on the Kenneth Copeland show and the bells started going off. I did a little (very) research and found he does twist history to favor Christianity. Not good.

There is another guy from St. Louis are named William Federer, I think he is legit. But I have not done any research.

 

[Reynolds]

The real problem with Barton is that he's not a historian; he has tremendous amounts of information at his disposal but cherry-picks things that will advance his thesis and has no regard to context.

He's certainly not the only "historian" to do that. But he's especially egregious. If you read Barton you might think that Jefferson was a fundamental Baptist and maybe even a proto-abolitionist.

Jefferson's reputation has waxed and waned. FDR admired him and built the Jefferson Memorial. The Sally Hemings thing has severely dented his reputation recently.

Barton wants to make history simple. Black and white, good guys who are all good and bad guys who are all bad. That's not history. And to try to make Jefferson a simple person is just ridiculous. Jefferson was a man of (sometimes) admirable principles, a practiced liar, a man who could write soaring paeons to liberty and keep his slaves in bondage. He was a genius in fields ranging from mechanics to architecture to education and law. He preached limited government, yet purchased Louisiana without any authorization whatsoever. Jefferson was perhaps the greatest bundle of inconsistencies ever to be elected president. One thing he was not was simple.

I have never seen Barton glorify Jefferson. He presents him as at best a fringe Christian. He also shows through Jefferson's actions that his "wall" only worked one way. He in practice kept Govt out of religion, but he in no way kept religion out of government, especially at State and local level.

 

[Salty]

There is another guy from St. Louis are named William Federer, I think he is legit. But I have not done any research.

wiki on Federer

 

[Revmitchell]

I have never seen Barton glorify Jefferson. He presents him as at best a fringe Christian. He also shows through Jefferson's actions that his "wall" only worked one way. He in practice kept Govt out of religion, but he in no way kept religion out of government, especially at State and local level.

Exactly not sure why that needs to be explained.