David Barton - historical scholar or fraud?

==I think this kind of over-simplification is what bothers many about Barton's teachings. To say that Jefferson leaned "toward Diesm" is about like saying a woman is half pregnant. Jefferson was a classic child of the enlightenment. Sure he called himself a "true Christian" but, excuse the metaphor, the devil is in the details. Jefferson denied all miracles including the resurrection and virgin birth, he denied the Deity of Christ, and accused Paul of being the first corruptor of Jesus' teachings. While Jefferson may not have been a 100%, full-blooded, Deist he certainly did more than lean in that direction. He was firmly in that camp.

==But "which" Jesus did he encourage people to follow? The Jesus of the Bible (virgin born, literally raised, etc) or the Jesus of Jefferson and the Jesus Seminar? It does no good to encourage people to follow a Jesus not found in Scripture or a Jesus who contradicts the Jesus of Scripture. The historical Jesus and the Scriptural Jesus must be one and the same, otherwise we have a very large problem. Again I believe the above statement reflects a over-simplification.

==What a man says and does reflects his heart. That is the teachings of Jesus. I don't know the exact verses off the top of my head, I can check this evening, but Jesus made it very clear that what comes out of a person is a reflection of that person's heart. Jefferson was a heretic and I really, really doubt he is in heaven at this moment. Sadly.

==You believe that a person can be a believer when they openly, towards the end of their life, express doubt about the Deity of Jesus Christ (Jn 1:1)? I don't. Being sympathetic towards Christianity, as Franklin no doubt was, is far from being born again.

 

His rebuttle is weak, and without any supporting documentation. This is an opinion piece and nothing more.

 

Yes he is right wing. And it is no surprise that left wing psuedo-scholars full of their own intelect would not take him seriously.

 

Did you read it?

Here is another, with references, also from the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs - Critique of David Barton's "America's Godly Heritage" (linkie)

Excerpt:

Barton makes much from a statement attributed to John Quincy Adams to the effect that the principles of Christianity and civil government form an "indissoluble bond."

Most of the Founders did believe that religion was good for the country. Martin Marty talks about how the Founders recognized the "utility" of religion much like other public utilities (e.g., waterworks, gasworks, etc.) (Martin E. Marty, "The Church in Tension," Speech to 20th National Religious Liberty Conference, Baptist Joint Committee, Oct. 7, 1986.) Even today public officials try to baptize their political aims in the waters of sacred approval. Of course, this ignores the fact that true Christianity serves as much a prophetic function as a pastoral one. Christianity does not exist to prop up government or a particular regime but to critique it and call it to judgment.

In any case, one wonders whether Barton really wants to embrace John Quincy Adams. According to John McCollister, "some members of the organized church branded [Adams] an atheist" and there was no evidence that the Bible was used at the time he took the oath of office. His church attendance was irregular at times. He, like his father, was a Unitarian. (John McCollister, So Help Me God, pp. 41-43.) ​

 

Nope! Just thought I would comment off hand.

Anyway. Rob Boston does well to cite Barton but offers little to no references to back up his responses. A good portion of his opinion piece works to refute claims made in Barton's video. And much of that response is based on Barton's revision in the second video which he uses to attempt to prove a removal of errors. This appears to be more assumption than scholarly work. In the end Rob's piece is opinion by a secular who hates God.

To the Piece from the Baptist committee and their conclusions of the quotes noted. They are contrary to the quotes themselves. Again and again both the committee and Professor Clinton Rossiter acknowledge the biblical and Christian influence through out the founding of this country and then dismiss them as meaning very little. Barton bases his conclusions on statements not in dispute as was documented by the committee and Professor Rossiter which clearly point to biblical principles but are dismissed as having little value by those who oppose them. It is not possible that they have such little value. Secularists do not point to Biblical princiles and God. Those who took part in the founding of our country took it very seriously which is not in dispute either. But when they invoke God all the sudden they didnt really mean it very much?

Such reasoning is not based on scholarship but agendas'.

 

Ha! Thought so!

For instance?

That Barton bases his conclusions on statements not in disput is not documented; they don't say that.

#6 certainly does dispute his quoted words, but generally the committee refers to Barton rather than quotes him. For instance:

That criticism assumes one has the video.

No, simply invoking God means little - I know out and out atheists who say, "God bless you" when someone sneezes. It's when, why and how someone does it the counts.

Do you really believe that the Baptist Joint Committee is a secularist organization?

 

If you will reread the rest of my post I explain this.

That is irrelevant

In the committee report disputed quotes are not discussed. By that I mean quotes that are disputed as not ever having been said as was mentioned elsewhere in this thread. They address all quotes of the founding Fathers as being reliable.

This is a mischaracterization fro two reasons. First, the founding Fathers never simply invoked God individually. They spoke of God and biblical principles as being more than excusing a sneaze. Second, they repeatedly referenced God and biblical principles. As a whole it give a large overview of the typical mindset. But if you have an agenda to remove God from the public square such serious considerations must be diminished. Satan did the same thing in the garden of Eden:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

I never said that. However how a christian would promote such a thing is beyond my understanding. Having biblical principles in our government does not amount to a theocracy. That is a hyper-characterization.

 

FTR

Don't have any idea who he is, but he sounds like a liberal.

God bless

Wayne

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear; I meant, please give a specific instance of a quote and a conclusion which is contrary to the quote.

No, it's not - it relates directly to your unsupported argument that Barton's statements are not in dispute and that the committee documented that they are not in dispute. Are you conceding these two points?

You're correct that this report doesn't address Barton's "quotes" for the most part; however #6 does and refutes his reliability.

Could you explain this a bit further? I don't know what you mean.

They did not speak in unison or uniformly. That most of them were Christian and religious, is not in question. That they intended for Christianity to be the religion of the land, as Barton contends, is in question.

What is "such a thing"? Separation between state and church? That's the Baptist position historically.

At any rate, the motives of those who criticize Barton's reliability as a historian are irrelevent - the criticisms should be judged on their own merits. The topic is "David Barton - historical scholar or fraud?" not "Does God belong in government?"

 

The quotes the committee addresed are not indispute.



C

There is no evidence that the framers of our country took their statements about God in any other way than seriously.

T

And that is my main point. Which makes it hard and uncredible to dismiss their comments as equivilent to commenting on a sneaze. That is a big stretch.

They certainly had a number of denominations and views on doctrine but Christ was at the center of all the christian framers. What is clear is that they they were not secular.

Why would a non-baptist use this as an argument? In the end it is irrelevent. As you say the thread is about the credibility of Barton.

Motive always goes to credibility in any situation. Otherwise we wouldnt have hate crime laws.

Scripture is never a red herring.

 

Look again at #6 where they did address a given quote.

"In the year of our Lord...." that is a common convention of the time equivalent to commenting on a sneeze.

However, they advocated a secular government. Unitarianism and Deism may be denominations, but do you consider them Christian? Jefferson considered himself a Christian, but very untraditional as he threw out much of the Bible.

That was in reply to your, "However how a christian would promote such a thing is beyond my understanding." That has historically been the Baptist position and Baptists consider themselves Christians. It is relevent to this thread because Barton argues that the founders did not intend to have church & state separation.

No, it doesn't. If someone states a fact, no matter what their motive may be, the fact is still a fact. Not every situtation is a hate crime.

Every passage is not pertinent in every argument.


Anyway, you said:

To the Piece from the Baptist committee and their conclusions of the quotes noted. They are contrary to the quotes themselves.​

Would you please give a specific example (quote, contradictory conclusion) or two? I've asked nicely a few times now.

 

Just to answer the thread question.

I vote fraud.

 

David Barton will be speaking at Thomas Road Baptist Church on Sunday night, April 29. I am thinking about driving up to hear him but I am not sure if I want to spend my gas money to hear him in person. It would be nice to see the changes that have taken place at Liberty since the last time I was on campus.

Btw, as I have stated here before, I don't agree with some of Barton's conclusions.

 

Sure. Here is one:


Barton claims that 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were "orthodox" Christians and many were "evangelical Christians."
Barton does not cite any authority to support this assertion. Indeed, the weight of scholarly opinion is to the contrary. For example, Professor Clinton Rossiter has written:
"Although it had its share of strenuous Christians... the gathering at Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country.. and most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone. Although no one in this sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim his opinions had the support of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit." (Clinton Rossiter, 1787; The Grand Convention, pp. 147-148.)
Much has been made of Benjamin Franklin's suggestion that the Convention open its morning sessions with prayer. His motion was turned down, however, and not again taken up. Franklin himself noted that "with the exception of 3 or 4, most thought prayers unnecessary." (Ferrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, rev. ed., Vol. 1, p.452.)
While there can be little doubt that Christian values shaped the thinking of the Founders, it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that the Founders were almost all orthodox evangelicals Christians. Even though many of the Founders applauded religion for its utility- believing religion was good for the country- they also argued vigorously for voluntary religion and complete religious freedom. Thus, even if Barton's point were true, it does not compel the conclusion that we should privilege Christianity in any legal or constitutional sense.


It is difficult to deny the orthodox grounding of christianity in a man or men that admittedly held that christianity was important, shaped the thingking of the founders of this country, and believed that it is good for the country. And to go on to an "opinion", after stating such facts that these men are anything other than othodox is contrary by common sense as well as reasoned thinking.



"
Barton quotes at length from George Washington's Farewell Address extolling the salutary effect that religion has on politics and civil government. Barton says we have ruled the study of Washington's Farewell Address out of the public schools.
Washington no doubt firmly believed that religion is good for government. And there is nothing wrong with studying his Farewell Address in the public school system. But other statements of Washington should also be studied, to give a more complete picture of what Washington truly believed. Washington wrote the following:
"If I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution... [E]very man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." (Stokes, supra, p. 495.)
Thus, while Washington may have recognized the benefits of religion for the state, he also believed persons' religious preferences were a matter of individual, voluntary choice in which the government should not interfere."






The conclusion given by the committee that one statement of Washington should also be studied if the other is to be studied doent refute Barton in any way. It is a strawman in the most basic sense.

 

The Founding Father quoted in the selection above was Franklin commenting on the vote to NOT have prayers, "...with the exception of 3 or 4, most thought prayers unnecessary."

Are you arguing that that is the orthodox evangelical Christian position, so the BJCoPA contradicted the Franklin quote by concluding that most the FFs were not orthodox evangelical Christians?

The BJCoPA also quoted Prof. Rossiter as an example of the typical scholarly opinion, "...most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone." Do you think then that the BJCoPA's conclusion contradicted that quote?

Are you arguing that the BJCoPA stating "that Christian values shaped the thinking of the Founders" contradicts the two quotations above?

Actually, it does. It is legitimate to argue that someone's body of work as a whole should be studied to reveal their views, rather than selective quote-mining.

Furthermore, the conclusion, that Washington "also believed persons' religious preferences were a matter of individual, voluntary choice in which the government should not interfere" does not contradict the quote from Washington that "...[E]very man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

That is not what a strawman is. Here (linkie) is a site that explains different logical fallacies; here (linkie) is another.

 

Botht the committees report and Rossiters comments are opinions and personal translations of records and writings. Which is easy to do. We always want to use words like "typical" or mainstream" when we are looking for numbers to support our opinions.

To say that there can be "littel doubt that christian values shapped the thinking of the founders" and then to say that they could take it or leave it is a complete contradiction in values, ideologies, and comon sense.

(Daisy that is not meant as an attack on anyone)

 

The BJCoPA cared less about raw numbers than the consensus of experts in this particular field; it cites Rossiter as one such an expert.

You find it contradictory that someone could be influenced by something he doesn't care that much about any more?

One can accept and be influenced by values yet reject the trappings and dogma - thus unorthodox.

I don't see how anyone could possibly think it was :thumbs:

 

I do not doubt that. How easy is it to dig up a consensus to support our predetermined view? Not hard at all. Which means that in and of itself lends no credibility. Truth is truth even without consensus.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is full of dogma. These men were not opposed to dogma neither saw them as trappings. Any assertion that these men lacked orthodoxy cannot be proven and is opinion by those that need such.

It can be hard to stand stong on views witholut it being percieved as an attack personally.

 

Like I often say: don matter whut ya'll say, they all gon' buhlieve whut they all wan' buhlieve.

I'll type to that.:type:

 

Leading American Historians Concur with David Barton

The real issue is whether David Barton's quotes and his conclusions are accurate. First, those quotes in Myth were valid secondary source quotes, that is, quotes found in other published works and attributed to various founding fathers. But as Barton explains, he had determined not to rely on secondary sources because they can be, and sometimes do, prove to be inaccurate. As of the time of this posting the Unconfirmed Quotations is on his WallBuilders site, by the way.

In my own search to check him out I started by Googling "religion founding fathers" or something like that. One of the first hits was the Library of Congress own Web Exhibit "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic," which has a number of pages that read almost like David Barton had written them. Many of the exact same quotes are used the the conclusions are nearly identical. And these are professional historians in the LOC reacting to the documents they have on hand. Here is just one small excerpt from their excellent, brief Exhibit:

“"The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, non-polemical Christianity."

You find examples from the decades to follow as well.

But, assuming that David Barton hadn't hacked into the Library of Congress Web, I knew there had to be more to this. So I decided to search published books by leading American historians who were not part of a movement one way or the other. You can do a similar search by going to Google Scholar and searching printed books. What you find is that in fact most leading American historians in large part concur with David Barton, that Christianity had a major influence in the settlement, Revolution and founding of our nation. And these are professors from places like Yale, Cornell, University of Chicago, Berkley, etc.

Below excerpts from published writings of leading historians regarding America's religious roots.

Sydney Ahlstrom is without a doubt one of the leading American historians, esp. in the field of religion in America: "The years of mounting crisis found the churches implicated on both sides of every issue under debate, but in general they became increasingly identified with the Patriot tide of opinion and contributed powerfully to its rise." (A Religious History of the American People, Sydney E Ahlstrom, David D. Hall, Yale University Press, 1992 p. 361.) And Ahlstrom adds, "Enlightenment motifs continued to prevail [after the military phase of the Revolution] but more than ever these motifs were modified by a realistic hardheartedness and absence of illusion about the sinfulness of men. The Federalist Papers, published in 1787-88, as well as John Adam's defenses of the American constitutions, can be read as Puritan contributions to Enlightenment political theory" (Ahlstrom, p. 363).

An example of how Christianity influenced John Adams and guided those Enlightenment theories, according to Ahlstrom and Hall (p. 366), can be found in John Adam's Diary, 14 August, 1796: "One great Advantage of the Christian Religion is that it brings the great Principle of the Law of Nature and Nations, Love you Neighbor as yourself, and do to others as you would that others should do to you,--to the Knowledge, Belief and Veneration of the whole People. Children, Servants, Women and Men are all Professors in the science of public as well as private Morality. No other Institution for Education, no kind of political Discipline, could diffuse this kind of necessary Information, so universally among all Ranks and Descriptions of Citizens."

Henry F May, another leading American historian (professor emeritus of history, UC Berkley) is cited in Critical Issues in American Religious History, by Robert R. Mathisen (Baylor University Press; 2nd edition, November 2001):
"'For the study and understanding of American culture, the recover of the American religious history may well be the most important achievement of the last thirty years.' Writing these words in 1964, the eminent historian Henry F. May recognized that 'even for those students of American culture who do not find religious thought and practice intrinsically interesting, knowledge of religious history has become a necessity.' May asserted that 'the recovery of American religious history has restored a knowledge of the mode, even the language, in which most Americans, during most of American history, did their thinking about human nature and destiny.'" (Mathisen, p. 1)

May is saying that Americans during most of their history thought and spoke about everything in religious terms! And he is lamenting the early 20th century bent of historians to omit it from their history books. That wasn’t David Barton writing this in 1964, it was Henry May of Berkley—not exactly a Bible college.

David Ross Williams, Wilderness Lost: The Religious Origins of the American Mind, David Ross Williams, 1987, Associated University Press, Inc., Cranbury, NJ) "American hostility towards Great Britain had existed long before the imperial administrators began to tighten their control over their colonial subjects. The roots of that hostility were cultural, and because the roots of American culture were religious, this cultural animosity was at heart religious" (Ross, p. 128).

"The populace of New England was not about to allow an unconverted ministry and a mercantile elite to lead them away from the "popular culture" of "Puritanism." Instead, they struggled in the face of vast historical changes to preserve the vision that had first inspired the saints. They fought invisible forces...but they believed that one central sinister force was responsible for all the changes that threatened them. They believed that theirs was a struggle between Satan and Christ" (Ross, p. 128).

"The enlightened John Adams may have articulated the grievances of the lawyers and merchants, but it was the Calvinist Samuel Adams, converted in the Great Awakening in 1741, who stirred the people to rebellion" (Ross, p. 129).

"Evidence of motivations is difficult to obtain," Williams explains. "It is far easier to figure the cash value of a trading route than the psychological value of a beleaguered identity. But evidence does exist that Americans at the time of the Revolution did view their struggle as a defense of Canaan against the encroachments of Egypt. Both Evangelicals and rationalists carried in their heads images of themselves as warriors defending Israel from the Satan hordes" (Ross, p. 129).

Ross cites a quote of historian, Joel T. Headly (writing in 1861) , that religion was 'the deep, solid substratum that underlaid the Revolution...Popular participation in the Revolution owed more to the example of the Old Testament that to John Locke"'" (p. 130).

Ross cites Williams on the popular use of the Exodus imagery during the Revolution:

"Such references to America as Israel abound in the literature of the Revolution. To try to dismiss them as 'mere rhetoric' is to overlook the importance of 'mere rhetoric' as a historical force. It is by just such rhetoric, repeated until it becomes an unquestionable part of consciousness, that collective identity is created and reinforced....the people by their language revealed just how important their religious identity was" (Ross, p. 130).

Moses Coit Tyler, The Literary History of the American Revolution 1763-1783, (Tyler was professor of American History, Cornell University), Vol. II, 1776-1783, New York, GP Putnam's Sons, copyright 1897, notes, "'In America, as in the Grand Rebellion in England,' said a Loyalist writer of our Revolutionary time, 'much execution was done by sermons'" Had it been otherwise, there would now be cause for wonder. Indeed, the preachers were then in full possession of that immense leadership, intellectual and moral, which had belonged to their order in America ever since its settlement, in England ever since the middle of the sixteenth century" (Coit, p. 278).

Referring to the Congress first official act that involved the entire incipient Nation was calling for a day of “humiliation, prayer, and fasting” July 20, 1775-: "On that day, therefore, from new Hampshire to Georgia, the pulpit became the organ of this new national consciousness--of this universal alarm and pain and hate and aspiration; it then spoke out in every tone natural to Englishmen, to freemen, and to Christians" (p. 284).

Dozens of additional historians and works could be cited with similar findings.