David Barton

Sorry about the delay in posting. We've had some issues in our extended family and they've taken all of my time since Monday evening.

Here's the first installment of evidence demonstrating David Barton's material cannot be trusted:

Exhibit #1
Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963) 374 U.S. 203

Excerpt from his video, America’s Godly Heritage (the quote below runs from 9:22-10:02, but you should probably start at 9:00 to get the context)

Barton claims:

“Therefore, on what possible basis could the Supreme Court basis could the 1963 Court justify it's ruling to stop the use of the Bible in schools? The Court always explains its decisions in written form. That 1963 case was no different. It you go to a law library and examine the text of that decision, you will find why the Bible had to be removed from school.

“In its written decision, the Court noted that ‘if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and had been psychologically harmful to the child.’ Now, that’s quite a statement! The Court has determined that the Bible has to come out of schools because it causes psychological damage to children? For the second time in a year, this was a case lacking both historical and legal precedent. Again, the Court simply made a new announcement of policy, ‘No more Bible reading in schools.’"​

Note that Barton explicitly tells us how we can check out these claims, “If you go to a law library and examine the text of [Abington Township School District v. Schempp], you will find why the Bible had to be removed from school.” At the time Barton released his video, he knew that very few people in his intended audience would know how to verify his claim. He also subtly discouraged his audience from doing so by inferring that one would have to go to a “law library” instead of a public library, even though most mid-sized libraries would have the text of Supreme Court decisions readily available. In any case, Barton has given us a clear test of his credibility by telling us what we will find if we attempt to verify his claims.

So let’s analyze the two fundamental claims in Barton’s statement:

1.) “In its written decision, the Court noted that ‘if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and had been psychologically harmful to the child.’

The first thing to notice is that those words were not the words of the Supreme Court, but an out of context quote from a witness in a lower court decision in the preliminary portion of the written case providing context for the Supreme Court’s discussion and decision:

[In the section recounting the trial held in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania]

Expert testimony was introduced by both appellants and appellees at the first trial, which testimony was summarized by the trial court as follows: "Dr. Solomon Grayzel testified that there were marked differences between the Jewish Holy Scriptures and the Christian Holy Bible, the most obvious of which was the absence of the New Testament in the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Dr. Grayzel testified that portions of the New Testament were offensive to Jewish tradition and that, from the standpoint of Jewish faith, the concept of Jesus Christ as the Son of God was 'practically blasphemous.' He cited instances in the New Testament which, assertedly, were not only sectarian in nature but tended to bring the Jews into ridicule or scorn. Dr. Grayzel gave as his expert opinion that such material from the New Testament could be explained to Jewish children in such a way as to do no harm to them. But if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and in his specific experience with children Dr. Grayzel observed, has been, psychologically harmful to the child and had caused a divisive force within the social media of the school.

Dr. Grayzel also testified that there was significant difference in attitude with regard to the respective Books of the Jewish and Christian Religions in that Judaism attaches no special significance to the reading of the Bible per se and that the Jewish Holy Scriptures are source materials to be studied. But Dr. Grayzel did state that many portions of the New, as well as of the Old, Testament contained passages of great literary and moral value. (Page 374 U. S. 209-210)​

So Barton falsely ascribes the words of a witness as an official position of the Supreme Court. But some may say that I’m twisting Barton’s words here… He simply says that the “Court noted” and the Supreme Court did reproduce this testimony. That seems plausible except that Barton repeats his assertion for maximum shock value: “Now, that’s quite a statement! The Court has determined that the Bible has to come out of schools because it causes psychological damage to children?”

So it is clear, Barton is misrepresenting the case. So, you may ask, how does he deal with the portion of the Supreme Court ruling that actually includes the rationale and decision of the majority of the justices?

2.) Barton claims, “For the second time in a year, this was a case lacking both historical and legal precedent. Again, the Court simply made a new announcement of policy, ‘No more Bible reading in schools."

Barton’s reference, “the second time in a year”, is (in the context of the video) a reference to the 1962 Supreme Court case, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

Barton’s claim is that both Engel v. Vitale and Abington Township School District v. Schempp cases were decided without consideration of historical and legal precedent. (Please note, unless you are going to go into a Clintonese discussion regarding the meaning of the word “lacking”, Barton is not simply saying he disagrees with the decisions, he is making an objective claim about the content of the decisions.) This is clear from the second sentence quoted above, “…the Court simply made a new announcement of policy…”

However, if we examine the text of Engel v. Vitale, we find that the Justices have provided extensive historical precedent for their decision, beginning toward the end of Page 370 U.S. 425, and continuing for 11 more pages to Page 370 U.S. 436. In the case of Abington Township School District v. Schempp, the Justices did not provide much historical background, instead referring back to Engel v. Vitale and previous cases where extensive historical justification was provided.

As for legal precedents explicitly cited, in Engel v. Vitale, we find that the majority decision of the Justices does not cite extensive legal precedent (they have focused primarily on well-documented history), but Justice Douglas’ concurring opinion (beginning on Page 370 U.S. 437) cites four legal precedents and expounds upon them.

In Abington Township School District v. Schempp, the Justices cited numerous portions of at least eight previous court decisions in the majority opinion, not to mention numerous other legal precedents in the three concurring written opinions.

Summation:
Barton’s claim:
The Supreme Court called the Bible “psychologically harmful”.

The reality:
Completely false.

Barton’s claim:
Engel v. Vitale and Abington Township School District v. Schempp were cases lacking legal and historical precedent.

The reality:
At best, his statement is highly misleading. Given that he presented the Supreme Court as being hostile to the Bible immediately before making the claim, it seems clear Barton is not trying to provide a nuanced message regarding the meaning of the word “lacking”.

Verdict:
Barton is lying to his audience.

 

My first question is this your work? If not you need to source it.

Second David Barton said " “In its written decision, the Court noted" The witnesses testimony is in fact in the written decision as is a plethora of other witnesses and previous cases. It was included for a reason and it was not taken out of context.

Your misrepresentation of Barton and your assumptions of his motives as to why he said it could be found in the law library show your inability to make judgments on this matter with sound reasoning and honesty.

 

It is absolutely my own work. I actually check things out for myself instead of just posting links.

You will always be at the mercy of liars and propagandists if you don't take the time to educate yourself and do some basic research using primary sources. For a pastor, it's even more important.

You might have a point except Barton immediately followed up with:

Now, that’s quite a statement! The Court has determined that the Bible has to come out of schools because it causes psychological damage to children?
​

He clearly makes a claim as to what "[t]he Court determined", and that claim is a complete falsehood.

Moreover, Barton introduced the whole issue by saying, "[O]n what possible basis could the 1963 Court justify it's ruling to stop the use of the Bible in schools? He clearly wants his audience to believe that "psychological damage" is the basis.

You need to support this assertion. I have taken nothing out of context... in fact, it is there for everyone to examine. You sir, are the one making willful misrepresentations.

Then what would his motives be? He has clearly misrepresented the material. That is about as objective of a fact as you can get.

Even if I'm off-base regarding his motives, the simple fact remains that he has misrepresented the material. And that's the point.

Where is my logic or reasoning faulty?

How are my assumptions of his motives completely off-base? Please explain.

What are your judgments on this matter?

Did the Court "determine that the Bible has to come out of schools because it causes psychological damage to children?" What is your evidence?

I'm waiting for sound reasoning and honesty from you.

I've noticed you didn't touch the rest of my post...

Is it true or untrue that the Court determine these cases "lacking both historical and legal precedent"?

Is it true or untrue that "the Court simply made a new announcement of policy, ‘No more Bible reading in schools"?

I have to agree with LadyEagle here:

At least, Pastor Mitchell, can you have a conversation about facts in evidence without turning it into a personal attack?

 

How interesting to watch the twisting in the wind. The man is a liar, but I suppose if he is YOUR liar, that's great.

 

To me that's the saddest thing. I did my basic research on Barton 15 years ago and presented it to a man who runs a local ministry. He was preparing an entire curriculum for youth based on Barton's research. I was able to eventually persuade him to remove references to Barton's material, but he was angry with me for undermining all of his hard work. He seemed to care less about telling the truth to youth people than creating popular literature that would sell well among conservative church leaders.

When a formerly prominent CCM singer was doing all of his "Put God back in America again" (as if we can "put" God anywhere - that's a characteristic of idols), he was depending almost completely on David Barton's work. In fact, unless the singer's people were completely plagiarizing Barton (which actually seems to happen quite a bit in conservative, self-described "Bible-believing" circles), then David Barton or his staff ghost-wrote the singer's associated book. Through the internet, I made the acquaintance of a member of the singer's team and forwarded the singer some information regarding Barton through the team member. A few weeks later, the singer's team member reported back that the singer read it but wasn't really interested because he had already staked out his position and the album and tour was coming to a close.

What is wrong with the followers of Jesus when He Himself identified Himself as truth (John 14:6) but they can't be concerned with truth that interferes with our popular religious culture? Shouldn't we be more concerned about truth than being humbled or thought foolish? Frankly, I have an enormous amount of respect for people who can publicly admit they have been wrong. In my eyes, they are people to be admired because they actually care about truth.

 

IMO, while it is important, if for no other reason that to maintain credibility and purity in trying to present truth, it is imperative that in showing the distinctions between truth and error, that we don't destroy or trash that which is truth:

In depth criticisms sometimes has the very effect of trying to separate the wheat from the weeds before the harvest. While removing the bad, the good gets destroyed.

I don't have any of Barton's works although I've wanted to acquire some (my own resources are limited)..... so I have no way of checking his sources or seeing if he gives resources indicative of scholarship.

It appears to me from the arguements presented here, that it is of minor interpretation the opin of Barton regarding the Supreme Court's decisions and that which others may derived if, after reading the material resource, were asked to capsulate their own impression.

Not long ago a video presentation was presented on this forum documenting the removal of God and evidence of faith in the LORD of the Bible, in the representative icons of history and government in the visitor center at our nation's captital. The discussion abounded over who authored the video and the credibility. After seeing it, if one visited the visitor's center and looked..... would the video be valid then? In the documents which have been purposely abbreviated or censored, the 'In God We Trust' above the Speakers Chair photoshopped out in a photo...... are these real or did they never exist in the first place? As far as I can see..... the devil, himself, could have authored that documentary, and inspite of his own nature.... it was accurate: Sadly, I think he would have gotten more accolades for pointing out these differences which IS changing the perception and the passing on of our HISTORY and HERITAGE, than the discrediting that Barton received on that same thread.

I'm so disappointed when one man has accumulated so much work to help us hold onto that which used to be passed to us in our history text..... and has enabled us with resources by which we can remember our heritage and pass the history and values along to our children..... but he is human, and it is possible that a rare ocassion of error may present itself..... but we will criticize his work and make it seem unworthy.

Well, for those who have the scholarship to be so critical of Barton's work...... I'd like to challenge you to produce a similar comprehensive work which epitomizes the Christian influence and the providence of God in the founding and the course of our nations history..... Something to pass on to future generations.

If the foundations be destroyed, O Lord, what then can the righteous do?

 

NO you are not as you have failed to engage in that at all. The entire premise of the post is what I addressed and debunked its validity. Your motive is questionable and your evidence is faulty. The fact that the court used the statement from the doctor in its final judgment speaks to the courts view on the necessity of it. Barton is right. You are wrong.

 

If it is, as some here would have us to believe, that Barton intentionally distorts the truth, what about the distortion already occurring in the text books of public cirriculum which ignores the faith based character of strength which many of our founders and early settlers had, which, in many of their personal letters, journals, and documents they shamelessly alluded to .......but is scrubbed from our text? How can this be defended? Who will oppose this distortion?

In all of humanity there is error: No man can stand on his own merits: But, it is time that we decide 'who is on the Lord's side'.

If a work is blatant and corrupt......that's important to denounce: But if a work is largely correct but there is error present, then instead of destroying that which is good, determine the significance and point out the error..... but give credit to the good.

 

They hate the truth of the founding of this country. I do not know why but the evidence is clear and compelling. And they attack with massive vitrol men like David Barton who works tirelessly to present its truth. They work to find any error and use the smallest of issues to discredit him. It is ungodly and evil they way he is treated by those who call themselves Christian.

 

Barton is a revisionist. He is NOT an historian. There may be some truth in his writings, but it is so outweighed by error that it places any credibility in doubt. Best to use another source.

And yes the founders had faith...Baptist, Quaker, Deist, Unitarian. But they recognized that religion and government must be separate with freedom of expression and conscience, without government endorsement, for men and women to remain free. The Constitution is a godless, secular document. It they had wanted otherwise, they sure missed the boat. But it is a good thing, as we have the most religious freedom on earth.

 

He is only a revisionist to those who have been indoctrinated by the revisionists that hate America's founding. Sad

 

Absolutely.

In the realm of dealing with critique of persons, I believe it is inappropriate to tear people apart without regard for their well-being. But when we are working with data/information, I think it is entirely appropriate to separate what is false from what is true.

Barton relies on many sources that can be adequately checked at a well-stock public library or online from scholarly sources. However, Barton also claims to rely on “rare books” he has in an extensive library that are not easy to verify. In my research of Barton’s material, I noticed Barton very consistently misused the sources I was able to check. This leads me to believe he can’t be trusted to properly use the sources I cannot check. While it is true that I have no real way of knowing whether or not he is quoting the unavailable source correctly, he has completely undermined his credibility everywhere else.

Frankly, very little of what I presented in Exhibit #1 earlier in this thread is interpretation. Barton made very clear claims and they are patently untrue. I have an enormous number of documented errors/distortions/lies I can present, but I’m very carefully choosing ones that are explicitly clear for the purposes of this thread. I want it to be clear whether you happen to generally agree or disagree with Barton over the issues, it is clear that his work cannot be trusted at face value. As someone who cares very deeply about these issues, I want people to do the research for themselves because I believe primary evidence overwhelmingly supports my position. (When I say primary evidence, I’m talking about looking at original sources and reading them for yourself, not relying on others to tell you what they say.)

If it were just one error, I might casually point it out and move on. But Barton has been thoroughly discredited by many people from many difference backgrounds and levels of scholarship for nearly 20 years. Unfortunately most of his supporters tend to claim that those who have looked into Barton’s claims are projecting their biases against his work and don’t pay attention to anything that undermines that viewpoint.
I will post more examples of Barton’s deceptions in the near future. As you might imagine it takes a couple of hours to select an appropriate example and prepare all of the links so people can check things out for themselves. Fundamentally, I don’t really want people to take my word for anything. I want them to be convinced in their own minds.

Frankly, the Supreme Court decision Engel v. Vitale that was quoted in Exhibit #1 does a nice job of presenting the influence of Christian teaching through early U.S. history. And most of the people who critique Barton (often they are Christian historians) readily acknowledge the role of Christianity in the United States. The reason they critique Barton is that Barton is telling a false history when the true history of the United States is much better.
The cause of Christ is not served by deceit.

 

There's a lie.

The evidence is there for all to see.

Why won't you deal with it instead of attacking those who provide evidence?

Uh huh. So why is Barton lying then?

Speaking of vitriol, why do you keep dispensing it instead of dealing with the evidence I have presented?

So you're now admitting he "erred"?

That's good.

I'll prepare another piece of evidence and you will start to see a pattern emerge.

It's "ungodly and evil" to check sources?

It's "ungodly and evil" to present your findings?

It's "ungodly and evil" to try to have a discussion about it that deals with evidence, but it's not "ungodly and evil" to pre-emptively accuse me of "twisting" truth, then going on an accusatory rampage against me when you realize I've been telling you the truth all along?

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..."

I'm a follower of Jesus, so I'm going to stick with truth.

What about you?

 

What's sad is that some of us have literally spent years reading original documents and learning our nation's history only to be attacked by those who support people who misrepresent those original documents for political/social/religious aims.

Who is more likely to have been indoctrinated by revisionist history - someone who has spent several years researching original documents or someone who has only read a couple of books by a popular speaker or watched a video at church?

 

I will say it only one more time.The court felt it was necessary to include the doctors statement in the final decision. Nothing Barton said was wrong or incorrect. The final decision referenced that statement. Let's see how many ways can it be said......The judge repeated the doctors statement. It is part of the judicial final decision. This fallacy has been debunked.

And the vitrol is coming from you who is intentionally misrepresenting the final court decision and David Barton. You refer to him a liar and intentionally and falsely misrepresent his motivations. You have nothing so you create garbage to try to discredit him. You only discredit yourself. The evidence is clear and you have, through your own means, shown yourself to be biased by your sad indoctrination and not credible to even criticize Barton on this issue.

 

What we have here is a mind totally locked shut, despite the facts. Truth is important to me. I am willing to drop any view if evidence supports another. Skepticism is healthy. What Mitch is demonstrating goes beyond "confirmation bias" and goes into the arena of "I believe my guy because he says what I like, even if it is demonstrably wrong".

 

Riiight... If someone quoted a sentence or two from an Obama-glorifying Web page that you linked to a post at Baptistboard where you also gave your own opinion about an issue, and then claimed that the words from the Obama-glorifying Web site you referenced were the sum total of your opinion about Barack Obama, you would be justly upset about it.

Just because you provide context for an opinion does not mean you necessarily share the opinion quoted, and it is certainly cannot be quoted as a substitute for your own opinion. That's the kind of common sense any adult should possess. But if we go by the standard you have now outlined, we should probably assume you agree 100% with every article/person you reference.

Even if we pretended your argument had merit, you're still ignoring this assertion Barton made:

“For the second time in a year, this was a case lacking both historical and legal precedent. Again, the Court simply made a new announcement of policy, ‘No more Bible reading in schools."​

And that's certainly completely untrue unless you totally ignore the context in which Barton placed those words and do some very serious Clintonesque redefining of the word "lacking."

If I give you a link to the entire text from the Supreme Court's decision and ask you to review it for yourself, how can I be misrepresenting it?

The "garbage" you refer to is a video of Barton's own words, coming out of his own mouth, produced and distributed by Wallbuilders (his ministry), compared with a copy of the primary source that Barton tells us we can find.

I think everyone sees what's going on here.

I will just leave that to everyone else to determine. The first piece of evidence is on the table. I'll make a decision on the next piece of evidence this week and let everyone who is interested take a look.

Since you already think you know my intentions, my biases, and preemptively announced last week that I was going to "twist" facts, you shouldn't feel obligated to respond to anything else.

 

BB, I just want to thank you for all your research and documentation on this.

 

........................................................................................................................

 

So you are reporting to be a student of the original autographs?



If the only sources you've had available to study are texts written since roughly 1913 ........ then many of them are already altered as socialism was beginning to creep into the history, civil government and social studies about that time..... maybe a bit more recent than that date.... but close.