David Barton

This isn't Biblical scholarship...originals and faithful, verifiable copies of 200 year old documents are not a problem.

 

Student? Yes.
Expert? No.

The documents related to the founding of the United States, as well as the Supreme Court decisions, and government records regarding these issues are widely available.

Well I'm referring to colonial writings from the 17th century (including the writings of the Puritans and Roger Williams) all the way to the present day.

To be clear, there have been at least two long-running positions regarding the relationship between church and state on the North American continent since the 17th century. This is an over-simplification, but Roger Williams, Baptists, Methodists, and other "New Light" congregations (sprang up in the wake of the Great Awakening) were generally on the side of separation of church and state (in the form reflected by current-day separation of church and state activists) and the Puritans, Anglicans (formerly Church of England), Roman Catholic, Congregationalists, and only-slightly reformed monarchists on the side of civil religion.

If Barton wanted to continue the discussion by advocating civil religion and treating the true history of our nation fairly, I wouldn't have a quarrel with him, I'd just disagree. But Barton not only does not treat the other side of the debate fairly, he pretends that there never was a debate until the 20th century and then paints those who disagree with his position as brainwashed dupes of radical atheists. Barton carefully and fairly cites the plenty of examples of those who support his side (like John Jay and Benjamin Rush), but consistently misquotes and misrepresents folks like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who advocated the contrary position. Moreover, he misrepresents objective historical documents and claims they say things they don't say.

I'm happy to have a lively public debate about church and state issues, but if Barton presents false evidence in the court of public opinion, shouldn't somebody point that out?

 

==That is a very odd statement considering the topic is American History and not Biblical literature/history. It is not hard to be a "student" of early American writings. All one needs is the interest, a bit of money to spend, and/or access to a good library or be willing to travel to one. The internet also has copies of many writings. Today, anyone can read copies of original writings. Only a few can get their hands on the originals but anyone can get their hands on copies. In graduate school a friend of mine did research on Thomas Sumpter and was able to examine and get copies of letters exchanged between Sumpter and Greene. During my research on King Philip's War, I obtained copies of primary documents related to the war (letters, etc). You don't have to be working on an MA in History like we were to do that type of research.

 

==Of course! :thumbs:

The problem I see is that so many Christians want to put the founders up on these pedestals. However there is no reason to do that. Look, these were just men! Like us they had faults, failures, successes, and achievements. After the Revolution was over, many of these men developed very serious differences of opinion on how the U.S. government should operate. Thus the opinions of Jefferson may differ from Washington, Adams, or Hamilton. Neither were they all of the same faith. Some, as you have pointed out, were Christians of the best sort. However some of them denied the Trinity, the resurrection, the Deity of Christ, and the miracles in the Bible. Others were somewhere in the middle. In my opinion, Barton does not do enough to make facts like those well known to his readers/listeners. He presents one side without presenting the other. The same was true of the late Dr. D. James Kennedy. While I enjoyed Dr. Kennedy's Bible lessons, some of the things he said about the founders was misleading. He wrote a little book called "What They Believed: The Faith of Washington, Jefferson, & Lincoln". Of course anyone who knows anything about the "faith of" Thomas Jefferson will find it strange that an evangelical Christian would view his "faith" in a positive way. While Dr. Kennedy admits that Jefferson was not "a genuine Christian", he plays that down by callling Jefferson a "nominal Christian" and comparing him to others who attend church but have "never gotten beyond seeing in Christianity anything other than a code of ethics". My reading of Jefferson tells me that he was not even a nominal Christian. Thomas Jefferson was a heretic who, through his own work, attempted to exclude from the Bible the verses he did not like. That is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that Dr. Kennedy and Mr. Barton are sometimes "misleading". Christians who only read/listen to Kennedy, Barton, Lillback, and those like them, will come away with a very foggy view of our founders.

 

So I see that whether or not our founding fathers were correct in their othodoxy or doctrine...... still you would make a distinction of judgement to proclaim those who were correct as Christian and those of incorrect interpretation as atheist? Even a dieist asserts some recognition and belief of the hand of providence working in and through the affairs of men. Why is it so wrong to label some of them as nominal Christians..... when today in our pews..... we probably have as many of that ilk warming the pews and standing in the pulpits as they did in that day. But even in the days of the founding of our country..... men who may not have believed the whole Bible, still looked upon it as a book of immense wisdom and suitable for guidance and direction.

Somehow, I don't see Barton's work as much as an argument for getting the church in government and schools as much as an argument for not taking the teachings and the foundations which drove our founding fathers in the decisions which they made from being taken out of the history.

You know? When one already has a side in perspective, then any other side often appears extreme (and moreso, if it takes one ....such as myself....to point this out to others.... whos proclaimed objectivity should already have them admitting). As much as you see Barton..... and/or my position as being against separation of church and state.... is it not possible that some of you who come from a position of wanting separation of church and state have difficulty in seeing a difference between your position and that of censoring history so that those arguments of individual conviction which drove our founding fathers to the decisions and press of unity in spite of differences..... are taken out?

As for 'oringinal autographs': It is precisely that so many do still exist or are of such recent origin that modern duplication can make those documents available to ones who have the time, money, and access to study them. I brought that up because of some of you profess that errors exist because original documents weren't consulted..... in which case I challenge which original documents have you consulted to prove his errors.

Like it or not, even the best history written is taken from the perspective of either eyewitness accounts OR the perspective of the historian who is rebuilding historic accounts based upon documents left behind by others. When so many of our founding fathers had a very excellant regard for and familiarity of Bible and peppered so much of their passions of persuasive argument with passages of direct or indirect quotes.... but these are disproportionantly ommitted from the modern text, then we pass along to our progeny the belief and testimony of a skewed history which negates or dulls the important part which religious teachings played in the establishment of our country and in the formation of its documents and ideals of freedom and justice.

If one were to google 'evoluntionary hoaxes' one would come up with far too many fraudulant 'evidences' which even evoluntionist have debunked..... but which are still being published in public school text books as though they were fact. In contrast, there seems to be little outcry from those who hold fast such a self-righteous standard of credibility to the likes of Barton who makes an honest attempt at restoring a balance into the presentation of history against that which would have been mentioned in modern text were there not a deliberate attempt to abort the importance of a belief in God upon the building of our nation by recent historians.

Oh well! It is through such fires as this discussion that we show the refinement of the metal which is in us.

 

Certainly the Bible has been enormously influential in the founding and history of the United States. At the same time, I think we need to consider the many ways our founding fathers were influenced by the Bible. For instance, Thomas Jefferson was heavily influence by the Bible - he reacted very strongly against much of it and actually took scissors to excise what he didn’t like. At the same time, he found many of the teachings of Jesus to be among the highest expressions of human wisdom. Even by today’s standards, Jefferson’s religious views would be pretty extreme.

But I don’t think Martin (or anyone else) here on Baptistboard (even Pastor Mitchell) is suggesting either extreme that every founding father was a Christian or no founding father was a Christian. The faith of the founding fathers spanned those who were extremely devout and orthodox all the way to heretics and rationalistic unbelievers.

Well Barton’s first book, To Pray or Not to Pray was a direct appeal to the masses to overturn the Supreme Court rulings on state-sponsored and initiated school prayer and Bible reading reversed. His explicitly advocated state-sponsored and initiated religious exercises in the classrooms of the United States.

His second book, The Myth of Separation attacks the concept of institutional separation of church and state and seeks to build popular opinion to overturn Supreme Court rulings which uphold it.

Many, if not all, of his subsequent books advocate similar positions.

However, his underlying justification for these political/social positions is his assertion that history has been censored/changed/misrepresented to eliminate references to the influence of Christianity upon U.S. history. To that end, he is partially correct.

There really are some historians/politicians/activists who are ignoring or censoring the religious influences which shaped United States history. Because of this problem, legitimate Christian historians need to be supported by the Christian community to bring these issues to light. Unfortunately, Barton is not one of those people, but he is being supported by many Christians. Since anyone who is familiar with the founding history and documents and the legacy of the Supreme Court decisions knows that Barton is being dishonest, it makes it more difficult for historians who are being honest to be taken seriously. If we are going to enter the national debate on these matters, we need to be armed with truth and integrity.

For what it’s worth, back in the early 1980s I was against separation of church and state because I thought it was conceived to drive the very mention of God out of public life. My perspective began to change in 1985 when a good friend of mine was asked to lead in prayer at high school graduation. I had recently had the honor of pointing him toward Christ and he had only weeks before committed his life to Jesus. He was excited about the prospect of sharing his faith. Unfortunately, the school administration asked him for a copy of his intended prayer. He wrote out what he wanted to say and turned it in.

His prayer came back heavily-edited so as not to offend the Roman Catholics (the dominant Christian group in our region) by reference to salvation by faith alone, and also converted all references to Jesus and the Father to a more generic “God”. My friend was incensed and decided he would not lead the prayer since it was just going to be a speech essentially dictated by the school board. They threatened to not allow him to graduate and he let them know that they would face some serious legal action and a scandal in the media if they even mentioned that idea again. So instead they assigned the prayer to another person, a young man whose life was anything but Spirit-filled, and he read my friend’s edited prayer.

After that exercise in what it means to be in a religious minority, I starting thinking about the meaning of the First Amendment and doing some reading into Baptist history.

Not really. I’m against censoring history... period. As far as I’m concerned, I think I’m on the right side historically and biblically, so I’m not worried about information coming to light.

When I actually did most of this research back in the early to mid-1990s, I looked in dusty volumes of “U.S. Reports” (the publication which officially prints the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court) in the reference section of the downtown Fort Worth Public Library. Today, all of the material in those books are available several places online. Everything I have checked online perfectly matches my notes from my research 15 years ago and there are multiple sites to compare sources if you think there is some kind of online conspiracy.

Also, back about 10 years ago, I purchased (at significant expense) a bound collection of Supreme Court decisions assembled by a TCU professor by a church and state constitutional scholar for his classes at TCU. I did not attend his classes, but at that time, the Supreme Court cases decided before 1894 were not yet online.

I wouldn’t disagree.

To avoid those charges, I’m carefully selecting things I can easily demonstrate that Barton has said/written against the original documents he claims to be referencing. That takes me almost completely out of the discussion and lets everyone investigate for themselves. The major problem I’m running into is that the text of Barton’s books are not available online, so I can show those to a remote reader so they can compare it to original documents.

I have some ideas to work around that though, but it is going to take a bit of time. I think I have selected my next example from his video, “America’s Godly Heritage” that I’ll try to post by the weekend.

After examining Barton's work, I don't think he is making an honest attempt at doing any real historical work, but I have yet to fully demonstrate that. I share the same concerns about the way modern scholarship often ignores or omits the religious motivations of historical figures. However I haven’t had much of an opportunity to say that since certain persons in this thread have spend most of their energies trying to vilify my methods, motives and what they believe to be my beliefs. However, you are not like that.

Thank you!

Yes. I appreciate and share many of your concerns. I hope you continue to participate in this discussion. I think we will all learn something.

 

==It is true that Thomas Jefferson was accused of being an atheist during his lifetime. However his response to such accusations was a clear denial. Thomas Jefferson was not an atheist.

"So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro' all time, they have believed, in proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis." -Thomas Jefferson, April 1823

Thomas Jefferson was clearly not an atheist. However he was not a Bible believing Christian either.

==Jefferson was more than a "pew warmer" in his day. He strongly denied the Bible's teachings on miracles (etc). And he was not quiet with his views either. He was wrote down his views and sent them to friends like Benjamin Rush, John Adams, and others. Benjamin Rush, a Christian and friend of Jefferson, was shocked by Jefferson's highly unorthodox views of Jesus. He was writing his errors down. He was cutting up the Bible to make it fit his anti-supernatural views. This was no mere pew warmer, this was a heretic in full bloom.

==So? What does James tell us? "Prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves" (Jms 1:22). Viewing the Bible as a nice book of wisdom is insulting to God. That many of the founders viewed the Bible in such as way is beyond question. However, contrary to what some want to claim, that is not a good thing. The Bible is the very Word of God. It is not to be viewed as human wisdom or a book of good ideas and guidance. It is the Word of God and must be viewed and treated that way.

==And that is a good goal. But we have to be historically accurate about what we are saying. Taking a one-sided position is not being accurate. Btw, the main cause (taxation) that drove the Revolutionary generation to make a break with England has not been lost.

==Having studied the founding of Plymouth Colony, and thus having examined the persecution the "Pilgrims" suffered under King James I of England, I believe the separation of church and state is a good thing. Like Roger Williams, strong Christian and founder of Rhode Island, I believe that because I have seen how government corrupts the truth and uses it against true Christians. History shows us this lesson time and time again.

As for "censoring history". People can, and should, do their own homework. If history is being censored in certain ways then it is up to people to do their homework and get the full story. Barton, while being a very nice man, is not doing that. He is telling one side of the story while ignoring or glossing over the parts that don't agree with his position. We need historians who are going to work hard to tell the whole story.

==I was not part of that portion of the discussion so I can't add anything to it.

==Very true.

==We have to understand the founders in their historical context. Yes, they "peppered so much of their passions of persuasive argument with passages of direct or indirect quotes". However that does not mean they were all Christians or orthodox. Sure there were a good number of Christians among our nations founders. However there were also a good number of people who we could never call Christians by any Biblical standard.

I don't see that these "quotes" are being "disproportionantly ommitted from the modern text". There are many American History textbooks out there to choose from. In fact, there are so many that it can be a pain trying to select one to use in class. There is even a text for those who believe that religion in American history has been short changed. It is called "Unto A Good Land" and it was put together by several very good historians. I don't use it in my classes because it does not come with a documents cd, but I certainly use it when prepping for class. I highly recommend it. It is an example of history you can trust from scholars who do the best they can to present the material fairly. Even when I disagree with a point they make I know that disagreement is based upon scholarship.

==I would agree that "Barton...makes an honest attempt at restoring a balance into the presentation of history" but that certainly does not mean that he has reached his goal. A person can be godly, sincere, honest, and still be wrong. Barton goes too far in some of his assertions. Unlike others on here I would not call Barton a "liar", I think that is overly harsh, but I would say he is unbalanced in his presentations. By the way, I have seen, heard, and read many of Barton's materials. I have several of his cds, books, and dvds. While he presents some interesting information he often glosses over facts that do not fit into his position.

I uncomfortable with your remark about "recent historians". The vast majority of historians I know work hard to inform their students, their readers, and their listeners, about the facts. I know I certainly do. Are there historians who have political agendas? O, yes. However I think they are in the minority.

 

I appreciate and respect both of your (Baptist Believer and Martin) recent replies. It is clearer now that you are not totally condemning Barton's work but rather addressing areas which you've seen to be reasonable criticisms or misrepresentations which detract, if these don't jeapodize his credibility.

As I've admitted, I have none of Barton's works to refer to: The only impressions which I have are based upon 'documentary' type programs presented on t.v. . As a child I had the chance to read some old text books belonging to my grandfather..... the publishing of which would have put them in the late 1800's is my guess...... and these were far different than the smidgen of history latter taught in jr. high. When living in Virginia, I had a very good text book on Va. history which instilled in me the values that our founders had based upon religious teachings..... regarding morality, man's duty to God, community and family, and the belief that liberty is God given.... but requires a moral people to keep it. That was in the 50's ...... and we transferred to FL before the year was half through. The text I studied in college seemed strangely different, deficient, and uninspiring, almost surgical in its bland and objective presentation; and that was in the late 60's, several years after the ruling on prayer.

I think I hear your saying that the chief problems in Barton's works are his interpretation of the influence and meanings of court decisions...... and presenting the impression that people such as Jefferson and Franklin or Paine were Christian.

 

That is not what is presented in this thread. What was presented in this thread was a misrepresentation of both the court and Barton. IN effect what happened was that Barton was being treated in the manner he is being accused of.

 

Truly sad when a mind is made up in spite of the facts. Not a good quality.

 

The facts are the court referenced the Dr.'s comment in its final decision.

 

Okay then, using your standard, you said the following in post #15 on this thread:

[Posted by Revmitchell]"Barton has misrepresented his sources ... and ... he is an untrustworthy guide to this discussion."​

Look, you agree!


EDIT: For all those who are just joining this thread, Revmitchell did not say what I quoted above. I am merely illustrating the fallacy he is clinging to by creating a vivid, personal example of what his standards would look like if they were carried out on Baptistboard.

 

==I can only speak for myself, but I think your comment here is spot on. Barton's teachings and ideas are not all wrong and there are points where I have strong agreement with him. However his overstatement on the faith of the founders bothers me. It would be much better if he would pull back a bit and be more balanced.

==I hated junior high history class. We were required to take North Carolina History in the 8th grade and the teacher for that class was my father. Talk about a nightmare! It was bad enough that he taught at my school, then I had to take his class. I thought the year would never end. :BangHead:

==Many textbooks, and not just in history, have become dull and bland like that. At my college, we have tried to select books that make the reading both enjoyable and educational. When I first started teaching Western Civilization classes the book they were using was dry as dust and just as complicated. I only used it for one semester before changing. The new book is far more interesting and more educational. Sometimes I think the two go hand in hand.

==I was not involved in the "court decision(s)" discussions so I can't add anything to that. As for the last part (bold) I think that is correct. I think it is clear from their own statements that those men were not Christian at all. That they may have quoted the Bible, gone to church, or even made donations to churches/ministers, does not prove they were Christians. Their beliefs/doctrines were clearly contrary to the Word of God (imo).

Btw, windcatcher, that was a very good reply. I enjoyed reading it. :thumbs:

 

Which has nothing to do with this thread and fail to relate to the issue in even the smallest way. Of course you have been unable to refute what I am saying:

1. Barton said "the court made note"

2. That the court referenced the Dr.'s Statement

Therefore the statement that the court made note is true and correct and the dr.'s statement was used to support the courts decision.

 

Of course it does, as an illustration of the exact type of "scholarship" Barton uses.

Instead of blindly clinging to anything...each of us should be willing to ask ourselves and contemplate the implications of one simple question..."What if I am wrong?" Unfortunately, few seem to be willing to consider that simple possibility.

 

Sure it does.

In case you missed it, that post was the refutation.
​

You made note of my comments in post #15 of this thread.

You referenced my statement in your comments in post #15 of this thread.

Therefore what I wrote is true and correct, and my statement adequately expresses your opinion.

Right?

Obviously not... but I've following your line of reasoning (and Barton's) exactly.

 

So you cannot refute the facts and you just turn to silliness.

 

Wow!

Denial's not just a river in Egypt!

:laugh:

 

The fact remains, whether Christian or not, even these men had a particular regard for the scriptures which included reading and studying them and having a familiarity of them which, even as non-Christian, is most remarkable in their ability to reference them in their writings and speeches and leave us with the impression that they regarded the Bible as more than good literature, and that it had notable influence in helping them determine the nature of governments and the author of freedom.

I think when it becomes MOST important that we know the status of their Christianity is when we or our children follow into studying their specific lives and works..... and accept without question (which is an error in itself) the legacy they left us without discerning the error in their doctrine: For that matter, it behoves us to study the Bible thoroughly and be knowledgable as there is no doctrine or influence taught or written outside the inspiration of God which is totally correct and error free: Even the great leaders within Christianity like Luther and Calvin had their errors, yet they inspire us today and we thank God for using them and others like Tyndall and Wycliffe among so many others to bring us to the blessings of today.

 

Just remember that Jefferson held the Bible in such regard that he edited out the parts he found objectionable. For example the excerpt from a letter to John Adams (which can be read in its entirety here):