Keeping Them Honest

[Martin]

I am going to post this information on my blog but I wanted to put it here as well. Newt Gingrich, Wallbuilders, and Renewing American Leadership, have put out a booklet refuting many of the historical errors and omissions found in the new Capital Vistors Center in Washington, D.C.. It is an absolute outrage that a center based at our Capital would get American history so very wrong. What should concern us, as Christians, more than simple historical errors is the fact that the historical errors and omissions have to do with the role of Christianity in American history. I urge all concerned Christians to print out the booklet and read it carefully making notes on how the secularists are trying to erase an important part of American history. CLICK HERE FOR PDF FILE .

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Anything David Barton and his Wallbuilders are involved in is suspect from the beginning. I would not place much stock in his historical revisionism.

 

[windcatcher]

Anything David Barton and his Wallbuilders are involved in is suspect from the beginning. I would not place much stock in his historical revisionism.

Since you have a problem with this information, which may or may not be valid, why not present or name some of your own sources or historians which you believe to be reputable in covering the same period, decades, or events?

This would inform the members at BB far more and add support to your opinion.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Since you have a problem with this information, which may or may not be valid, why not present or name some of your own sources or historians which you believe to be reputable in covering the same period, decades, or events?

This would inform the members at BB far more and add support to your opinion.

Search is your friend. I, as well as other members, have posted refutations of Barton's poor scholarship many times over the years. I don't feel like rehashing it, other than to say, the info is both on this board and also easy to Google.

 

[windcatcher]

Search is your friend. I, as well as other members, have posted refutations of Barton's poor scholarship many times over the years. I don't feel like rehashing it, other than to say, the info is both on this board and also easy to Google.

No! Wrong answer!

The truth is because you already have an opiinion concerning Barton's scholarship, you have neither visited the link nor proven or disproved the record of that site before presenting your opinion.

Therefore your 'discussion' has no persuasion more than one person saying 'I like coffee' and another saying 'but I prefer tea.'

 

[Revmitchell]

David Barton is not the sole contributor but a well reasoned one. Rather than make adhominem attacks objections could be made directly to information in the report.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

No! Wrong answer!

The truth is because you already have an opiinion concerning Barton's scholarship, you have neither visited the link nor proven or disproved the record of that site before presenting your opinion.

Therefore your 'discussion' has no persuasion more than one person saying 'I like coffee' and another saying 'but I prefer tea.'

No, dear Catcher, you are wrong. You have no idea what I saw, as I indeed read the link. And as you are still fairly new on the board, you missed all the multiple discussions of Barton's sloppy and revisionist scholarship (some BTW that he has finally admitted to) that has taken place before you got here. Just click on search at the top of this page and enter his name and you will find all the previous dialog on the subject. Again, I will not do your research for you. If you are truly interested and not baiting, it is right there.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

David Barton is not the sole contributor but a well reasoned one. Rather than make adhominem attacks objections could be made directly to information in the report.

An ad hominem is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the message. I have not attacked Barton, but rather the quality of his research, which is germaine to the issue at hand. I have said nothing personal about him; rather criticized his research by merely saying I wouldn't place much stock in it. That sir, is not an ad hominem. Learn the difference.

 

[Revmitchell]

An ad hominem is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the message. I have not attacked Barton, but rather the quality of his research, which is germaine to the issue at hand. I have said nothing personal about him; rather criticized his research by merely saying I wouldn't place much stock in it. That sir, is not an ad hominem. Learn the difference.

It is you who needs to learn what an adhominem attack is. Unless you are addressing the info in the article listed in this thread by providing evidence of revisionism of the article listed in this thread your statement is an adhominem attack. It has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Martin]

Anything David Barton and his Wallbuilders are involved in is suspect from the beginning. I would not place much stock in his historical revisionism.

==As a historian myself, I would say that we should always check the research of any historian, author, or teacher. That is why there are such things as footnotes and endnotes. Just because Barton is not the best historian, no arguments on that point, does not mean that anything he is involved with is "suspect". What we are required to do is check his work. Several of the points made in the report a dead on accurate. I saw nothing in the report that was faulty. Maybe some interpretations I would not totally endorse, but nothing stood out to me as being wrong.

Barton was only one part of the team involved in writing this report. In my experience, when reading/watching David Barton one must carefully filter what he says. Often times he will refer to someone as a Christian who in fact was not orthodox (Biblical) in their faith. Just because someone spoke of God (etc) does not mean they were a Christian. That is my main problem with Barton. However that does not mean he does not have valuable insights (he does). Generally I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water. I take what is good from Barton, and others, and leave the rest behind. But I only do that after investigating a point myself.

 

[Martin]

I believe this thread is getting away from the point. This is not about David Barton and his historical research, this is about secular powers trying to write Christianity out of the history of the United States. I am much more concerned about that then I am Barton's overstating the case. We should deal with the most important issue first and that is the secular assault (war) on Christianity's role in American history.

 

[windcatcher]

It is distressing to consider that the CVC, in presenting historic content, is not as close to representing both the good, and the spirit, and the faith of our people which help to make the USA great. While the criticism in the paper may seem excessive to some, I consider that the evidences of either oversight, or diliberate clipping of meaningful phrases within quoted material which alters the intent of the original author, amounts to censorship. By omission of the spiritual health of the nation from its history and the censoring of its evidence from the documents, the quotes, and the absence of appropriate explanations (for example...... Lincoln's table....would he have had it specially built if not to hold a Bible at his inargural?) show either a determined effort to divorce faith from its impact on history....and the making of our nation. These changes and omissions is altering the historical account as presented to the public .....both national and international, who are visiting.

And we paid good money for this?