Ahh, David Barton, no thanks. He lies as much as Trump---well, almost.
THE Founding Fathers Thread of All Founding Fathers Threads
- Thread starter aCultureWarrior
- Start date
Ahh, David Barton, no thanks. He lies as much as Trump---well, almost.
While I am aware that your LGBTQ/pro abortion ally Donald Trump is a pathological liar, unless you have some actual evidence against David Barton (who owns 100,000 pre 1812 documents on the founding area and Founding Fathers), would it be safe to say that you're trolling my thread?
Bump for a potential new member that wants to talk about Barton and the subject of Colonial America.
It's funny that you should bring up historians, as McCoy (the potential new member) played up the importance of historian credentials as well. When I asked him if any of the historians that he listed had bad things to say about David Barton and Wallbuilders, he suspiciously went silent. I then looked at the works of the historians that he listed (one was a former Communist Party member) and commented how they write about certain Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, i.e. the famous ones) and write books on other subjects, hence not making them experts on the dozens of men we call the Founding Fathers like Wallbuilders and David Barton are.
I hope McCoy shows up, as he has a lot of information from secular humanist sites. It's always fun to refute those lies with facts.
McCoy
New member
I’m copying and pasting a small part from our previous discussion elsewhere, because I suspect that it was removed before you could read it:
As we discussed a couple posts back, Jefferson created his own version of the Gospels which deleted all the supernatural stories and miraculous events, and contained only the moral teachings of Jesus. Imagine how you would approach this conversation right now, if you knew that I —and not Jefferson—had created my own bible with the supernatural parts completely trimmed out.
The question is, what would cause Jefferson to embark upon such a naturist/moralist remix of the Gospels?
Jefferson wrote in his personal correspondence about the influence of Joseph Priestly's book "An History of the Corruptions of Christianity" and stated outright that no other man had such a profound influence on his religious views, than Priestly (who was an avowed Unitarian).
Incidentally, if you'd like to read the same book that Jefferson so highly recommended, it's still in print and is available for free online. In it, Priestly denies the Trinity, denies the divinity and preexistence of Christ, denies Original Sin (which he calls "bizarre") and denies Protestant ideas about substitutionary atonement. This was the book that had a profound impact on Jefferson.
It's worth noting that Priestley was NOT an atheist, and was fervent in his belief that Christianity was largely about dignity and human morality and Jesus' human death merely a shining example to us to stand for moral principles and higher ideals. Whatever the case, the venerable statesman claimed that no man living had a deeper affection for Priestley’s work, than himself.
Re: Higher education in early America—My point was simply to say, that when Barton tells an audience that the majority of the signers of the Declaration were “Seminary graduates”, he knows exactly what he's doing and the deceptive effect that it has on the gullible and ignorant.
Yes, I've acknowledged, the majority were "Seminary" grads.
But "Seminary" in the 18th century was synonymous with the word "University" and were the ONLY places in America where a man could formally be taught classical studies-- i.e. math, science, moral philosophy, Latin and Greek and classical literature. There were no other alternatives. Throughout the 19th century, these studies began to expand to additional sciences like chemistry, mineralogy, physics and medicine. All of the early "Seminaries"/Universities were unquestionably religious in nature, and featured compulsory religious studies, strict moral guidelines and mandatory chapel services.
Again of the Declaration's signatures, only one had obtained an actual Divinity Degree. And the term "seminary" DID NOT mean what it means today-- which is perhaps the most obvious fact, and one that Barton deliberately tramples over.
The truth tends to let a bit of wind out of the 'ol demagogic sails, doesn't it?
As for the centrality of Christianity and various denominations in America's heritage, I have never once contradicted that historical fact.
This doesn't mean that the foundational document undergirding our American system of laws and rights is expressly based on New Testament ideas or doctrines. It clearly is not.
As we discussed a couple posts back, Jefferson created his own version of the Gospels which deleted all the supernatural stories and miraculous events, and contained only the moral teachings of Jesus. Imagine how you would approach this conversation right now, if you knew that I —and not Jefferson—had created my own bible with the supernatural parts completely trimmed out.
The question is, what would cause Jefferson to embark upon such a naturist/moralist remix of the Gospels?
Jefferson wrote in his personal correspondence about the influence of Joseph Priestly's book "An History of the Corruptions of Christianity" and stated outright that no other man had such a profound influence on his religious views, than Priestly (who was an avowed Unitarian).
Incidentally, if you'd like to read the same book that Jefferson so highly recommended, it's still in print and is available for free online. In it, Priestly denies the Trinity, denies the divinity and preexistence of Christ, denies Original Sin (which he calls "bizarre") and denies Protestant ideas about substitutionary atonement. This was the book that had a profound impact on Jefferson.
It's worth noting that Priestley was NOT an atheist, and was fervent in his belief that Christianity was largely about dignity and human morality and Jesus' human death merely a shining example to us to stand for moral principles and higher ideals. Whatever the case, the venerable statesman claimed that no man living had a deeper affection for Priestley’s work, than himself.
Re: Higher education in early America—My point was simply to say, that when Barton tells an audience that the majority of the signers of the Declaration were “Seminary graduates”, he knows exactly what he's doing and the deceptive effect that it has on the gullible and ignorant.
Yes, I've acknowledged, the majority were "Seminary" grads.
But "Seminary" in the 18th century was synonymous with the word "University" and were the ONLY places in America where a man could formally be taught classical studies-- i.e. math, science, moral philosophy, Latin and Greek and classical literature. There were no other alternatives. Throughout the 19th century, these studies began to expand to additional sciences like chemistry, mineralogy, physics and medicine. All of the early "Seminaries"/Universities were unquestionably religious in nature, and featured compulsory religious studies, strict moral guidelines and mandatory chapel services.
Again of the Declaration's signatures, only one had obtained an actual Divinity Degree. And the term "seminary" DID NOT mean what it means today-- which is perhaps the most obvious fact, and one that Barton deliberately tramples over.
The truth tends to let a bit of wind out of the 'ol demagogic sails, doesn't it?
As for the centrality of Christianity and various denominations in America's heritage, I have never once contradicted that historical fact.
This doesn't mean that the foundational document undergirding our American system of laws and rights is expressly based on New Testament ideas or doctrines. It clearly is not.
Wow, that was fast. My thanks to the TOL moderator who expedited McCoy's new membership.
To put things into perspective, our debate is based on an article titled:
Discerning the Vicious Attacks on America's Biblical Heritage
https://www.charismanews.com/opinion...lical-heritage
I'm not sure if McCoy disagrees with the above statement or if he just likes to attack experts on the Founding Fathers like David Barton. Perhaps he'll make himself clear where he stands before I respond to his post. One thing McCoy, let's try to concentrate on one subject at a time in each post to keep the posts from getting too lengthy.
Once you've clarified your position on the subject title, I'll reply to the first part of your post on Thomas Jefferson and his Jefferson Bibles (note how I used the plural) and then follow up with how most of the Founding Fathers attended colleges that would in this day and age would lean towards being called a seminary and how a large portion of the Founding Fathers held positions in their churches such as pastor, elder, or founded/managed bible societies.
To put things into perspective, our debate is based on an article titled:
Discerning the Vicious Attacks on America's Biblical Heritage
For the first 150 years of America's existence, no one questioned the axiom
America is a Christian nation. This did not mean that everyone was a Christian or that the nation officially sanctioned any denomination or religious sect. It meant, instead, that the nation's laws and institutions were founded on Christian principles and values.
https://www.charismanews.com/opinion...lical-heritage
I'm not sure if McCoy disagrees with the above statement or if he just likes to attack experts on the Founding Fathers like David Barton. Perhaps he'll make himself clear where he stands before I respond to his post. One thing McCoy, let's try to concentrate on one subject at a time in each post to keep the posts from getting too lengthy.
Once you've clarified your position on the subject title, I'll reply to the first part of your post on Thomas Jefferson and his Jefferson Bibles (note how I used the plural) and then follow up with how most of the Founding Fathers attended colleges that would in this day and age would lean towards being called a seminary and how a large portion of the Founding Fathers held positions in their churches such as pastor, elder, or founded/managed bible societies.
One thing that you should know about TOL McCoy (in case you haven't noticed by reading various posts in this thread) is that there are little pests running around attempting to get noticed. They're not really interested in debate, so just ignore them.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
doser notes:
Acw squirms:
sorry dude, it's true - Thomas Jefferson owned slaves
there's not anything to debate about - you can squirm and attempt to ignore it, but the truth doesn't change
Acw squirms:
sorry dude, it's true - Thomas Jefferson owned slaves
there's not anything to debate about - you can squirm and attempt to ignore it, but the truth doesn't change
McCoy
New member
Sounds good.
Re: the premise of the CN article posted above:
Our nation has a rich and diverse Christian heritage. This is a matter of objective historical fact.
But here's the thing: I'm not aware of any respected, credentialed historian who debates this fact.
In other words, the reality of America's Christian heritage is not actually contested by any real historian, nor is it an actual point of contention among Barton's critics. So let's put that to rest.
Secondly, I take issue with the characterization of Barton as an "expert" on history-- or on anything for that matter. To be regarded as a historian in our modern post-industrialized society, has traditionally required several important qualifications. The first commonly being 1) an advanced academic degree in history, 2) a proven and reliable track record of handling primary and secondary sources in published research, and 3) a body of published work that is favorably regarded for accuracy within the historical community.
Barton literally has NONE of those things. He has a bachelor in religious education from a school founded by a televangelist. His track record of research and handling sources is so abysmal that his Christian publisher pulled his Jefferson biography for gross inaccuracies at great financial loss to themselves. And his work has zero regard among academics and researchers in the historical community. He has to continually remind people that he is an "expert" on American History, which is a bit like a woman telling you how ladylike she is or a politician telling you what a "genius" they are. In other words if you have to keep reminding people, you probably ain't.
Now, I will add this as footnote about advanced academic credentials in history. There ARE exceptions to this within the historical community. I will give you one example. Richard B. Frank wrote what is almost universally considered to be the definitive work on the Battle of Guadalcanal. He is a Vietnam veteran with a degree in law from Georgetown, and does not have a masters or PhD in history. But his research in the Guadalcanal book is so painstakingly exhaustive and his handling of facts so careful and measured, that the work is universally regarded by WWII historians as the benchmark document on that battle.
So you would agree with the opening statement from the article that said
"For the first 150 years of America's existence, no one questioned the axiom
America is a Christian nation.
This did not mean that everyone was a Christian or that the nation officially sanctioned any denomination or religious sect. It meant, instead, that the nation's laws and institutions were founded on Christian principles and values."
If so, we can both agree that the laws, institutions/culture of early America, including the period of the Founding Fathers were that of a "Christian nation"?
So we can agree that the ACLU, Warren Throckmorton, Mikey Weinstein and Chris Rodda to name 4 who dispute that the United States was founded as a Christian nation aren't "respected, credentialed historians"?
Since we're agreeing on the two above topics, can we both agree that no "real historians" have stepped forward and denounced the work of David Barton and Wallbuilders? While we're agreeing can we agree that "respected and credentialed historians" that you have named elsewhere wrote books about the better known Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Washington, Franklin) and also wrote books about topics not relating to the founding of our country and thus aren't real experts on the dozens of men who wrote and signed our nations founding documents and represented our nation in government and other aspects of public life? Can we also agree that those historians don't own over 100,000 original documents from the colonial era predating 1812 and give around 400 lectures a year to various groups about the Founding Fathers and the colonial period of America like David Barton does?
Once we agree on all of the above, we can discuss #3 on the secular humanist HATE list:
1) God
2) The EX homosexual
3) David Barton
and why Barton is such a threat to the secular humanist movement.
McCoy
New member
He did. As did large numbers of other wealthy people in America.
The Old and New Testaments endorsed the practice without reservation. Men who derived their morality from the Bible found no real issue with owning slaves.
Because Jefferson was a free thinker, theologically progressive and someone very attuned to the Enlightenment writers, he remained relatively conflicted on the issue throughout his public life. He favored gradual emancipation of slaves, but feared that their innate inferiority and incapability with white society, would lead to chaos and violence.
McCoy
New member
I've stated repeatedly what is a matter of established historical fact: America has a deep, Christian heritage.
Arguing that "America is a Christian nation" is a very different assertion.
England is, technically-speaking, one example of a "Christian nation". The country's official State religion is Christianity and the Head of the State is also the Head of its National Church. In England, the Head of State can also make theologically-binding pronouncements or changes that affect all members of its State Church. America, as a Representative Republic under its Constitution, has NEVER been such a nation.
Our Constitution, which frames our system of government, with its laws and rights, is not a document derived from New Testament teaching. It's principles also flatly contradict the Old Testament and the laws of Moses (including the Ten Commandments).
McCoy
New member
The ACLU is a civil rights organization, not a historical one.
Throckmorton is a psychologist and blogger. He doesn't claim to be a historian.
Rodda is an author. She is not a historian and doesn't claim to be.
I dont know who Weinstein is, but my guess is that he isn't a historian either.
You're grasping at straws here, homey. Writing books about historical topics doesn't make one a "historian". Collecting artifacts, doesn't make one a historian. Being a popular author or speaker doesn't make you a historian. Likewise, referring to yourself repeatedly as an "expert" on a given topic doesn't make it so.
I'd prefer if you address specific Barton claims to debate, rather than try and argue for the man's expertise based upon his antique collection, popularity or speaking schedule.
Originally posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
So you would agree with the opening statement from the article that said
"For the first 150 years of America's existence, no one questioned the axiom
America is a Christian nation.
So for the first 150 years of this nation's existence, the statement that it wasn't questioned that America was a Christian nation is not true? If it's not true, can you back that with evidence?
One has to question if a nation that allows abortion, homosexuality and other kinds of immoral behavior and depravity is really a "Christian nation". One also has to question if a nation that doesn't allow different Christian perspectives (other denominations) and persecutes those that don't believe in the Church of England's doctrine really is "Christian". Also I wasn't aware that in order for a nation to identify itself as a "Christian nation" it had to have a State Church.
Since you're stating that the State has to be involved in promoting the Christian religion in order for a nation to identify itself as a "Christian nation", can we agree that all of the things that the Federal and respective State governments did during the years of the Founding Fathers, promoted the religion of Christianity?
Note that this video only shows a small portion of what was done at the federal level. I can also show where the respective States required oaths from politicians stating that they were Christian, etc. etc. etc.
Actually it is:
The Bible and Government
Biblical Principles: Basis for American Laws
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and...and-government
So you would agree with the opening statement from the article that said
"For the first 150 years of America's existence, no one questioned the axiom
America is a Christian nation.
So for the first 150 years of this nation's existence, the statement that it wasn't questioned that America was a Christian nation is not true? If it's not true, can you back that with evidence?
One has to question if a nation that allows abortion, homosexuality and other kinds of immoral behavior and depravity is really a "Christian nation". One also has to question if a nation that doesn't allow different Christian perspectives (other denominations) and persecutes those that don't believe in the Church of England's doctrine really is "Christian". Also I wasn't aware that in order for a nation to identify itself as a "Christian nation" it had to have a State Church.
Since you're stating that the State has to be involved in promoting the Christian religion in order for a nation to identify itself as a "Christian nation", can we agree that all of the things that the Federal and respective State governments did during the years of the Founding Fathers, promoted the religion of Christianity?
Note that this video only shows a small portion of what was done at the federal level. I can also show where the respective States required oaths from politicians stating that they were Christian, etc. etc. etc.
Actually it is:
The Bible and Government
Biblical Principles: Basis for American Laws
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and...and-government
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
it qualifies one as an amateur historian
always better to let others speak to your expertise, and by all accounts the only people who consider Barton to be an expert are those who are not experts themselves
like Acw
Originally posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
So we can agree that the ACLU, Warren Throckmorton, Mikey Weinstein and Chris Rodda to name 4 who dispute that the United States was founded as a Christian nation aren't "respected, credentialed historians"?
Mikey Weinstein is a the founder and President of the leftwing Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
In any event, thank you for acknowledging that David Barton's main detractors are not qualified historians. BTW, those same people use the same arguments as you do when it comes to denouncing David Barton's expertise.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Evidently a college degree does.
Ah yes, David Barton, the boogeyman that hides underneath every secular humanist's bed (#3 on the secular humanist HATE list).
How about we start off with the claims that David Barton made during his Capitol Tour video?
So we can agree that the ACLU, Warren Throckmorton, Mikey Weinstein and Chris Rodda to name 4 who dispute that the United States was founded as a Christian nation aren't "respected, credentialed historians"?
Mikey Weinstein is a the founder and President of the leftwing Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
In any event, thank you for acknowledging that David Barton's main detractors are not qualified historians. BTW, those same people use the same arguments as you do when it comes to denouncing David Barton's expertise.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Can we also agree that those historians don't own over 100,000 original documents from the colonial era predating 1812 and give around 400 lectures a year to various groups about the Founding Fathers and the colonial period of America like David Barton does?
Evidently a college degree does.
Ah yes, David Barton, the boogeyman that hides underneath every secular humanist's bed (#3 on the secular humanist HATE list).
How about we start off with the claims that David Barton made during his Capitol Tour video?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
then you agree - the United States is not a Christian nation :thumb:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
this is the dishonest retard that Acw has a mancrush on? :noway:
what an embarrassment
| Barton On Thomas Jefferson 'Lies' Most recently, Barton has focused on Thomas Jefferson. His new book, The Jefferson Lies, made The New York Times best-seller list. (The publisher has recently pulled the book from shelves citing factual errors.) Barton's aim is to bust the "myths" about Jefferson. One of them, he told Huckabee on Fox News, is that Jefferson was a religious skeptic. Barton argues that for the first 70 or so years of his life, Jefferson was a "conventional Christian," although he did express doubts in his final 15 years. As evidence of the third president's religiosity, Barton showed Huckabee an original document signed by Jefferson. "Jefferson, unlike the other presidents, closes his documents: 'In the year of our Lord Christ,' " Barton said, not mentioning that this was a pre-printed form that was required by law. "But we're always told he was such a secularist and didn't believe in religion," Huckabee protested. "Exactly," Barton said. He goes on to say that Jefferson started church services at the Capitol, that he ordered the Marine Corps band to play at the services and that he funded a treaty to evangelize the Kaskaskia Indians — three claims that experts say are demonstrably false. "That's why I say he's the least religious founder," Barton concluded, "but he's way out there further than most religious right today would be." "Mr. Barton is presenting a Jefferson that modern-day evangelicals could love and identify with," says Warren Throckmorton, a professor at the evangelical Grove City College. "The problem with that is, it's not a whole Jefferson; it's not getting him right." Throckmorton co-authored Getting Jefferson Right, a book detailing what he says are Barton's distortions. As to Jefferson's faith, Throckmorton says there is no dispute among historians: Jefferson questioned the most basic tenets of Christianity. "He didn't see Jesus as God," Throckmorton says. He didn't believe that Jesus performed miracles, he dismissed the Trinity. Throckmorton notes that when Jefferson decided to write his own version of the Gospels, now called the Jefferson Bible, "he said he was taking 'diamonds as if from a dunghill.' So he picked out the Sermon on the Mount and the golden rule — those were the 'diamonds.' But the 'dunghill' was the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, the Great Commission." There's another "lie" about Jefferson that Barton sets out to debunk. He says Jefferson — who owned nearly 200 slaves — was a civil rights visionary. "Had his plans been followed, Virginia would've ended slavery really early on," Barton says. "They would have gone much more toward civil rights. He was not as advanced in his views of slavery as say, John Adams in New England, but he certainly was no racist in that sense." Barton quotes Virginia law that he says prohibited Jefferson from freeing his slaves during his lifetime — but Barton omits the section of the law that says Virginians could free slaves. Confronted by this, Barton says that Jefferson could not afford to free his slaves. https://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/15775...never-heard-of |
what an embarrassment
McCoy
New member
These are the kind of nonsensical arguments you allow crackpots like Barton to lead you down. This statement can neither be proved nor disproved. It's totally irrelevant. (For the record, President Adams not only questioned it, he stated categorically that it wasn't-- but I digress)
What's relevant is that
1) The objective definition of "Christian nation" is one in which the State has established Christianity as an official religion and has a State Church. There are several of these around the globe, beside Great Britain, btw.
2) The idea of a "Christian nation" is antithetical to the New Testament view of Christianity. Only sentient individuals are called "Christians" in the New Testament.
Re: your link to Bible and Gov't-- I could go down the line on those links and refute virtually every attempt to associate a verse or verses with the Constitution. I don't have the energy or time. I'll take just one:
The site attempts to link the Constitutional concept of religious freedom with I Timothy 2:1-2. But what do those verses actually say?
Sorry. These verses say nothing about religious freedom. Going thru that link are many such very creative applications of Bible verses with the Constitution.
The Constitution secures the right of all people to FREELY practice whatever religion they please and worship whatever Deity they want, without penalty or fear of punitive judgment-- either from the State, the Church or their fellow citizen. This is not a biblical concept in any way, shape or form. It is antithetical to the first two commands of the Ten Commandments and it is antithetical to the New Testament commands about fidelity to Christ alone.
Let's get back on track.
McCoy
New member
Fact-checking Barton doesn't require a PhD in history. Any layman can fact check his absurd claims and his almost sentence-by-sentence exaggerations and falsehoods. I sincerely don't think he could stick to facts to save his life.
I have read some of Throckmorton's articles out of curiosity, but only recently. I have no idea what the other characters you mentioned have said about Barton. I frankly don't care.
History is a very complex field of study. The traditional and conservative concept of expertise is important to me-- i.e. that people are designated with the title of "expert" ONLY thru the rigors of accredited and advanced academic study, careful research, and extensive and respected experience in the field.
A college degree is certainly ONE very important prerequisite in an academic field of study like history. But as I have stated over and over, it is not the only one.
Re: Barton video-- Give me one claim from that tour and let's stick with it.