Faith

David Barton Part I: An In-Depth Look at the Harsh Criticisms of the Conservative Historian

This Is What Critics Have to Say About Historian David BartonConservative historian David Barton has built a well-respected career educating the public and politicians, alike, about America’s roots. In a special, three-part series, TheBlaze will be examining Barton’s work, what his critics have to say and we’ll also invite him to speak directly with our readers (via Spreecast) in the coming days. Also, Barton will be appearing at some of the events surrounding Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Love” initiative in Dallas, Texas, this week (tickets for “Restoring Love” can be found here).

In this article — part one of the series — we will be delving into what his critics say. It’s important to note this is merely a recap of what others have said about him, not a reflection of opinion. In part two, we’ll level the playing field and give Barton the chance to respond; the final segment will consist of a Spreecast web interview with the historian.

Like anyone who attracts a massive audience, Barton, naturally, has his critics. The founder of WallBuilders, a group that prides itself on “presenting America’s forgotten history and heroes,” works to remind the American public of the nation’s religious and constitutional foundations. But while Barton sees a historical America that is rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition, others disagree with his assessment — even in light of the compelling evidence he provides.

In a 2011 profile, The New York Times perfectly captured the leftist arguments that are so typically waged against Barton:

Many historians call his research flawed, but Mr. Barton’s influence appears to be greater than ever. Liberal organizations are raising the alarm over what they say are Mr. Barton’s dangerous distortions, including his claim that the nation’s founders never intended a high wall between church and state.

This Is What Critics Have to Say About Historian David Barton

The critics are plentiful. Take, for instance, Stephen Prothero, a religion professor at Boston University and the author of ”The American Bible: How Our Words Unite, Divide, and Define a Nation.” In a recent article for the USA Today, Prothero tackled Barton‘s views on the nation’s founding, expressing his disagreement with his take on the Founding Fathers, among other related issues.

Of particular mention in Prothero’s article is Thomas Jefferson, the United States’ third president. While the professor admitted that Barton has it right that Jefferson was, by no means, an atheist, he said that the historian is “driven by desire rather than by evidence” and that his writings are “more ‘truthy’ than ‘truthful.’” Prothero writes:

In his new book, “The Jefferson Lies,” Barton argues that academics have spread a series of falsehoods about Jefferson — that he was a racist, a secularist and an advocate of strict church/state separation. Barton thinks he knows better. His Jefferson, who died (appropriately enough) on July 4, 1826, wasn’t just an “American hero.” He was an orthodox Christian, too.

To be fair, Barton is right to observe that Jefferson was no atheist. He also correctly points out that Jefferson gave money to churches, attended worship services and revered Jesus as a great moral teacher. But does that make him an “orthodox” Christian? Not by a long shot.

Prothero claims that Jefferson dubbed the Biblical book of Revelation as the “ravings of a maniac” and that he never accepted the divinity of Jesus. The professor also claims that the virgin birth was rejected by the Founding Father and that the Trinity was “hocus-pocus phantasm.” As for Barton, Prothero called him a “slipshod” historian (i.e. not overtly caring in his work).

Others, too, have taken similar stances on Barton. Warren Throckmorton, an associate professor of psychology at Grove City College, has regularly criticized him. This month, alone, he tackled some of the claims Barton made in the Jefferson book. For example, Throckmorton wrote on his blog that Barton is wrong that Jefferson was unable to free his slaves as a result of Virginia law (this is just one of the many points of debate).

This Is What Critics Have to Say About Historian David Barton

Coincidentally, Throckmorton and Michael Coulter (a humanities and political science professor at Grove City) penned a book called “Getting Jefferson Right” aimed at “fact-checking” Barton’s claims about Jefferson.

But the criticism doesn’t end there.

In 2011, Barton was purportedly such a threat to the left that The People for the American Way published a report entitled, “Barton’s Bunk: Religious Right ‘Historian’ Hits the Big Time in Tea Party America.” In it, Barton was described as a massive — and dangerous — force to be reckoned with. Here’s just a sampling of the group’s warning:

Barton’s growing visibility and influence with m embers of Congress and other Republican Party officials is troubling for many reasons: he distorts history and the Constitution for political purposes; he encourages religious divisiveness and unequal treatment for religious minorities; and he feeds a toxic political climate in which one’s political opponents are not just wrong, but evil and anti-God.

Scholars have criticized Barton for presenting facts out of context or in misleading ways, but that hasn’t stopped him from promoting his theories through books, television, and, yes, the textbooks that will teach the next generation of Americans. He promotes conspiracy theories about elites hiding the truth from average Americans in order to undermine the nation from within. Last summer, he declared that liberal and media attacks on the Tea Party were just like attacks on Jesus. In February, Barton spoke at the Connect 2011 Pastors Conference, where he said that Christians needed to control the culture and media so that “guys that have a secular viewpoint cannot survive.” Said Barton, “If the press lacks moral discrimination, it’s because we haven’t been pushing our people to chop that kind of news off.”

The extensive report covers Barton’s views on the environment, immigration, the GOP and plenty of other issues. And, in the end, its text encourages all those reading it to take action to educate themselves against the historian. While it paints a dire picture, it fails to provide the perspective of people who agree with Barton’s stances on Judeo-Christian values in the American historical landscape.

“It is urgently important for scholars, public officials, and responsible media outlets to vigorously challenge efforts by Barton, his supporters, and the movements they represent to miseducate current and future generations of Americans on the Constitution and the abiding American values of religious liberty, equal opportunity, and equality under the law,” the document concludes.

Darek H. Davis, the director of church-state studies at Baylor University, believes that some of what Barton discusses is rooted in truth. That being said, he claims accuracy sometimes falls to the wayside.

“The problem with David Barton is that there’s a lot of truth in what he says,” Davis told The Times. “But the end product is a lot of distortions, half-truths and twisted history.”

These, of course, are only anecdotal examples. While liberals and some skeptical conservatives may criticize Barton, many prominent individuals revere his take on the nation’s founding. Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and Rep. Michele Backmann (Minnesota) are only some of the prominent figures who have relied upon and spoken out favorably about Barton. In 2004, too, he was hired by the Republican National Committee to help rally Christian voters for George W. Bush.

The more prominent Barton becomes, the more flagrant the criticisms against him prove themselves to be. The historian, though, chalks much of the critiques up to cherry-picking and an oversimplification of historical events. For instance, Jefferson is often dubbed by the left as a secularist, but Barton notes that there were different theological phases in the president’s life. He believes that it’s unfair to define him by a small period of time during which he was less religious (at the end of his life).

We’ll allow Barton to respond to his critics in the second part of this series, which will be published on Thursday.

Comments (190)

1 2 3
  • HumbleCitizen
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:54am

    Our nations beginning as a nation consecrated before God, the precise moment God’s hand was removed from America.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW6roFN7NAE

    Continued scriptural basis of God’s removal of His hand from America.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGfm098ItjQ&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL8A7516765137F910

    Christians CAN know the days, the times, the hours and the seasons. Be watchful. Be knowledgable.

    Report Post » HumbleCitizen  
    • encinom
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:03am

      More Christian hocus pocus, mumble jumble. The Nation was founded as a secular republic, God was taken out of the laws and the government.

      Report Post »  
    • ChiefGeorge
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:10am

      Look up the Harbinger! Isaiah 9-10. Watch the youtube vid on the Sid Roth show.

      Report Post » ChiefGeorge  
    • txdave22
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:46am

      DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAN AN APPELLATE COURT JUDGE?———————-The ruling on Thursday by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, based in Boston, marked the first time a federal appellate court had ruled against the 1996 law, which excludes same-sex couples from federal benefits accorded heterosexual married couples. (like being allowed to filed joint tax returns and to receive Social Security survivor payments).

      The case was heard by two judges nominated by Republican presidents and one Democratic nominee. It involved married couples in Massachusetts, which is among the handful of states where gay couples may lawfully wed. The marriage law was being defended by lawyers hired by the Republican majority in the House

      (paid for by U.S. taxpayers including the gay ones, and why in an era of austerity???)

      after the Obama administration finally acknowledged that it was unconstitutional and decided to stop defending it in court.

      The panel’s key finding was that there was no “demonstrated connection” between the law’s hurtful treatment of same-sex couples and “its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits” of heterosexual marriage. It also said another rationale for the law — that it preserves scarce federal resources — was simply not true.

      ———————-Even so, the panel took unusual care in reaching a conclusion grounded in current equal-prot

      Report Post »  
    • Blazebanned
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:22pm

      @enciloon.
      Will you please show prrof of your statement? Wait you cant so you NOT answer my questtion, but name call as you usualy do.

      Report Post »  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:26pm

      encinom, You are very vague. I require more facts.

      Report Post »  
    • ChildOfTheKing
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:52pm

      Oooooooooooh, the TROLLS ARE COMING OUT IN MASSES, the deep dark trojans and trolls that they are. And THEY actually believe we will listen to THEM? No way. Every single leftist, progressive I have ever met, and there have been quite a few will only MAKE A STATEMENT, but CAN NEVER BACK IT UP WITH FACTS. Go figure………. WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU?

      Leftists wouldn’t know the truth if it hit them smack dab in the face!

      Encinom and the rest of you ARE A REAL HOOT TO ME – YOU ARE THE FRAUDS.

      Report Post » ChildOfTheKing  
    • ChildOfTheKing
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:54pm

      @enciloon.encinom:
      SHE/HE CANNOT GIVE YOU FACTS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST.
      This is why they CLAIM something but can never back it up with FACTS.

      ’nuff said.

      Report Post » ChildOfTheKing  
    • PATTY HENRY
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:58pm

      ENCIMOM or whatever your name is: You represent the totally uninformed Left to me. You poor thing.
      So ill-educated; so sure you are right and yet so wrong. You point out that the liberals are 1. totally unable to accept the truth 2. are totally brainwashed “good little slave” Lucky for you that there are warriors for truth among us and you won‘t have to live under some other idiot’s laws but the FREEDOM GOD gave us….but do….GET OUT OF THE WAY, okay?

      Report Post » PATTY HENRY  
    • ChildOfTheKing
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 1:05pm

      What does the Bible say about America???????????

      http://www.raptureready.com/rr-america.html

      What does the Bible say about America??????????? NOTHING……….

      Report Post » ChildOfTheKing  
    • ChildOfTheKing
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 1:11pm

      To those of you who are DOUBTFUL and are actually LISTENING AND BELIEVING THE LIES ABOUT BECK AND BARTON, know this:

      These liars come from other LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE SIGHTS as TROLLS to lure you away; to TRY AND DESTROY THE TRUTH. Satan does this and they are from Satan.

      If you have ANY DOUBTS ABOUT THESE 2 MEN, I IMPLORE YOU TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND HOMEWORK ABOUT THEIR REFERENCES, ESPECIALLY THOSE AT THE END OF THEIR BOOKS. You do not need to purchase their books. GO TO YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY. Check out their books and go to the back of the book and RESEARCH EVERY REFERENCE.

      This is what I did and LO AND BEHOLD, THEY WERE TELLING THE TRUTH, THE VERY TRUTH MY OWN HIGH SCHOOL WOULD NOT TEACH ME.

      Do your own homework and research and STOP LISTENING TO PEOPLE WHO TELL YOU SOMETHING BUT DO NOT BACK IT UP WITH VERIFIABLE FACTS.

      Beck and Barton are LEGITIMATE and they have spoken the truth, something SATAN DOESN’T EVEN UNDERSTAND.

      Report Post » ChildOfTheKing  
    • BlackCrow
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 1:39pm

      For the OWS/Media Matters/Soros employees who think that they are doing something productive here.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp8Q7biFHoY&feature=related

      Barton was not the first. And there is NO religious undertones here what so ever.

      Report Post » BlackCrow  
    • OneTermPresident
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 1:58pm

      @ENCINOM… Really? What does it say above where the Speaker of the House sits? Ever read whats emblazoned on the Liberty Bell? Ever looked at what it says on your money? Ever heard of… One Nation Under God?

      Report Post » OneTermPresident  
    • Evantoo
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 2:18pm

      ““But the end product is a lot of distortions, half-truths and twisted history.” Sounds suspiciously like what I’m ALWAYS getting from all of my Democrat acquaintances.

      Report Post »  
    • serafenas
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 3:46pm

      That’s why a copy of the Ten Commandments is on the wall of the Supreme Court. Whooops!

      Report Post » serafenas  
    • Meyvn
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 7:44pm

      What you state is true, unless the US is the entity spoken of by Ezekiel the prophet, who refers to “them that dwell carelessly in the isles”. It leads me to believe that the US will not exist as a nation at that point in time or the US is the entity that “dwells carelessly in the isles”. I think either is a bad thing.

      Eze 39:6 And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I am the LORD.

      Bright side being: At least then the US, and many others, will know that YHWH is the Lord.

      Report Post » Meyvn  
    • dmerwin
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:41pm

      Typical “kill the messenger of the wrong message” liberal bovine rectal effluvium.

      Report Post » dmerwin  
    • lketchum
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:19pm

      @encinom

      Utter nonsense.

      Anyone having ever read even the slightest of samples from our founders concludes that God and an absolute belief in him, drove their actions and the creation of a new nation based upon the notion that each person was “Sovereign” and answerable to God alone, is aware of the truth – that freedom of religion did not mean freedom FROM religion. So simply, the nation’s leaders WOULD have faith, and their actions would be tempered by that faith.

      This of course demands that we respect all other faiths, which we do. It does not mean that we should allow those of one faith to destroy those who do not believe similarly.

      Report Post » lketchum  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:07pm

      @ONETERMPRESIDENT

      One nation under God wasn’t added to our pledge until the 50s.
      Same with our motto
      Same with paper money.

      Any example of long held religious symbols being place on public property is moot.

      Just because our founders wrote the Constitution, doesn‘t mean they didn’t do unconstitutional things.

      Our founders wrote of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
      They wrote and spoke about freedom………….while owning slaves, and not allowing women to vote.

      I never understood this, “well what about [insert some President instituting religious dogma into politics]?”

      Uh, obviously it was unconstitutional.

      Many things are constitutional until they are ruled unconstitutional.

      Report Post »  
    • Meyvn
      Posted on July 26, 2012 at 9:19am

      To make things more clear my comment above was in reply to: @ChildOfTheKing

      Report Post » Meyvn  
    • taxpro4u03
      Posted on July 27, 2012 at 6:57am

      If the nation is to survive as a ‘free’ society – the argument over the 3 predominant Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and the over 35,000 variations thereof have to cease as points of divisiveness. I dunno what God is, but I know what he isn’t… Let it lie THERE. End of ‘debate.’
      Secondly, the issue of the almighty dollar and its role in ‘political’ influence has to cease. Not likely to happen. THEREFORE, the only remaining ‘seat of power’ in a nation that got a ‘rebirth of freedom’ (usurped with unlawful suspension of the republic‘s constitution everyone’s babbling on about, thinking that it is the operative one today ) is the jury box, over which most of us peons DO have ultimate authority OVER these two institutions. Interpretations vary, and we’re not going to agree on many things — Time to focus on what we DO agree on, and start CIVIL debate based on FACTS (again – words are SYMBOLS — agree on what they MEAN, and in what context they’re being applied — “communication”). One wants their story heard. Narcissistic chattering over one another accomplishes nothing, as nothing is neither heard nor understood. Newt Gingrich ‘may’ be (by his actions) a ‘naughty boy…’ — but the man CAN carry on an intelligent conversation..

      Report Post »  
    • Cesium
      Posted on July 27, 2012 at 3:36pm

      Jefferson became less religious at the end of his life because wisdom comes with age, not the other way around.

      Report Post »  
    • bravjim
      Posted on July 29, 2012 at 8:44am

      Encinom, if that is your real name. Have you ever read John Locke? Have you ever read Blackstone’s commentary? It just so happens that I have copies of both at home. And guess what. Blackstone’s commentary is what they based the common law on in their day. And you know something else, it talks as much about religion as it does government. It is based off of John Locke’s 1st and 2nd treatises on government. You might try reading them, because they were the biggest influences on our founding fathers, including Jefferson (who authored the Declaration), Madison, (who came up with the Virginia plan, which is what the federal government is based upon), as well as Franklin, John Jay, etc..

      Report Post »  
    • NeoFan
      Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:01am

      David Barton is hated for proving that the left and democrats are behind the KKK, Jim Crow and racism in this country. The Racists on the left hate having the mask taken off. People like encinoman don’t like being exposed for the hate filled racists that they are. These are the same people that designed and built the gas chambers.

      Report Post »  
  • paul1149
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:43am

    I used to admire Barton greatly. I went to hear him twice when he was in the area when he was just becoming known. But over the years I’ve caught him obscuring truth. He did it about Madison’s character defects, and about the nature of the Treaty of Tripoli, which was Jefferson’s greatest mistake. It pains me that the most influential popular evangelical historian is unreliable, but it is what it is. The sad thing is that much of what he says is correct, and is what the nation needs to hear, but it is severely compromised by his failings.

    Report Post » paul1149  
    • AndYetItMoves
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:01am

      A rare sighting of intellectual honesty on these threads. Barton is a fraud. Even the most paleolithic Bible-thumper should have the honesty to recognize this.

      Report Post »  
    • ScribblerG
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:14pm

      @ GitHerDone – “Only retards” – are you for real? Do you use such language with your children around? In polite company, you’d be dismissed as an ignorant pig for using such a nasty slur. Are you a Christian? If so, you cheapen Christianity.

      Report Post »  
    • jblaze
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:31pm

      paul1149
      Nice try, but we, the truly educated, are like hounddogs snifing out liars and twisters of the truth like you and your ilk!

      Report Post » jblaze  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:34pm

      AndYetItMoves, Why should we? You don’t even have the details to prove he is a fraud, just general statements. Why would someone come to the conclusion that someone is wrong yet not start off by stating what exactly they are wrong about?

      Report Post »  
    • akconstitutionalliberatarian
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 6:46pm

      You sir are a lier. I have researched and followed Barton for years and have not found him to be incorrect on any of his data. Remember thou shalt not bare false witness and to bare false witness against a man of God will surely burn you for eternity. I will pray you see the Light of Salvation and repent your sin’s.

      Report Post »  
  • ScribblerG
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:39am

    I wonder how many Beck fans here realize the double game Beck is constantly playing? This article pretends to be “journalism”, and is written in objective, uncritical tones. But then you go to Beck U or videos and events and watch him peddle Barton’s nonsense with a verve that Barton would be proud of, or Barton himself teaching Beck U courses. It’s a de facto conflict of interest, and nicely demonstrates how Beck tries to have it both ways. Either he’s flacking for one side, or he’s an objective spectator, analyzing events as they come at him.

    The biggest lie in this article is the description of the criticism of Barton as coming from the left. From an academic perspective, it crosses the ideological perspective. Dozens of academics with a variety of worldviews have joined in criticizing him, as well as more than a few Christian historians. The criticisms are not ideologically driven, in fact, it’s Barton (and Beck) who are ideologically driven, searching for evidence to support a conclusion they already “believe” in. Do yourselves a favor, if you really value “truth” as Beck loves to rave about. Read the critics, watch Chris Rodda’s videos, and then tell me who’s spinning who. It was Barton who got money from the RNC to peddle these lies in churches across the country – who is flacking for an ideology here? Barton is a joke, and if you listen to him, you are just part of the punch line.

    Report Post »  
    • kpeters59
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:45am

      Please site your sources for your “facts”.

      -KP

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:47am

      Were you actually expecting Beck to be truthful? To out one of his biggest cash cows as the fraud he is?

      Report Post »  
    • ScribblerG
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:58am

      John Fea, head if history dept, at Messiah College. For one. Just do a Google search, there are dozens of real historians who have taken beck apart who aren’t leftists. He’s lying to you. Period. You want to believe it because it makes you fell morally superior to do so. Period. Your biases are stopping you from being objective, not the reverse. And Beck is trying to help you continue to do so with this faux journalism. Fyi, I’m no leftist, I’m a libertarian (not a Ron Paul fan, more a Gary Johnson type) and am very interested in U.S. history, having read many historical accounts of our founders.

      I don’t come at this with an a priori hostility, but rather came to it out of curiosity. I used to like Beck to some degree, but when he began the “Christian nation” nonsense, I found that my informal study was at odds with what he was saying. So I looked into Barton’s claims and the criticisms of them and realized that Barton is peddling nonsense. Most of his claims fall apart under scrutiny. Simply Google “debunking David Barton” and you will get many fact based criticisms of Barton. And why should we be surprised? He’s no historian or scholar, he’s an evangelist for Christian nationalism – an distinctly un-American idea. He supports Dominionism, but only says so in smaller settings where he thinks no media will catch him. These are despicable ideas no American who values liberty should dare hold.

      Report Post »  
    • TheDukeOfHighwayJ
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:06am

      kpeters59:

      No need to put facts in quotes. Chris Rodda has Youtubes that go into detail deconstucting some of Barton’s “stories”.
      And then there’s: http://hnn.us/articles/what-least-credible-history-book-print

      Report Post »  
    • IMCHRISTIAN
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:13am

      Barton is not a joke. Evil is the ones that deceive whether in the White House or in the masses. God knows all. Truth not lies….Love not hate. Evil is evil…. Live life as if God is watching and listening (because He is)

      Report Post »  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:36am

      I don’t see any facts or specific historical facts in your statement arguing against Barton. Every time I hear Barton talk his generalities about what other people are saying a minimal. He states specific people at specific points in time and many times actually has an original source in his hand while he is saying it. His proof is substantial. You must supply point by point arguments to keep up with this guy..

      Report Post »  
    • IMCHRISTIAN
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:46am

      Enc…………….Speaking of truthfulness how many alias do you have on these sites?

      Report Post »  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:47am

      @encinom and @ScribblerG you both lack specifics. If you know this guy is wrong then why aren’t the specific details right at the tip of your tongue? I do not hear Barton talking about others in generalities like you are talking about him. He is always stating what the schools are teaching and giving a long list of reasons why he disagrees with it. Please stop with the generalities and make your specific case.

      Report Post »  
    • Blazebanned
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:25pm

      @KP
      scribblerg is encinom,he doesnt deal in facts,and if he does show his so called proff, its from a lettwing nutcase youtube video.So you give this moron too much credit for asking for proof.

      Report Post »  
    • TheDukeOfHighwayJ
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:26pm

      Specifics?? You want specifics??
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHhYfkDZjp0 (One of GlenB’s favorite)
      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=david+barton+lies

      Report Post »  
    • ScribblerG
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:36pm

      @ TomSawyer – Wow, I cite a specific source, John Fea, head of history dept at Messiah College, who’s gone on record advising Christians not to trust him, I’ve quoted him elsewhere on the thread, but you ignore that and claim I don’t use specifics? As well, I just posted a comment in which I talk about Jefferson calling himself an Epicurean (after Epicurus, the philosophical father of secular reason). If you want to argue, respond to the answers you get. If you’d rather trust Barton (undergrad degree in something other than history) and Beck (college dropout) than John Fea, head of a Christian college’s history dept, go ahead, but you are the one out on the limb trying to prove something, not us.

      You are the one asserting ideas without substantiation, not us. Yet you act like you are in possession of “truth” and that you are “defending” it when you are actually peddling nonsense given to you by fools and charlatans. I bet you are a good person in many ways, you come across as well meaning and sincere. I feel bad that Beck and the other Christian nationalists have created such a complete “information firewall” that keeps recycling uncritical thought to confuse good people like you. But at a certain point, you need to look elsewhere. Just go look at a Chris Rodda video on Barton, if you come back and still believe, well of course that’s your prerogative, but really, you’ll probably be ashamed that you ever fell for Barton, or Beck for that matter.

      Report Post »  
    • ChildOfTheKing
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:49pm

      @ENCINOM:
      I see you on this board all the time. If you think Beck is so bad THEN WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?
      Another troll trying to misguide the masses just like MEDIAMATTERS.COM??????

      I think MOST OF US, if NOT ALL BECK FOLLOWERS know him to be truthful. And personally, I would NEVER go to any LIBERAL HATE-MONGER, LIE-INDUCED WEBSITE, SUCH AS MEDIAMATTERS if I found them to be such – LIARS AND THEY ARE LIARS.

      I have personally RESEARCHED, CHECKED, and THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED WHAT BECK AND BARTON SAY and 99.9% OF THE TIME – THEY ARE CORRECT.

      The other .1% can be ‘up to your own understanding’, which means, IT CAN BE INTERPRETED EITHER WAY.

      Those of you who continue to put down these people based ON WHAT OTHER (hearsay) PEOPLE SAY are IGNORANT, LIARS, and worse yet, JUST PLAIN DUMB.

      If you notice in Barton and Beck’s books and writings, THEY ALWAYS QUOTE VALID SOURCES THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY FIND IN A LIBRARY, INCLUDING THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.

      You stupid people are so unbelievable, from now on, I am going to DISMISS YOU PETTY LITTLE ARGUMENTS AND WILL NOT DIGNIFY ANSWERING YOU. BUT FOR NOW, please go back to MediaMatters.com, The Tides Foundation, or your DADDY, GEORGIE SOROS and leave us all alone.

      I SUGGEST THAT ALL OF YOU ON THIS BOARD, TAKE NOTE OF INCINOM AND THE OTHERS WHO HATE BECK SO MUCH AND ***DO NOT EVER RESPOND*** TO THEM EVER.

      Then, maybe they will go back to the holes they came from. If we are lucky, they will disappear in November !!

      Report Post » ChildOfTheKing  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:51pm

      TheDukeOfHighwayJ, I am actually now more interested in why the specifics were not present before. Instead of posting an easy to find video, why don’t you talk about what is in the video and why it convinced you. Many people are arguing against Barton, yet they only state generalities. That is a very strange thing. If you know he is wrong, why wasn’t particular statement by him your concern more than a blanket generalized disagreement. Certainly, he is not wrong 100%.

      Report Post »  
    • TheDukeOfHighwayJ
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 1:42pm

      “why don’t you talk about what is in the video …”
      Its 15 minutes long. I could paraphrase it only to have someone else nitpick. Why dont you invest 15 minutes and watch it.

      “Certainly, he is not wrong 100%.”
      Probably not, but if he said the sky was blue, I’d doublecheck for myself.

      Report Post »  
    • pudssweetie
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 1:53pm

      @ Scribblerg, you can talk all you want about John Fea and how he is the head of the History Dept. but still does not make him an expert in History. Anyone can get a history degree, get a job and work their way up the ladder of success or in many cases, how many arses you kiss to get there. Just because someone has a college degree does not make them smarter than someone who does not have a degree. Sorry but I would much rather learn history from someone who has been reading and learning American History since they were a kid, over some over paid, union backed professor who more times than none twists whats written so it fits their agenda.

      Report Post »  
    • serafenas
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 3:44pm

      All those words and not one fact. Very sad.

      Report Post » serafenas  
    • Cotswolds
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 5:50pm

      @ScribblerG: Are you referencing the very same John Fea who described Obama as the “most explicitly christian president” we’ve ever had? I‘ve read several of his articles and he’s hardly an unbiased critic.

      Report Post »  
    • Mmaysr
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 6:55pm

      Scribblerg or whatever. All you need to do is to reference academics and people like Cris Rodda and we know where you are coming from. You probably even believe there really is a constitutional separation of church and state. Oh, it’s who’s spinning whom.

      Report Post » Mmaysr  
  • JohnGalt
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:35am

    Thing is Barton can back up all his views with facts. Something leftists hate!

    Report Post » JohnGalt  
    • ScribblerG
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:41am

      Nonsense, he in fact had to withdraw one of his books, re-title it and pull a number of very significant “facts” from it as they were baldfaced lies. Even after he admitted those were lies publicly, he still uses those quotes in talks he gives. So, your criticism is nonsense, and in fact the opposite of the factual record. Wake up!

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:46am

      He can’t back up his BS. He waves around a piece of paper, takes a quote out of context and claims this is evidence and stupid home school drop outs of the Tea ****** party nod their heads like the well trained Pavlov dogs they are.

      Report Post »  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:40am

      encinom, I have a college degree. Why are you calling me a high school drop out? And studies show that the Tea party is more educated the average American.

      Report Post »  
    • ChildOfTheKing
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:58pm

      @ENCINOM:

      AGAIN: your claims are based on WHAT FACTS?????
      Ever read Barton’s books? I HAVE. THEY ARE SO FULL OF REFERENCES THAT IT TOOK ME ONCE, ABOUT 3 DAYS TO GET THRU THEM ALL AND NOT ONCE, *NOT ONCE* did any of them turn out to be untrue.

      ENCINOM: you are a 1st class LIAR. You are a deceitful, hate-mongering LIAR.

      MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL.

      Report Post » ChildOfTheKing  
    • 22AUTOMATIC
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 1:54pm

      You are defined as much by your enemies as you are by your friends. Barton in one of the good guys. It‘s easy to tell who the good guys are by who’s attacking them. Code Pink and Westboro are teaming up to protest Barton & Beck at Restoring Love; they’re actually the only type of humans that did evolve from slime. I used to be upset when people attacked the good guys but now it’s actually a blessing. It inpires me to donate & support more to their causes & more easily identifies sharletons. See, whomever evil people try to destroy you have to ask yourself “Why?“ ”What’s in it for them?” You dig a little further and a whole can of nasty worms is opened up to you. Some posted links to other so called “historians” as proof that David Barton is a liar. You go and realize first, they look like the shaggy troll guy from the Harry Potter movies, and secondly, they have an agenda. Of course they want Barton to be destroyed because it discredits their made up data. If I had no morals or honor I would be after people smarter & more popular than me as well. Barton feeds the poor, restores historical items, leads prayers for people, volunteers his time & money & loves America; these progressive “historians” everyone links to sit in houses with overflowing cat litter boxes running their fingers through their graying frizzy hair staring at their Lenin paintings.

      Report Post » 22AUTOMATIC  
  • In That Day
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:31am

    Televangelist: Welcome to my TV show, David Barton. Let’s get to the heart of the matter: I never will say I’m wrong, and I teach my audience to never believe they can be wrong. We Christians are perfect!

    David Barton: That’s right, and I sell my books on your show that tells your audience our Founders were godly!

    Televangelists: Fine, as long as you never tell me I can be wrong in this quid-pro-quo work, and you never tell our audience they can be wrong!

    David Barton: We’re all angels here! Except, of course James Madison said no leader is an angel, but pretend I never said Madison said that!

    Televangelist: Right David, just us angels here!

    David Barton: Frankly, I don’t care how much you blinker-down your audience by selling Prosperity indulgences, it’s all angelic to me!

    Televangelist: And we angel Christian Broadcasters who do no wrong by blinding our audience have no problem with your books, as long as you agree we are all Christian angels!

    David Barton: You are an angel!

    Televangelist: No, you are an angel!

    Televangelist and Barton to audience: No, you are an angel!

    Audience to Televangelist and Barton: No, you are an angel!

    David Barton: We are all angels! How about that! Now buy my book that says our Founders were godly.

    Televangelist: Reminds me, I wrote a book on angels!

    David Barton: Good! You’re an angel!

    Televangelist: I’m an angel!

    Report Post »  
    • AnimalsAsLeaders
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:15am

      lol, shockingly not that far off.

      Report Post » AnimalsAsLeaders  
    • ChildOfTheKing
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 1:07pm

      In That Day:
      Pathetic and cheap.

      Report Post » ChildOfTheKing  
    • JustInCash
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 2:21pm

      What a wild story! I know it may be difficult for you, but why don;t you try to use some facts! It seems as though facts get in the way of emotion for the left.

      Report Post »  
  • bigdaddyt46
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:24am

    i‘ll take Barton’s word over a leftist view everytime. i’ve seen Barton decimate a lefty loon a few times and it cracks me up. the left will say xyz is what happened in history, and the Barton will come out swinging with facts and the resorces that prove that it is actually abc, not xyz. the lefty is left with no response because he has nothing to back up his claim.
    the left are pissed off at Barton for one reason only, and that is because he sheds light on their commie agenda

    Report Post » bigdaddyt46  
    • ScribblerG
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:50am

      But what if the criticism is coming from a non-“commie” source? If you actually just clicked the links or did a few web searches, you’d find that academic criticism is uniform, including some from Christian historians. Here’s one for you.

      John Fea, chair of the history department at Messiah College, pointedly asks, “Should Christians trust David Barton?” And answers in the negative.

      “Barton claims to be a historian. He is not. He has just enough historical knowledge, and just enough charisma, to be very dangerous. During his appearance on The Daily Show, Barton impressed the faithful with his grasp of American history and his belief that Christians are being subtly persecuted in this country. But if you watch the show carefully, you will notice that Barton is a master at dodging controversial questions. He refuses to admit that sometimes history does not conform to our present-day political agendas…

      Here is the bottom line: Christians should think twice before they rely on David Barton for their understanding of the American founding. Let’s not confuse history with propaganda.”

      Hmm, an actual historian (a real professor, in fact head of a history dept) at a Christian college criticizing Barton. Hmmm, is he a “commie” too? Wake up!

      Report Post »  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:07pm

      Scribbelberg – That’s b/c you’re too stupid to do this thing called researching on your own. Just b/c you Marxists cite a Christian college doesn’t mean it actually is one.

      What Barton is saying is accurate.

      Report Post »  
    • ScribblerG
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:41pm

      @ Git R Done – You would have fit in very well in a beer hall in Germany in 1934…

      Report Post »  
    • edmundburk
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:18pm

      @scribbler- at first I was willing to take you seriously, but you constantly quote the same professor, which makes me think you are a seminar poster posing as an objective person. when in fact you are
      an anthiestic progressive from media matters.

      Report Post » edmundburk  
    • bigdaddyt46
      Posted on July 27, 2012 at 8:06am

      LOL you’re quoting John Fey as your argument against David Barton? are you serious? do your own research on Fey he is the anti-Barton, left leaning social justice Christian. only a weak minded confused Christian would ever take his word as gospel. true Christians know better. i notice a trend with you only using Fey as your source against Christians such as Barton. blah blah bla is wrong look even Fey says so and he works at a Christian college. give me a break.

      Report Post » bigdaddyt46  
  • In That Day
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:22am

    OMG, David Barton has Glenn Beck and The Blaze supporting his cause, which seems to be, “The Founding Fathers were godly!”

    This, as Barton shills his Universal Solution on brain-stopping, wile-crafting, Neuro-Linguistic Programming-using, corrupt-to-core, rotten-to-the-core Give-to-Get, indulgence-selling, illogical, brain-stopping-mantra-using Prosperity Preachers!

    It’s like a nautical historian ceaselessly arguing the engines of the Titanic were good, they were GOOD! So, okay, what’s the point? The Titanic still crashed.

    Modern Churchianity is a debacle of a) stage hypnotism, b) showmanship, c) misdirection and d) suggestion (buy my book about how good are the engines of the Titanic!)

    This straw man argument that the Founders were godly accomplishes very, very little ameliorative to the dying condition of Modern Churchianity.

    And Beck is perfectly happy to be blind to the condition of blinkering and blinding that modern Churchianity has to do to its sheep. So he gets David Barton to promote his unending yet irrelevant campaign: The Founders were godly!

    No doubt, Barton and Beck will win their little argument.

    And ignore that Barton appears on the worst televangelists‘ shows to shill his books that don’t fix the blinkering in the name of self-promoting rube-making televangelists.

    Freedom takes off blinkers! Freedom exposes NLP witchcraft! Freedom shows how straw man arguments are used!

    Report Post »  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:38am

      Actually, Christianity and any other believe affect the direction. So you should not worry about the engines; instead, think about the rudder. “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” is a pretty big clue to the founders mind set. Obama, when repeating the preamble of the DoI, skipped over that part. Why? Probably because he thinks the government gives rights to people.

      Report Post »  
    • ScribblerG
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:06am

      @ TomSawyer – So, the founders using the term “Creator” is a clue to you? Of what? Support for Christian theology? Hmm, why then didn’t they use the word God? Why isn’t a single shred of Christianity mentioned at all in our founding docs? In fact, the opposite of what you are suggesting is true. They intentionally used the word “Creator” to stay away from imposing any kind of theology upon our citizens. Creator is a very generic term and includes non-supernatural causes – or did you miss that in your rush to claim our “Christian Nation” and our very liberty for Christianity? It’s this kind of prima facie dumbness that Barton and his ilk engage in all the time that astonishes real historians. He ignores huge efforts by our founders to keep Christian dogma and theology out of govt – just read the notes from the nominating conventions. Some states still wanted official religions or special privileges for one sect or another, but our founders insisted on an un-theistic constitution and govt. That’s why they left all biblical references out of our founding docs and why they used the term “Creator” in the first place.

      Report Post »  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:25am

      @ScribblerG wrote :TomSawyer – So, the founders using the term “Creator” is a clue to you? Of what? Support for Christian theology?

      I very very strongly disagree that is what I said. I definitely do not agree that the founders wanted to support a specific religion. Here is the exact statement by me “…Christianity and any other believe affect the direction.“ We can see the ” and any other believe” part indicating you are wrong. The real point is that the founders were not trying to exclude all references to God etc from the public place. they were trying to stop the government and church from merging together into a theocracy like the church of England. You seem to have fixated on the word Christian.

      Report Post »  
    • djsGA
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:52am

      I often wonder how the change in meanings of words and respect for these meanings have misguided us. Just because the word “Creator” is used instead of “God” does not mean what people today think it means. There are people today who will not say the word “God” or write it in full. If they must write a reference, they will write it as “G_d”.

      Words and the public use of them change over the course of history. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the word “gay.“ Just because our ”modern” perception of a word is one thing, that does not mean that it was the perception of that word over 200 years ago.

      Report Post »  
    • edmundburk
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:27pm

      @scribbler- after marx, atheist and leftist were one in the same.

      Report Post » edmundburk  
  • Booklover
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:12am

    I love David Barton and all he stands for. He is such a smart, honest, moral man. It is sad that he is attacked for his conservative beliefs but not a surprise. Every good American patriot who stands for conservative and God given rights and values will be maligned the the lefty liberals of our country. Especially those who have the strongest voice and who consistently speak the truths of our nation and its true history.

    Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:01am

      He stands for lies and for scamming his under educated audience. He is a modern day PT Barnum, using a cross and a “history” book as tools of his fraud.

      Report Post »  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:09pm

      Encinom – Meanwhile you Marxists listen to whatever the government and the media spew out without doing your homework. Better to be a Christian than to be a stupid atheist like you are.

      Report Post »  
    • ScribblerG
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:47pm

      @ Git R Done – So Marxists and “stupid Atheists” are one in the same to you? Do you not realize that many Atheists aren’t Marxists? That Atheism pre-dates Marx, and is a completely separate idea and line of reasoning than Marxism? Are you that ignorant, that much of a vicious thug that you will just conflate the two and throw them on the garbage heap?

      Report Post »  
  • aconstitutionalistlivesinbrooklyn
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:03am

    I have a lot of respect for David Barton, but there is an inconsistency that puzzles me. George Washington freed his slaves upon his death and provided a pension to them that paid out more than 4o years after his death. Yet Thomas Jefferson could not free his slaves because of Virginia law. I got both statements from Dr. Barton himself, said at different times. With all due respect , can he perhaps on the webcast please clear this up. Of course, I could have heard wrong.

    Report Post »  
    • JMcANY
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:29am

      I believe the laws were changed after (and because) George Washington freed his slaves at his death so that slaves could no longer be freed upon the owner’s death.

      Report Post »  
    • UH60L13
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:33am

      Yes after Washington freed his slaves upon Death, the law was changed in VA so that you were unable to free your slaves at death anymore, so when Jefferson dies the law VA Law wouldn’t allow him to free his slaves.

      Report Post » UH60L13  
    • kaydeebeau
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:36am

      Barton does explain it – not sure where and I don’t remember all the details but it had something to do with freed slaves having to leave the state and be provided a certain sum of money and there was also something else about the law…anyway Jefferson was bankrupt (in part because he paid his “slaves” wages)…This may be in The Heritage Video Series

      Report Post » kaydeebeau  
    • aconstitutionalistlivesinbrooklyn
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:03pm

      Thanks guys.

      Report Post »  
  • TheDukeOfHighwayJ
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:54am

    Lets see what actual historians have to say:
    http://hnn.us/articles/what-least-credible-history-book-print

    Report Post »  
    • JosephsMyth
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:10am

      Thanks for posting the link. This is very telling.

      Report Post »  
    • edmundburk
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:40pm

      if i’m not correct, is’nt one of the professors whose against barton, from george mason university?

      Report Post » edmundburk  
  • tompaineknowsthescore
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:51am

    Its nigh impossible for any historian to be unbiased.

    Left-wing historians highlight the facts that aide them and hide the facts that do not as is the case with Mr Barton.

    Even original sources can be misrepresented by selective quotations and often original sources carry their own bias

    it is best to read a selection of work across the political spectrum before reaching any conclusions; in the case of Jefferson he was neither a hardcore atheist or a hardcore evangelical he was somewhere inbetween

    Report Post » tompaineknowsthescore  
  • alrunner58
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:38am

    I would like David to set down with these people and both have their sources. Lets see who is correct and who is not. I love David Barton and always am fascinated with all the history he knows and I learn so much. It inspired me to read more about history.

    Report Post » alrunner58  
    • encinom
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:43am

      Barton never will, Barton knows he is a fraud, like the Wizard of Oz, the truth is hidden behind smoke and bluster.

      Barton relies on the ignorance of the Tea Party, Beck viewers and others with in his fan base. He doesn’t care about actual peer review, the method by which research is evaluated, in fact he wears the fact that very respected historian has rejected him as a hack, its a marketing tool, to continue his lie to the mindless Christians about how he is “persecuted by the elites.”

      He only cares about the Founders as long as they are on green pieces of paper.

      Report Post »  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:53am

      encinom, I see your comment as being very general. How come specific statements by Barton are not on the tip of your tongue. If you were talking directly to him how could he argue against what he said? He gives the opposing views, why they think it, and then he gives his view and why he thinks it . That is very different from what you a writing here. Why don’t you have any specifics?

      Report Post »  
    • pudssweetie
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:14pm

      Ok Encinom, how many History books have you read over the years and which ones? You seem to think you are all knowledgeable so start putting out some facts to back up what you say, I triple dog dare you.

      Report Post »  
  • thegreatcarnac
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:30am

    It is the left that always attempts to rewrite history. They make the US sound like it was and is the worse nation in the world. Leftist tear down everything to build it up into their flawed and dirty image.

    Report Post »  
    • The_Pointy_End
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:31am

      Agreed. The left is saying he distorts history with NO proof to back up their claims. Frankly, in a debate he will hand them their @ss. However, since the left cannot defeat Mr. Barton on the validity of his argument, they will attempt to destroy the man’s character. For example: The debate will go from he distorts history (professional) to he’s a liar (personal). I am concerned he will be spending all his time defending his character from a barrage of leftest attacks (allowing them to control the direction of the debate) rather than defending history.

      Report Post » The_Pointy_End  
  • TomSawyer
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:28am

    I do not know as much about History as some PhD liberals nor David Barton so it is difficult for me to know who is correct. But I do know that Barton has presented provable facts that disagree with liberals. Even in college I heard that Jefferson was an atheist repeatedly. Now that Barton has presented strong evidence the some of the liberals are backing off the idea. Barton is much like Beck in that he likes to back up claims with overwhelming evidence. That is definitely not a liberal trait. Doesn’t Gingrich that supports Barton have a PhD in History?

    Report Post »  
  • JosephsMyth
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:16am

    Barton is a mixed bag. At times I think he does what he claims liberal scholars do by cherry picking facts and not put them in full context.

    Some of his research is very commendable, but his lack of academic credentials hurts his credibility. A pack of PhD’s will win out every time against a guy with a teaching degree in the court of public opinion. I’m looking forward to hear what he has to say in Part II of the article.

    Report Post »  
    • Deb C
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:53am

      Do not underestimate the court of public opinion

      Report Post » Deb C  
    • The_Pointy_End
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 2:46pm

      Most people who have a Ph.D have no real world experience outside of education. They think their Ph.D is some magic trump card because at the University (and only at the University) it is. When they throw it around in a debate outside of the University (in the world of public opinion), they quickly discover it adds nothing. Someone educated in the real world has experience that a Ph.D who has never left the walls of a University cannot match.

      Report Post » The_Pointy_End  
    • saranda
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 7:40pm

      @the_pointy_end – you want an historian with real world experience. What would experience be? Studying history everyday and spending most working hours discussing history with others also studying history…sounds like someone pursuing a phd in history. Or by real world do you mean someone who has lived through it, in which case we can have people still alive only studying history as they lived it. Barton bas no credentials and only discusses his version of history with people like GB who then make money off Barton and to those who need someone to agree with them so they can feel important.

      Report Post »  
  • Brad Wesselmann
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:08am

    Leftists/progressives/one world order folks know that they cannot dismantle a proud, moral and decent people, they must first marginalize and then destroy the weakened state of a true liberty-loving human being regardless of what country they reside.

    Continue to stand, David and the good and decent will stand with you! :-)

    Report Post » Brad Wesselmann  
  • JamesMA
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:52am

    Re-reading Barton’s book Original Intent. Great book on the courts, constitution, and religion. His books are filled with footnotes and he uses quotes from the founders straight from the primary sources and the congressional record. Other great books of his are Setting the Record Straight: America’s History in Black and White; America’s Godly Heritage, Separation of Church and State, and The Bullet Proof George Washington. Another great book not written by Barton by I believe to be historically accurate about US history is A Patriot’s History of the United States by Larry Schweikart.

    Report Post »  
  • snookyboy
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:48am

    I consider David Baton one of our “National Treasures”. I hope and pray that his influence will change our younger generations idea of history.

    Report Post »  
  • Locked
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:38am

    The only thing I don‘t like about Barton’s writing is the technique: he decides his answer, then makes sure he can support it. It’s how most of non-scientific academia works but I prefer a scientific approach instead: find the facts, interpret them, draw a conclusion.

    For example, I enjoyed reading the Jefferson Lies, but I found a lot of his conclusions to sound more like hero worship than anything else. Jefferson was an amazing person, no doubt, but he was flawed. Whether he had a child with his slave is less important (in my mind) than the fact that he was a product of his times, where slavery was accepted and sexual relationships with slaves was common.

    Same thing with the criticism of the “Jefferson Bible,” which Barton seemed to just kind of poo-poo as unimportant. Yes, if you’ve already decided that Jefferson was an Evangelical Christian, you’re going to shunt that off to the side. If you approach it from the mindset that the facts should dictate the conclusion, though, then it’s a lot harder to make the case that Jefferson was Evangelical.

    At any rate, his work is worth a read. I’m curious if anyone else approaches history with the same scientific style. I feel like there‘s the story we’re told, the story we want told, and then the facts which will present the truth. It seems like Barton too often falls into the second category and schools into the first. I just want the third!

    Report Post »  
    • stone2016
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:56am

      I didn’t realize that scientists never have an “answer” before they begin their research. Good thing. Who would want your research bogged down by something like…a hypothesis? Now that I think about it, it seems almost all science starts with an answer, then devises a way to prove it true or false. But why let the scientific method get in the way of science?

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:10am

      @Stone

      “I didn’t realize that scientists never have an “answer” before they begin their research. Good thing. Who would want your research bogged down by something like…a hypothesis? Now that I think about it, it seems almost all science starts with an answer, then devises a way to prove it true or false. But why let the scientific method get in the way of science?”

      A hypothesis is not an answer; it’s the question. Do you not see the difference between asking “Was Jefferson an Evangelical Christian? What does the evidence say?“ and saying ”Jefferson was an Evangelical Christian, and I’m going to back it up”?

      Report Post »  
    • tajloc
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:57am

      There are some good ideas here BUT Science starts with a small statement that forces the data gathering into a frame of answering that one idea. eg. Jeff.. was a Christian. The data shows… and so on. then finally a conclusion…So Jeff. was a Christian (considering these sources and this evidence). Then the scientist does not even come into challenge. BUT the procedure, sources, uh data are the issue.
      History research has too much opinion. Not like real science at all. Barton’s ideas have as much weight as some professor. BUT they are only ideas not data. Lets face it the left has grabbed all history and begun to rewrite it. Lately they are rewriting recent things like what Obama said one campaign ago. Ya can’t do that. Its ok for O to change his mind but not OK for him to say the opposite and get away with it.
      What are we to do?
      Rom 8:28

      Report Post »  
    • ScribblerG
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:27pm

      People here defending Barton keep asking me to cite specific criticisms, but they are linked in the article, and my original point was about Beck’s double-game here, not a take-down of Barton. If you want to know more, just Google “debunking David Barton” and you’ll have enough material for the next year. I will offer one point on Jefferson, and then get back to my busy life. I should also mention that I’m no left winger either.

      Jefferson and Adams developed an interesting relationship after leaving office, and corresponded with each other for over a decade before both dying on the same day. In Jefferson’s final letter to Adams he states, “I am an Epicurean”. I know most folks don’t know what that means, but Epicurus was the philosophical father of secular, reason based, intellectual thought. His great works were best described by Lucretius, but early Christians opposed the entire canon of Epicurus and Lucretius, rejecting the incredible knowledge and wisdom about the world that formed our modern understanding of science, calling them “Pagan”. Christians slaughtered the “Pagans” in the 6th century, perhaps most well known is the destrucion of Alexandria, it’s great libraries and killing Hypatia.

      By aligning himself with Epicurus, he rejects most of Christian theology, but not necessarily a belief in God and even some Christian morality. This is evident through Jefferson’s life. Why do Christians need to turn him into an Evango? To what end?

      Report Post »  
  • marybethelizabeth
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:34am

    This hit piece on David Barton is so typical of Mr. Beck, who eventually stabs in the back almost everyone he works with.

    Mr. Beck’s ego is huge. He is not running a three ring circus. There is only the main stage for him and everyone else is following the elephants with shovels.

    Pile it high Mr. Beck. The applause when the rodeo clown’s fall is complete and he hits the ground will be deafening.

    Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:40am

      You didn’t read the article, did you? If you had, you would see that it ends with:
      “We’ll allow Barton to respond to his critics in the second part of this series, which will be published on Thursday. Barton will be appearing at some of the events surrounding Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Love” initiative (tickets for “Restoring Love” can be found here).”

      They’re still working together, Beck supports Barton, and the next piece will let Barton cut down the (admittedly, pretty vague and wimpy) criticisms presented here.

      Report Post »  
    • marybethelizabeth
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:45am

      Who didn’t read the article? It’s a three part series.

      Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:52am

      “Who didn’t read the article? It’s a three part series.”

      … and the next part lets him respond to his critics, just like I quoted. Not sure what point you’re trying to make, as you called this a hit piece when it obviously is not.

      Report Post »  
    • Ben__Franklin
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:34am

      Mary is a Liberal Hack on the site. Dont feed it.

      Report Post »  
    • marybethelizabeth
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:48am

      But it is a hit piece.

      Mr. Barton will be disparaged on this website 3 times.

      I imagine Mr. Beck is upset that all David Barton brought to the table is a compass.
      That sold 3 tickets.

      Remember last year after Mr. Beck returned from his Holy Land vacation he couldn’t wait to announce that he opposed military assistance to Israel? So much for standing for Israel.

      This is more of the same.

      Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • Observer
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:58am

      BaryMethElizabeth, he is talking about this article. At the top of this page. Not into the future. Focus gal pal focus. Do you ever respond with a clever or agreeing post on the Blaze? I’m beginning to wonder…… the colour is blue.

      Report Post »  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:04am

      No it is not a hit piece. You don’t hide criticism you confront it. We should hear both sides so we can determine who is correct. Barton is going to defend against the arguments on Thursday.

      Report Post »  
  • nilo
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:20am

    The attacks on Mr. Barton are typical of the left. Barton’s historical accuracy is a threat to their agenda of discrediting our founders in an effort to swing the nation to the far left, while we forget the religous (moral and spiritual) values that our nation’s first leaders knew were essential for any success for their effort.

    By taking a hard look at America’s decline from those Biblical guidlines, we can readily see that our present course will end in disaster for the nation. We will lose our Constitutional liberties, and become another failed nation, all because we abandoned the godly principles that were in place when we first won our freedoms. The left knows how to destroy nations, they have been doing it all through history.

    Report Post » nilo  
  • acemobile
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:20am

    I don’t have a Ph.D. either, but I do have a master’s degree in history. That required me to write a thesis and defend it in front of panel of three history professors, all with Ph.D.s.

    Report Post »  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:18am

    Barton, like many who know and teach the truth of our history are too much of a threat to the leftist and the progressives; they must stop him at all costs, and in bringing the fight against him, cast the light on the truth more and more for all to see and understand.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:49am

      The attacks on Barton from the loony left will be unending because Barton among others has exposed the progressives and their agenda with regards to indoctrinating the youth into the death cult of communism. Progressives had a century head start with their teachings of revisionist U.S history so they view Barton as a threat and will stop at nothing to silence him,a Breitbart demise perhaps?

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
  • justangry
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:07am

    He doesn’t have a Ph.D. That doesn‘t in itself mean that he’s wrong, but does mean he’s never had to defend a thesis to a panel of experts.

    Report Post » justangry  
    • WireWizard
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:24am

      David Barton gets all of his views and facts from original writings by the people of the time. All of his research is extensively footnoted.
      My favorite information from Barton is comparisons of early 20th century history books to current, showing the influence progressives have over education.

      Report Post » WireWizard  
    • historyguy48
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:27am

      Comrade, a panel of what? Self aggrandising, B/S artists that believe in Marxism? Have you attended college lately? If you don’t tow the party line, you are in serious trouble! And the party line, the consensus of thought, let’s get serious here!
      Even Stephen Ambrose, who taught in college, admitted in his book on the building of the Transcontinental Railroad that what he had been teaching his students, the “consensus” of thought, the party line, wasn’t just wrong, it was an outright lie!
      So perhaps not having a PHD is a good thing, his mind has not been sullied with nonsense!

      Report Post » historyguy48  
    • adoerfler
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:28am

      God save us from the d*** experts.

      Report Post »  
    • marybethelizabeth
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:36am

      Mr. Adoefler, do you consider Mr. Barton an expert?

      You are just repeating what this article is saying.

      Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • justangry
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:47am

      Yeah, I understand the problems in academia, but I still expect that if I go to a doctor that he went to medical school, that my lawyer went to law school… I repeat, I’m not saying he is wrong because of it. And to say that he doesn’t come with his own set of biases is misleading as well. He is educated, just in theology not history.

      Report Post » justangry  
    • kaydeebeau
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:51am

      So spending a few months / years writing a disertation, presenting for a few hours to a board of mostly leftists from whom one is trying to gain approval and validation is superior to spending a career lifetime, reseraching, writing and defending a position to the entire realm of acedemia and the world?

      Report Post » kaydeebeau  
    • Ben__Franklin
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:43am

      Typical Leftist drivel. If you do not have a Elitist degree at one of those Harvard type universities, you just cannot be an expert and know what your are talking about. LoL….

      I really love this part of the article “Many historians call his research flawed….” Really – how many and who? I love when those ivy league critics use such blanket statements with nothing to back it up.

      Barton can run circles around any Liberal Progressive professor of History and they know it. That is why they are scared – someone is telling Americans our real history and reversing the last 100 years of Progressive re-writing to fit their agenda. The main one is to keep the African Americans victims of the past when it was African Americans that help build this great nation from the start of our war for Independence.

      Sour Grapes Libbies, you can not handle standing in the light of truth. As always, the left must attack the messenger because they have nothing else.

      Report Post »  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:53am

      It seems to me David Barton is saying that the panel of experts is wrong. He is not short on sources for his claims. We should listen to everyone and back the ideas that have the most supporting evidence. I have worked with PhD in technical areas. They can be completely wrong and think they are right just like the rest of us.

      Report Post »  
    • justangry
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 3:47pm

      Guys…. Personally I like Barton’s interpretation of the 3/5 clause. I AM NOT SAYING HE IS WRONG. It’s just the way it is. There are conservative universities/advisors he could go to if he wanted the criticism to slow down a bit. Still others in the field would criticize his material. That’s what they do. It’s just not some left/right conspiracy going after poor David Barton. He should be honored his works are even being scrutinized, and he’s making some serious bank to boot. I get it. Many here want their history written by a conservative theologian.

      Report Post » justangry  
  • kaydeebeau
    Posted on July 25, 2012 at 8:06am

    Ready set queue the trolls… please do not feed them

    Report Post » kaydeebeau  
    • Ben__Franklin
      Posted on July 25, 2012 at 9:47am

      Too Late, they are already here attacking the messenger instead of proving Barton wrong. Typical of the Left.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love