David Barton vs. His Critics: TheBlaze’s Extensive Analysis of Their Claims & Thomas Jefferson’s Faith
- Posted on August 15, 2012 at 5:22pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
- TheBlaze examines Dr. Warren Throckmorton‘s and David Barton’s disagreement over the “Jefferson Bible,” slavery, the Thompson Hot-Press Bible and Jefferson’s involvement in the planning of the University of Virginia
- Barton claims Jefferson was “orthodox” for most of his life, while Throckmorton says there’s no such evidence
- While Barton maintains that Jefferson fought against the institution of slavery, Throckmorton claims he took few steps to free his own servants
- Liberty University’s Mathew Staver tells Throckmorton and other critics: “Be prepared to eat crow.”
Photo Credit: Thomas Nelson
The controversy over David Barton’s book, “The Jefferson Lies,” is a complicated one that involves multiple layers comprised of a litany of historical and theological ideals and themes. Simply stated: It’s not an easy debate to sift through.
On Monday, TheBlaze provided extensive analysis that included interviews with Barton, Thomas Nelson publishers and Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College and one of the author’s key critics. As the dust settles on the publisher’s decision to cancel and pull the book from shelves, many individuals on both sides of the Barton divide likely have a plethora of questions.
There’s no doubt that the key element — arguably the most important one — missing from the debate has been adequate analysis of the facts and explicit charges being waged against the historian. To date, media outlets covering the drama have done little to ask both Throckmorton and Barton to highlight their arguments against one another. So, TheBlaze spoke with both individuals to gain a better sense of where they’re coming from, while also attempting to explore just a few of the points of contention.
As we noted earlier this week, Throckmorton published “Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President,” alongside professor Michael Coulter, in an effort to clear up what he claims are inaccuracies in Barton’s “The Jefferson Lies.” In an exclusive interview, TheBlaze asked Throckmorton to highlight some of the biggest errors he believes are present in the book — a challenge he willingly accepted. Then, we brought these concerns to Barton, who explained his side of the story.
THE SO-CALLED “JEFFERSON BIBLE”
One of the primary issues that Throckmorton tackles in his critiques of Barton’s views is the so-called “Jefferson Bible.” The academic claims that, throughout his life, Jefferson — whom Barton believes created two versions of the book, one in 1804 and another in 1820 — was always clear about his views on the virgin birth and other central Christian tenets (the president lived from 1743 to 1826, a factor that is important to the overall debate).
“Every time he talked about both versions he said he was separating the diamonds from a dunghill,” Throckmorton explained, going on to note that he believes Jefferson intentionally left out some of the more supernatural and doctrinal portions of the Bible.
“David says that Jefferson just laid out the words of Jesus end to end, but he left out John 3:3 and John 3:16…This was not just Jefferson wanting to have an abridgement for the Indians,” Throckmorton continued.
President Thomas Jefferson (FILE)
Here, the professor is speaking about Barton’s claim that Jefferson was intent on not just teaching, but also evangelizing the Native American population. While this is a point of debate over Barton’s book, Throckmorton was already criticizing this ideal back in 2011 when he wrote a blog post entitled, “Was the Jefferson Bible an Evangelism Tool?”
While Barton has contended that the so-called bible was created to introduce the Indians to “Christian morality,” Throckmorton believes that Jefferson’s intent was to create a book for “his own use.” When it comes to the two versions, Throckmorton disagreed with Barton‘s assessment that it’s a settled matter that the 1804 and 1820 versions are different. He claims that Jefferson certainly linked them, but that it’s unknown whether they were 100 percent distinct from one another.
Throckmorton points to Jefferson’s own words in an attempt to prove his point. In an October 12, 1813 letter that the former president wrote to John Adams, Jefferson explained his project in detail (emphasis is Throckmorton’s):
In extracting the pure principles which he [Jesus] taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurgos, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unlettered Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Christians of the first century. Their Platonizing successors, indeed, in after times, in order to legitimate the corruptions which they had incorporated into the doctrines of Jesus, found it necessary to disavow the primitive Christians, who had taken their principles from the mouth of Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and the Fathers contemporary with them. They excommunicated their followers as heretics, branding them with the opprobrious name of Ebionites or Beggars.
Throckmorton uses this letter to claim that Jefferson clearly had no interest in the other elements that were cut out of the book he had assembled. Many of these tenets, as he noted, involved Jesus’ resurrection and related verses that some — mainly non-believers — would see as superstitious or beyond the human realm.
Additionally, the professor uses other examples to dismiss the more nuanced approach that Barton takes to Jefferson’s theological views (we explained this in our last article about “The Jefferson Lies”). Rather than embracing the notion that he took on a more orthodox Christian view for most of his life, Throckmorton cites statements from Jefferson that seem to indicate that he had always held questions about the divinity of Jesus.
In 1788, Throckmorton said that Jefferson also told a friend that he couldn’t be a godfather, because he would have to affirm the trinity — something he wasn’t willing to do. On his blog, Throckmorton explains:
Jefferson, in 1788, refused to sponsor a friend’s child as a godfather because he would have to affirm his belief in the Trinity. He told his friend, Derieux, that he held that belief [rejecting the Trinity] from early in his life. Jefferson also confided to a Unitarian friend that he attended Priestley’s Unitarian church before 1800, while he was Vice President. In Jefferson’s 1803 Syllabus, he laid out his belief that Jesus was not part of the Godhead. Barton’s attempt to make Jefferson seem orthodox during the active part of his political engagement is contradicted by Jefferson’ own words.
In the letter that Throckmorton cites, Jefferson wrote, “The difficulty of reconciling the ideas of Unity and Trinity have, from a very early part of my life, excluded me from the office of sponsorship, often proposed to me by my friends, who would have trusted, for the faithful discharge of it, to morality alone instead of which the church requires faith.”
Photo Credit: "Thomas Jefferson: A Chronology of His Thoughts"
And, here’s an image of the letter in Jefferson’s own writing:
Photo Credit: Library of Congress
TheBlaze asked Barton about these criticisms and he responded, first taking aim at the “diamonds in the dunghill” portion of Jefferson’s letter.
“There’s a couple things there. One is the diamonds in the dunghill — Jefferson very clearly said that he thinks the gospels are the good part and the epistles are the bad part,” Barton countered, going on to say that this was a view that Jefferson shared for the last 15 years of his life. “He loved the teachings of Jesus, but not the epistles.”
And as far as Jefferson’s life goes, Barton sees the figure as predominately orthodox before turning away from such views later in life.
“In 1804, Jefferson was very orthodox in his Christian beliefs,” Barton contends. “As we point out in ‘The Jefferson Lies’…he went through a progression [and] in last 15 years, he was very anti-orthodox.”
In July, Barton took these issues on, writing that he had proven that Jefferson included some of the more spiritual portions of the Bible (however, Throckmorton has said that these elements are a mixed bag and that Barton mentions verses that aren’t actually in either version):
[Critic Clay] Jenkinson, like Throckmorton and Coulter, admits major points I make in The Jefferson Lies but then also tries to explain them away. For example, I show that even though modern scholars repeatedly claim that Jefferson omitted everything related to the Divine and the supernatural from his so-called “Jefferson Bible,” that he actually included Jesus raising the dead, healing the sick, casting out demons, calling Himself the Son of God, speaking of His Second Coming, etc. 16 Jenkinson admits that Jefferson did include these passages but then dismisses them as unimportant by (1) first pointing out that all other scholars similarly dismiss those passages, and (2) then giving his own personal opinion that Jefferson really didn’t believe what he included in that work. 17 This ploy is called “psychohistory,” and results when a modern so-called “psychological” analysis is applied to the actions of a person long dead; “psychobabble” is the result of such an analysis. This trick enables folks like Jenkinson (and scholars like him) to assert that he personally knows what Jefferson was secretly thinking two centuries ago, so therefore whatever Jefferson actually said or did should be completely ignored.
Clearly, the two sides are in disagreement on a number of fronts when it comes to the so-called “Jefferson Bible” and on Jefferson’s faith more generally.
JEFFERSON’S SLAVE OWNERSHIP
The second issue that Throckmorton and Barton can’t seem to agree on is slavery and whether or not Jefferson had the power, ability and means to set the 260 or so (it fluctuated throughout his life) individuals he owned free. Barton contends that there were a slew of slave laws governing the state of Virginia (he was the governor there from 1779 to 1781).
Photo Credit: Warren Throckmorton/Michael Coulter
These laws, he contends, complicated the situation and made it difficult for Jefferson to set his slaves free — specifically the alleged requirement that owners provide security bonds for each slave.
“As I pointed out in the book, [there were] a whole bunch of slave laws. Probably 20 slave laws and dozens of court cases that interpreted those laws,” Barton told TheBlaze. “As Throckmorton pointed out…Jefferson’s finances were so poor – he [was] not in a position to provide security bonds for 260 slaves.”
Barton does agree that there are some occasions in which slaves were freed, but that Jefferson’s situation — especially due to his finances — was different. Based on the pure numbers, Barton’s points are accurate.
In fact, the Library of Virginia reports, “Between 1723 and the American Revolution only about twenty-four enslaved people were legally emancipated in Virginia.” In 2000, Barton wrote about this subject in detail, claiming that it was extremely difficult for George Washington and Jefferson to allow these individuals to obtain freedom:
As a middle colony, Virginia experienced the stress from the divergent pull of both northern and southern beliefs meeting in conflict in that State. Several northern States were moving rapidly toward ending slavery, while the deepest southern States of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia largely refused even to consider such a possibility. 4 Virginia contained strong proponents of both attitudes. While many Virginia leaders sought to end slavery in that State (George Mason, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, etc.), they found a very cool reception toward their ideas from many of their fellow citizens as well as from the State Legislature… [...]
As Jefferson and Washington sought to liberalize the State’s slavery laws to make it easier to free slaves, the State Legislature went in exactly the opposite direction, passing laws making it more difficult to free slaves. (As one example, Washington was able to circumvent State laws by freeing his slaves in his will at his death in 1799; by the time of Jefferson’s death in 1826, State laws had so stiffened that it had become virtually impossible for Jefferson to use the same means.)
Later in the piece, Barton continued, explaining that these tough laws were loosened “for a short time” by the manumission law:
In 1782, however, Virginia began to move in a new direction (for a short time) by passing a very liberal manumission law. As a result, “this restraint on the power of the master to emancipate his slave was removed, and since that time the master may emancipate by his last will or deed.” (It was because of this law that George Washington was able to free his slaves in his last will and testament in 1799.)
In 1806, unfortunately, the Virginia Legislature repealed much of that law, and it became more difficult to emancipate slaves in a last will and testament…
In an interview with TheBlaze, Throckmorton also raised this time frame (1782 to 1806) to claim that Jefferson could have readily released his slaves while the manumission law was on the books, as Washington had (read the complete law here).
“Until 1806, a lot of people freed their slaves. I show on my web site – Robert Carter freed slaves in 1791,” Throckmorton explained. “Carter had a pay a clerk’s fee when he filed the deed. … There were fines at various times in Virginia history, but not then.”
The professor took particular issue with the fact that, in “The Jefferson Lies,” Barton left out the crucial portion of the Law of Manumission that would have allowed people to free their slaves. While Throckmorton saw this as an error that scholars simply shouldn’t be making, Barton maintains that leaving it out doesn’t change the facts (and, as noted, he had covered this issue, in detail, back in 2000 — and very publicly on the Wallbuilders web site).
Here‘s a section from Throckmorton’s “Getting Jefferson Right” that provides Barton’s portion of the law — and then Throckmorton’s clarification. Again, the main issue that Throckmorton raises here is that Barton has removed important information that shows that it was, indeed, possible to free slaves:
Photo Credit: "Getting Jefferson Right"
Part of the debate on this point may be centered upon semantics. While Barton purportedly said that there were essentially fines against releasing slaves, Throckmorton said there was no evidence of this. However, the clerk’s fee, in some peoples’ eyes would be a “fine” of sorts. Still, others would distinguish between a clerk’s fee and a fine.
While Jefferson certainly could have freed his slaves based on the laws of that time, his finances may have been a problem preventing him from doing so. If Barton‘s contentions about Jefferson’s devotion to stopping the institution are accurate, one would assume that, if Jefferson had the means to free the slaves, he would have. On the flip side, if the president was immensely devoted to the cause, opponents like Throckmorton could argue that freeing these men and women should have taken precedence.
JEFFERSON’S ROLE IN THE THOMPSON HOT-PRESS BIBLE
The third area of debate that was discussed with both Throckmorton and Barton was the Thompson Hot-Press Bible. Cedarville University has more about this unique version of the holy book that was published from 1796 to 1798:
It was quite late in Colonial American history when the first English language Bible was printed in America. Robert Aitken did so in 1782 under an authorization by the United States Congress. Prior to this time, English language Bibles were available in the Colonies, but had to be imported from England. What followed Aitkin’s work were printings by Matthew Carey [1790], William Young [1790], Isaac Collins [1791], Isaiah Thomas [1791], and Jacob Berriman [1796]. These were all printings of the King James Bible, some in personal size and others in family Bible size.
In November of 1798, John Thompson of Philadelphia produced the first King James Bible ever to be “hot-pressed” in America. This printing technique helped to sear the ink clearly into the paper with heat. This printing was a large pulpit folio Bible, the largest Bible printed in America up until that time. The Thompson Hot-Press Bible remains a very rare collector’s item.
Here, of course, one would wonder what, in the world, Throckmorton and Barton could possibly be arguing over — and how Jefferson might be involved. To summarize the debate, Throckmorton takes particular issue with the way in which Barton describes Jefferson’s involvement in the effort to print, produce and distribute the Thompson Hot-Press Bible.
Photo Credit: Warren Throckmorton
Thompson was joined by Abraham Small in the effort to bring the book to print. According to Throckmorton, the two advertised that they would use a new process (i.e. “hot-pressing”) to put out a new addition of a portion of the Bible every two weeks. Each section would cost 50 cents and at the end of two years, pending someone purchased each part, he or she would have a completed book. In sum, the project had 1,272 subscribers.
Now, here’s where the debate comes into play.
“Barton says that Jefferson and some of the Founders invested in that bible to get the word of God to families,” Throckmorton said, going on to say that he didn’t finish paying for his subscription until 1799, well after it was done and over. “Jefferson just bought [one] Bible…Jefferson bought one and he didn’t even finish paying for it until after it was done.”
Again, here we have a semantics debate. While Barton has used the words “put up the financial backing” and “funded by,” Throckmorton draws a major distinction between these sentiments and someone taking out a subscription, though the professor did write on his blog earlier this year that, “Buying a Bible by subscription was common then and was a way to provide the printer with some idea of how many copies to print.”
When TheBlaze asked Barton about this, he answered candidly:
“A subscription is very much like taking out a bank loan. You’re pledging ahead of time that you’re going to purchase. It’s very much like having an IOU in hand. When the book came out, they listed all of the subscribers — all the guys who said they’d pay for the book…there’s a whole lot of books that never got printed…subscribers really are investers. The fact that Jefferson put his name in as a subscription — he was pledging to invest.”
In Kirk Cameron’s film “Monumental,” Barton told the actor-turned-producer (emphasis added), “This Bible was funded by about a dozen signers of the Constitution and signers of the Declaration as well as by President John Adams and Vice-President Thomas Jefferson. They’re the guys that put up the financial backing to do this Bible.”
Watch the clip, below:
So, here we have a difference between the definitions surrounding “investor” versus “subscriber” (the primary definition of the former word is: “to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value”).
JEFFERSON’S ROLE IN CRAFTING THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
On another front, the two parties have been debating back and forth over content in “The Jefferson Lies” surrounding the president and his role in planning the University of Virginia. Barton claims that, in 1818, Jefferson wrote a letter to the trustees planning the university, asking them to establish a seminary.
This, in essence, made the school “transdonimational” in the historian’s view, seeing as eight seminaries were slated to be present there, with students essentially having the option to choose one from the pool. Barton also noted that Jefferson wanted Christian resources for every student‘s use inside of the school’s library.
But, because the university didn’t start until 1825 and he died in 1826, Jefferson was barely able to see much of these plans come to fruition. In a February 2009 article on WallBuilders’ web site, Barton (along with co-author Dr. Mark Beliles) wrote the following, attempting to dispel the bullet-pointed items:
As a result of this modern academic malpractice, four oft-repeated claims have emerged about Jefferson’s founding of the University of Virginia:
1. Jefferson founded a deliberately secular university
2. Jefferson sought out Unitarians to be its faculty
3. Jefferson barred religious activities and instruction from the program of the school
4. Affirming its commitment to secularism, the University of Virginia had no chaplain
Barton and Beliles go on, in detail, describing the university’s founding:
Jefferson and his Board of Visitors (i.e., Regents) founded the University of Virginia as a school not affiliated with only one denomination; it was specifically founded as a trans-denominational school. Consequently, it did not incorporate the three features so commonly associated with other universities at that time, thus causing modern critics wrongly to claim that it was founded as a secular university.
In implementing a trans-denominational approach, Jefferson was embracing the position that had been nationally set forth by an evangelical Presbyterian clergyman, Samuel Knox of Baltimore, whom Jefferson later asked to be his first faculty member at the University of Virginia. 8 In 1799, Knox penned an educational policy piece proposing the formation of a state university that would not have just one specific theological school but rather would invite many denominations to establish schools at the university; the various denominations would therefore all work together in mutual cooperation rather than in competition. 9 Jefferson agreed with this philosophy, and it was this model that he employed at the University of Virginia. [...]
Since the University would have no single denominational seminary but rather the seminaries of many denominations, Jefferson and the Visitors (i.e., Regents) decided that there should be no clergyman as university president and no specified Professor of Divinity, either of which might wrongly cause the public to think that the University favored the particular denomination with which the university president or Professor of Divinity was affiliated.
But, Throckmorton stands firmly opposed to these sentiments — specifically the idea that the university was “transdenominational.” While he said that Jefferson told the trustees that they could incorporate religion later if they so chose, that the president was not pushing these elements in the way that Barton claims.
“There was no chapel at the university of Virginia,” he explained. “If you’re going to be a Christian college, it seemed like [there] would be a chapel.”
After some intensive searching on the subject, TheBlaze found that a note was apparently sent from Jefferson to a man named Thomas Cooper. In it, Jefferson wrote, “I agree with you that a professorship of theology should have no place in our institution.”
Photo Credit: "The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia: A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson"
The New International Encyclopedia (early 1900s) has more about the relationship between these two figures, writing, “Cooper was very highly esteemed by Thomas Jefferson, who secured for him the appointment as first professor of natural science and law in the University of Virginia — a position which Cooper was forced to resign under the fierce attack made on him by the Virginia clergy.”
Barton also notes on his web site that Cooper was a Unitarian and he explains that, when this information reached the public, the university’s offer to hire him was rescinded.
While the aforementioned note seemed nearly impossible to track, the full version was found in a book called “The Thomas Jefferson Papers.” It can be read below, with the section pertaining to faith and religion boxed in red:
Photo Credit: "The Thomas Jefferson Papers."
While this by no means validates or derides either Throckmorton or Barton’s views, it does seem to indicate that Jefferson didn’t want theology professors to be a part of the university he was planning. The aforementioned letter was written in 1814 and another was penned by Jefferson to Cooper in 1822. In it, he wrote about the divinity program (or lack thereof) at the University of Virginia:
In our university you know there is no Professorship of Divinity. A handle has been made of this, to disseminate an idea that this is an institution, not merely of no religion, but against all religion. Occasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors, to bring forward an idea that might silence this calumny, which weighed on the minds of some honest friends to the institution. In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences. I think the invitation will be accepted, by some sects from candid intentions, and by others from jealousy and rivalship. And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality.
Throckmorton went on to say that people wouldn’t have wanted to fund the initiative if it was viewed as an atheistic institution. This notion, especially based on this latter source, could be at the heart of Jefferson’s openness to allowing people of faiths on campus (there is, of course, also yet another letter on record surrounding faith and public policy between these two figures).
The professor also notes that the portion of the above note that is bolded was cut out from the sourcing in Barton’s “The Jefferson Lies,” citing this as a possible intent to change the conversation and omit the fact that these religious institutions were set to be separate from the university. Below, see a portion from Barton’s book that does, indeed, show this omission:
Photo Credit: "The Jefferson Lies"
But, an omission doesn’t necessarily mean that the meaning of the overall message is debunked, of course. The difference here is over whether the school was planning to formerly align itself with these denominations — or whether it was simply attempting to respect its student body by providing access to numerous faiths.
CONCLUSION
The arguments framed in this article represent only a sliver of the overall points of contention. Both sides are doubling down, with individuals coming out to publicly support each. But — unlike traditional debates, these new people who are weighing in all come from an evangelical and/or a conservative worldview.
David Barton (FILE)
Take, for instance, Charles Dunn, the former dean of the school of government at Regent University. The Republican and academic has now officially come out against Barton. Here’s what he had to say in a statement that Throckmorton released to TheBlaze:
“Getting Jefferson Right” by Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter stands up for truth in scholarship against the prevarications in David Barton’s “The Jefferson’s Lies.” Because of the courage of Throckmorton and Coulter, Barton has now fallen from his pedestal of preeminence as a scholar of the early American era. Throckmorton and Coulter deserve the “Medal of Honor” for courage and probity.
But not everyone is siding against the historian. In an e-mail interview with TheBlaze, Mathew D. Staver, vice-president of Liberty University, an evangelical higher educational facility, defended Barton. Aside from saying that he doesn’t put any credibility into “Throckmorton’s self-published ebook” (the book is also available in print, as we’ve noted), he dismissed the professor as “a psychologist [and] not [a] historian.”
“I have never heard him speak or write on Jefferson until now,” he continued,” going on to share some interesting information about his recent interaction with Thomas Nelson:
“I have not had the opportunity to look at all the allegations, but I have looked at some of Throckmorton‘s claims and Barton’s responses. I would put my money on David Barton any day. Herein lies a serious issue for Thomas Nelson. I was asked to review Throckmorton’s arguments, but before I could respond, Thomas Nelson shocked everyone by its knee jerk reaction to criticism by non-experts only two weeks or so after ask[ing] for my response. I am very disappointed in the way Thomas Nelson handled this matter.”
Staver also noted that Dr. Roger Schultz, dean of Liberty’s colleges of arts and sciences and an expert on American history, and Rena Lindevaldsen, associate dean for academic affairs at the university, both back Barton. In speaking of critics, Staver warned that they should “be prepared to eat crow.”
The Rev. James Robison, too, weighed in on the scenario. While not directly placing blame or accusing Barton of inaccuracies, he told TheBlaze about the importance of upholding godly values — and embracing truth. On a grander scale, he discussed the attempt to ongoing attempt by liberals to “minimize the importance of Judeo-Christian principles.”
“We must stand together against the liberal, progressive mind-set that is seeking to destroy what made us great. The bottom line is: Truth matters,” he continued. “We must exalt the truth and always be willing to be corrected by it. It is truth that makes us free, and only truth can keep us free.”
Robison went on to stress the double standard that he believes any and all Americans — and in this case, conservatives and evangelicals — risk falling prey to.
“If we expect our nation’s leaders to respond to truth and correction, each one of us must also be anxious to respond to the standards our founders put in place,” Robison continued. “Those standards corrected many founders who had signed them. I, for one, am anxious to be corrected and directed by God’s truth, which is marching on.”
–
RELATED:
- Exclusive: Historian David Barton Responds to Critics Amid ‘Jefferson Lies’ Book Controversy
- BlazeCast Rewind! Historian David Barton Answers Critics and Takes Questions
- David Barton Part I: An In-Depth Look at the Harsh Criticisms of the Conservative Historian
- David Barton Part 2: Historian Responds to Critics’ Claims, Academics‘ ’Extreme Hostility Toward Faith’ & Obama’s Alleged King George III-Like Behavior
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 678 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 530 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 423 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 329 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 275 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 283 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 165 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 275 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (178)
herbar
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 9:26pmMr Barton takes on those that lie about the Jefferson-Hemings DNA Study and he is “right on the track.” May I please suggest that these DNA lies be read on web pages http://www.tjheritage.org and http://www.jeffersondnastudy.com. Read the suggested books there including the latest “The Scholars Commission Study” by Prof Robert Turner. This book, the results of a year long study by 13 top scholars who found NO proof that Thomas Jefferson fathered any Hemings child.
Please don’t believe the claims of Monticello and Annette Gordon-Reed. I know the inside facts of this study as Dr E.A. Foster’s Assistant on the study. These are my research results.
Herb Barger
Report Post »Founder, Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
termyt
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 10:05amI see a spirited debate with ample evidence on both sides. What I do not see is a scholarly reason why Barton’s book should be pulled by the publisher. Why is Thomas Nelson choosing sides while the debate rages on? Are they saying they will only publish books with well worn and accepted view points we all already know? What’s the point of publishing any new history book then?
Report Post »saranda
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 12:51pmLet’s see who is best to believe in this. TheBlaze, who along with gb, have been holding Barton out as one of if not the most important men in America, and who benefit financially from his credibility remaining intact and are using a limited number of outside sources to rehab Barton’s reputation.
Or, a company made a decision to not just stop publishing a specific book, but also to severe a relationship from a best selling author thus taking a huge financial hit in the decision. But said company decided the lose of revenue was not as important as the truth.
Report Post »Always follow the money and the money usually leads to the deceivor, in this case it is gb no matter how many sheep come back to the fold and confidential tinge to enrich Barton and gb and how many snippets of info gb and TheBlaze present to support a flimsy, financially based argument.
TreeTrimmerJim
Posted on August 17, 2012 at 12:37amSARANDA …. Your proof is?
Like you said follow the money? What was the threat against the publisher that would have the publisher reverse the work of their own staff? Is their staff incompetent initial in proofing the book or subsequently in the face of special interest pressure. We know the the publisher is incompetent, the question being decided is at proofing or standing up for their work?
In either case how does this controversy build confidence in the books this publisher, Thomas Nelson, produces? Imagine you work as a proofer for the Thomas Nelson. Imagine you worked on this particular book. Its deemed by your manager to be so flawed it has to be pulled from production after the 6th printing in a few weeks. What are the odds that your proofer job is also not about to be pulled? Assume your the manager who hired and supervises the proofer, is your job up for grabs?
The publisher is in a no win situation. The author who wrote a the response book has lost an audience.
The winner will be the next publisher who cashes in on your free publicity.
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on August 17, 2012 at 5:20pmBought His book from WALLBUILDERS this week!! I think they had so many people trying to order their books that it crashed his web site for a while. Thanks GLENN.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 9:00pmThat’s a big article :O I’m just gonna keep my mouth shut until I read it :X
Report Post »boyd9
Posted on August 18, 2012 at 1:36pmIt is OK Surhan Surhan
Everyone else inside this argument is attempting to claim that Thomas Jefferson was like them, one of their own. No reason you should be denounced for doing the same. I really don‘t care much what Jefferson believed or didn’t, he never claimed to be God or to speak for God and is entitled to his own opinion, which has far less value to me than my own.
I do care that our founders believed in a supreme being, and thought that government should be subject to that supreme being in terms of not interfering with the rights conferred to us humans by our God; especially to allow us “render unto God that which is Gods’ in whatever manner we feel appropriate.
It is governments realm to determine what is legal and illegal, subject to our unalienable rights, but it is only Gods realm to determine what is sin. In the end the truth is what it is and nothing can change or alter it in the long term because in the long term we are all dead and subject only to God.
Report Post »Mojoron
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 8:35pmIt is interesting that Jefferson would translate or use for his Jefferson bible the Jerusalem Bible which is an historical CATHOLIC bible translated from the original Aramaic and Greek, and includes all the books that protestants believe aren’t inspired. If he felt that the Pauline books were junk and he only believed in the Gospels I would wonder if he even attempted to read anything beyond the Gospels and Epistles. Since he apparently did not believe in a Trinitarian God, why was it that he only liked the Gospels?
Report Post »SurhanSurhan
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 8:57pm@ MOJORON- The answer is Jefferson read the Qur’an. The Qur’an states: “Don’t say Trinity, stop it, it will be better for you. For your Allah is one Allah.” As I stated earlier, Jefferson was Muslim. He was the first Muslim American president.
Report Post »Al J Zira
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 11:08pm@ Kennedy Killer: That has to be the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever read on this site. And that includes the moron Encinom et.al. I realize the brainwashing of the quran and teachings of muhammad obviously has tainted your thinking but if you’re going to make that claim, please provide proof or shut up.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 11:09pmSurhan that is so lame and hilarious. Jefferson only wanted to include what God said and what Jesus said, not what some priest or pharisee said. That is moot information. If Jefferson was Muslim, why did he seek to blow them to smithereens? I guess you didn’t learn that part in your Muslim school did you.
Report Post »CrismaFire
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 12:25amSurhansurhan Thomas Jefferson was certainly not Muslim. Just because you own a Q‘uran hardly makes you a Muslim anymore than owning a Bible doesn’t make you a Christian.
Report Post »bigdaddyt46
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:24amsurhan you are so full of bs it ain’t funny. go take your muslim fake god crap somewhere else it’s not wanted here.
Report Post »Quixotic-911
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 3:27pmThomas Jefferson the first Muslim president? Really? If he was a Muslim then why did he go to war against the Muslim Barbary pirates? Islam has been a thorn in our side since the founding of the country. The only reason Jefferson had a Koran is because he was a curious intellectual that wanted to understand his enemies. I own a Koran too, and I hate Islam!
Report Post »SurhanSurhan
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 6:56pm@ QUIXOTIC-911- You don‘t own a Qur’an, if you did you wouldn’t spell it Koran! The Muslim Barbary pirates won each battle against the U.S. and eventually signed a treaty with the U.S. to not capture any more ships after the U.S. paid a hefty sum of money.
Report Post »Shiroi Raion
Posted on August 17, 2012 at 7:08amLOL I honestly laughed out loud. @Surhansurhan, do you know about Jefferson’s Koran and why he made it? Jefferson was a Muslim! LOL That’s hilarious!
Report Post »SurhanSurhan
Posted on August 17, 2012 at 6:36pm@ SHIROI RAION- Barack Obama, no Qur‘an at all and America says he’s Muslim. Thomas Jefferson, has a Qur‘an America says he’s not Muslim.
There’s more proof for Jefferson being Muslim than there is for Obama.
Report Post »hardiepiper
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 8:31pmEvery founding father quote that David Barton cites is taken out of context to sell books and videos. Watch the movie The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers. It exposes Barton’s deceptions.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hidden-Faith-Founding-Fathers/dp/B00461VOPO/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1345076957&sr=1-1&keywords=Christian+J.+Pinto
Report Post »JosephsMyth
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 10:59pmWatched this the other day on YouTube. It’s a bit long, but worth a watch. At times it veers a bit too conspiratorial for me. However, he has an entire section on what he calls “Bartonian History” that is quite good.
Here‘s the link if you don’t want to $30 to watch the film:
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU24fJ4NQxo
Silvertruth
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 8:27pmI‘m sorry but I think both ’sides‘ of this issue are taking ’interpreting’ someone who lived 200 years ago far too seriously. When you have too strong of an opinion, you read into a sentence exactly what you want to. Both sides are doing this and we’d actually need Jefferson standing here to tell us what he really meant at that given time.
Report Post »Barton needs to step back, hold on to his fundamental tenet that Jefferson was far more intellectually diverse and ‘open’, while remaining Christian than progressive/atheists keep claiming him to be an atheist. That is truth to the ‘lie’ and Barton is correct there.
Throckmorton is just headhunting and nit picking. For a shrink, that’s pretty stupid in my opinion, but it’s just that, my opinion. I think he has valid foundation for questioning, and with Barton leaving out key sections of quotes with what appears to be an intent to strengthen his stance, it doesn‘t help Barton’s claims. He should republish his book with those quotes filled back in and even put the critics viewpoints in with his own and let the readers decide.
Nobody could question that and reasoned debate should always be an open minded affair. Two ideologically intractable sides hammering away at each other just accomplishes nothing but turning off the audience!
TeresaJ
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 10:59pmI second. Those are my thoughts.
Report Post »TreeTrimmerJim
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 11:13pmIf the only tool you have is a hammer… as the saying goes, lots of things start to look like nails.
We all enjoy being valued… could that ever be a problem?
Report Post »bartleby2012
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 12:52pmI agree. I was interested enough in the controversy to buy Throckmorton’s book as well, and my overall reaction after reading Throckmorton is, “So what?”. As I said in an earlier post, this is what makes history fun.
I had to chuckle, though, reading in Throckmorton’s introduction how he and his co-author intended to offer a ‘dispassionate’ analysis of the issues presented. He then goes on to characterize Barton‘s conclusions in anything but ’dispassionate’ terms. There appears to be a lot of ax grinding going on here.
I think one conclusion we can all reach from this is that Jefferson‘s and the Founders’ attitudes generally about Religion in the public square were nothing like the modern atheists and scoffers (to use Solomon’s term) would like us to believe.
Report Post »RedheadedStepchild
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 2:40pmYou are dead on silver… even if my children read my personal journals when I am gone, they will not know exactly where my mind was at certain points. If Jefferson was like anyone of us he had to pander to some, collaborate with others and keep his own personal beliefs close to his heart. We cannot walk in his shoes- no matter how badly we want to understand the people that founded this country to their very core…it is only for God to know.
Report Post »tradexpertbuysell
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 8:11pmRoom for debate does not justify stopping the press and taking books off the shelf. Give me a brake. Even if the book itself is a lie proceed because this is America and the buyer will figure it out for himself. Otherwise why not take Obama’s “Dreams” off the self with more justification than on Barton’s book. Suddenly we see the ACLU on what books sould or should not be read!
God forbid!
Report Post »jhaydeng
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 8:48pmSo this know it all thinks that his learned opinions are the only one’s that matter!
Report Post »technecium
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 10:34pmIf it is shown (which I think the facts in this article confirm) that Barton has left key sections of Jefferson‘s writings out that don’t support his point of view, then the publisher has a duty to pull the book back. The difference is that Barton is pushing his book as researched history. While I would like to see the AUTHOR of Obama’s book “taken off the shelf” and recalled, his book was not pushed as research but a as a memoir. That book needs to be read by more people (don’t buy it, read it at the library) to understand exactly how and why Obama is out to ruin this country.
Report Post »tradexpertbuysell
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 1:00amTECHNECIUM
I’m almost buying your analysis and recognize a duty here may be beholden on the part of the publisher.
But what about the process of a thorough review and then if Barton is indeed found to be cherry picking then publish subsequent copies with a disclaimer and leave it up to Barton to submit full quotes then present his case before the disclaimer is removed. Not censorship. Please! Remember the intent of Obama’s “Dreams” was pretending to be honest about events that never occured. In either case such a disclaimer would in all fairness be the appropriate measure and pulling a book for any reason be construed as overeacting. The disclaimer would serve the purpose and leave it to the prospective buyer to do their own research and decide for themselves. Are people too stupid to figure it out for themselves? Only a progressive would respond “yes”.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 8:09pmExactly!!
The problem is that progressives and libertarians have taken Jefferson’s non-holistic view of the New Testament and exagerated that to claim that he was a deist and not a Christian. Never mind all of Jefferson’s writtings about Jesus and claims of being a Christian.
“I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to man….”
From Jefferson’s Last Will and Testament
Report Post »“I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
–The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
neither1
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 10:40pmYeah but it was Jesus Christ as he saw Him. When Jefferson said “as delivered by Him” Jefferson was alluding to the fact that he thought that Jesus’s words had been translated and mangled by the writers of the New Testament. He was and Originalist if you will.
Report Post »BacktotheFounders
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 7:25pmAnyone with a grain of common sense can see that Jefferson was trying to stay within the boundaries of the constitution and not favor one religion over another.
He wrote his own epitaph which included that he was the author of the Declaration of Independence, the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father of the University of Virginia. He thought these to be the most important things he did in his lifetime. He valued his authorship of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom over being Governor of Virginia and President of the United States. I
https://www.google.com/search?q=thomas+jefferson+tombstone&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=dRT&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=733&bih=410&prmd=imvnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=di4sUJ9mg9jyBMSSgKAM&sqi=2&ved=0CFEQsAQ
Report Post »Stone Cold Truth
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 7:06pmSo a psychologist is telling us his histoy book is better? Where’s the credibility? Squavelling over Jefferson’s on again off again faith throughout his life is pointless. I don’t need Jefferson to be proven a super religious guy to understand our country WAS founded on judeo Christian values. Either way he definately participated in it with full knowlege of the Christain connection.
Report Post »avgconservative
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:53pmThe problem with putting an intellectual piece on TheBlaze.com is that there are few intellectuals here. It took me about 15 minutes to read and absorb all the material in this article. I’m no intellectual, but I understand the two arguments. As Glenn has reinforced; Truth has no agenda.
I have no problem with Jefferson being a unitarian/humanist/agnostic. He was in the micro-minority of founding fathers of this country.
Report Post »swamp_donkey
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 9:34amand apparently he used to wear an i love ronald reagan pin
Report Post »Eaglesnest
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:52pmThe fact is, boths sides of this issue can only sift through the fragmented records that remain and reach an educated guess about Jefferson’s faith. They are arguing on the margins here, who really cares how religous Jefferson was. We know he was highly intelligent, was not perfect for that time period, and was spiritual while questioning of some aspects of Christianity.
Report Post »MajorLeagueInfidel
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:50pmWhy hasn’t Barton pointed out the continuation on the theme Jefferson started from the Constitution, the acceptance of all, exclusion of none, to the founding of the University.
Report Post »MajorLeagueInfidel
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 8:15pmJust noticed the following on Throckmorton site: Warren Throckmorton
A College Psychology Professor’s Observations About Public Policy, Mental Health, Sexual Identity, and Religious Issues
Am I to take it that he considers Religious beliefs to need psychological care? Where does Historian fit in?
Report Post »Zoe Brain
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 12:03amMajorLeagueInfidel – Dr Throckmorton is a Professor of Psychology at an Evangelical Christian University. He has a commitment to factual accuracy, rather than propaganda. He’s not a qualified professional historian. He does provide footnotes and references to original sources, so others can check his work and ensure that his conclusions are justifiable. They are. While one may not agree his is the best interpretation in every case, it’s always an honest and plausible one.
The author of “The Jefferson Lies” is a former head of the Texas GOP, and a “Christian Educator”, also with no professional qualifications in history, a fact his fanclub overlooks. No matter, what’s important is not who says something, it’s whether what is said is valid or not..
Barton also gives extensive footnotes to original sources, and is to be commended for that. They allow anyone to actually consult those sources, and anyone who takes the time to can verify that very often they don’t even remotely say what he claims. Large parts that directly contradict his thesis have been selectively, and deliberately, edited out. This is a deeply dishonest book.
This article just gives the tip of the Iceberg. While it’s very easy to get one or two things wrong in a history book, in The Jefferson Lies the difficulty is that there‘s so many that even a book can’t do justice to them, let alone an article on the net.
Report Post »mugotyou
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:07pmYou can tell a whole lot about what an individual’s true “motivations” are, by delving into their other beliefs and opinions…..as well as friends and associates. While who is “technically correct” in this argument, may not be easily discerned on the surface…..one can do a little research and find out more about the 2 individuals at the center of this debate…..including their true “heart’s intent”. One Google search on Mr. Throckmorton, produced this article on the first page of results; http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10032204 ……….need I say more??? Finally, look at the “ilk” coming out of the woodwork to bash Barton……..and defend Throckmorton!
Report Post »mugotyou
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 5:26pmAnd then there’s this little tidbit; http://wthrockmorton.com/2012/07/24/press-release-american-christian-leaders-speak-out-against-anti-homosexuality-laws/
Report Post »jblaze
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:44pmSame old liberal/progressive/communist and general evil antics of lying, cheating, and slandering anyone who stands in their way of destroying America! Anyone who joins hands with them knowingly or through deception or plain ignorance is playing their part in the destruction of one of the greatest nations ever on this earth. I thank God that those people will one day stand before the Son of Man and answer for their treachery. As sure as the sun rises and sets everyday, we will all stand before the judgement seat and answer for every word and every thought.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:48pmHow is a Conservative Christian a “liberal/progressive/communist.” Or is your side not allowed to think for itself and must blindly accept all the that Beck holds to be true?
Report Post »jblaze
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 10:26pmEn
Report Post »“How is a Conservative Christian a “liberal/progressive/communist.”
Time to check your eyes or your reading comprehension! Never wrote “conservative christian” or even eluded to it! You also under estimate the people surrounding you here on The Blaze! What Glenn has done is, he has woken up hundreds of thousands of people all over the globe! We have gotten up off our butts and began to prove all things by educating ourselves. Not trusting any man, but digging into the facts presented and checking them out to discern the truth. You should try it, you might stop the reckless course you are on and find honor and truth while you are at it.
encinom
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 10:46amjblaze
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 10:26pm
En
Report Post »“How is a Conservative Christian a “liberal/progressive/communist.”
Time to check your eyes or your reading comprehension! Never wrote “conservative christian” or even eluded to it!
___________________
Give that the article is all about a Christian Conservatives challenging Barton on the lies he publishes, its time for you to actually read the article or learn to read.
cemerius
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:42pmMakes you wonder about the ethical standards of the publishing company that published the toilet bowl book called “dreams from my father”??? I am sure Barton will eventually be exonerated but this may make his literary career tank a bit until the Conservatives make their OWN publishing company!
Report Post »LibertyGoddess
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 7:16pmWell said.
Report Post »ohnomrbill
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 7:52pmthis is a conservative publisher
Report Post »SurhanSurhan
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:39pmI have been telling The Blaze for a long time that Jefferson was Muslim. He had a Qur’an in his library. He had multiple wives and he owned slaves all of these are Muslim traits even to this day.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 9:12pmPlease, don’t go into crime investigating!
Report Post »SurhanSurhan
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 9:46pm@ 4TRUTH2ALL- Do you have proof that Jefferson was not Muslim? If not…then shut your trap?
Report Post »LafinJack
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 4:59amWhat proof do we have that you are also not a Muslim? “Surhan Surhan” sounds awfully Arabic to me, a bit too close to “Sultan Surhan” for my tastes.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 9:30amHe was a bookworm. His IQ was calculated to be 150. Also people died early back then. Maybe he remarried? He did have a wife who was taken by illness. Oh and you’re right, Muslims still have slaves to this day in areas of North Africa.
Report Post »WashingtonIsMyHero
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 11:25amYou are the one needing proof positive that TJ was a ******. He read the Quran to become familiar with the so-called religion that sponsored 30 years of pirating American ships in North Africa.
Report Post »THE_SUPPLANTER
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 1:19pmSirhan Sirhan = the guy who was convicted for killing Robert F. Kennedy, and yes it is an Arabic name.
@Surhan –> Your proposition to “You cannot prove me wrong, so therefore I am right” is a logical fallacy, and, quite frankly, sounds a lot like Harry Reid telling Romney to prove him wrong about not paying taxes.
Beck et al. have recently pointed out this stupidity by the received reports that Harry Reid rapes pedophiles, and that the burden is now on Harry Reid to disprove it.
There are many similarities to the Bible that are found in the Qu’ran, and as an educated man, it is not unusual that Jefferson would have read it. Reading the Qu’ran does not automatically convert you to a Muslim. So, unfortunately, the burden is still on you to produce the proper evidence showing that Jefferson was indeed a Muslim. If you have such evidence, then please share!
Report Post »SurhanSurhan
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 7:32pm@ THE_SUPPLANTER- I have shared it with you. Jefferson never mistreated his slaves, he had multiple wives, he read the Qur’an on a regular basis.
Thomas Jefferson believed that Jesus was no more than a messenger of God (which the Qur’an teaches). Jefferson believed in the teachings of Jesus from the bible and not the teachings of Paul (just like Muslims).
Jefferson did not believe in the Trinitarian doctrine just like the Qur’an teaches. Here’s what another Blaze poster had to say:
PASSERBYE
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 9:52am
Jefferson hated Paul. All of Paul was thrown out in the Jefferson Bible. Not a single solitary word was kept, including the very few cases where Jesus is quoted.
He wasn’t fond of the Old Testament either and blamed it on the Jews.
And he did NOT keep all the words of Jesus in Christian Gospels, he threw out most of them too. Including all miracles, Judgement Day, and references to Jesus being anything other than a man.
He also threw out things like “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.” and other sayings of kindness and mercy, because he kept human beings as slaves.
Report Post »team1blazer
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:32pmExcellent article. Both sides of this story being told. It is difficult, at best, to ascertain the thoughts and motives of those who come before us, but through thoughtful and deliberate study, we can surmise their general intent. No one, on either side of this debate would argue that Jefferson sought the guidance of God. No one would deny that Jefferson relied on God as the “ultimate moral authority”. No one would deny that Jefferson was caught up in an extremely complex and changing world, in which even he (arguably one of the brightest minds of all times) had questiions.
Report Post »sparkyrules
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 10:35pmMe too.
Report Post »Its going to take me awhile to read and understand it all.But the conclusion I get is the same.
encinom
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:31pmWhen is Beck going to refund all the money he swindled from the Beckerheads, when he pushed the works of this now proven by Conservatives, fraud Barton?
Report Post »Maji
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 11:44pmMocine:
Report Post »As long as you are Obama‘s BHO we’ll be here
Barry’s (Ball Hanger On)
You just one of his nuts but all liberals are nuts!
nevergofullpotato
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 11:20amNever. I remember when he put that fraud on the air. And barton and beck claim the others are “revising history”. time to call ********.
Report Post »neither1
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:31pmDavid Barton is after one thing and that’s his agenda. In my opinion, it’s not the whole truth. I’ve read his books but especially watched his interviews. In the interviews, he dances and trips over his explanations. His explanations are nuanced and he engages in semantics. I don’t trust much of anything he has to say. It’s disappointing.
Report Post »joleary
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 6:01pmWhat are you drinking?
Report Post »Selfreliance
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:29pmThanks, Blaze, for an interesting and informative piece. Several of the examples herein make it clear that Barton has indeed intentionally misled through except or exclusion… and that seems to me quite distasteful. It’s not clear the breadth of impact across the entire work, but it certainly calls to question how much of Barton’s reception is due to telling a certain sort of person what they want to hear.
The missing bit about U of V certainly changes what the reader perceives as Jefferson’s intent. It’s not clear on slavery… I would like some research about the financial state of Jefferson’s slaves during the window of opportunity. At least some of his life, Jefferson had pledged slaves as collateral, and it’s certainly not possible to free a slave so pledged unless you can also make good on the debt he or she collateralizes. The Thompson Bible? Come on, David. Someone subscribing to such a publishing scheme is certainly not called a “financial backer” in any legitimate recitation of the record.
I have often found David Barton an inspiring speaker. While I‘m sure I’ll continue to do so, I will be unable to shrug off the knowledge that his motivations extend well beyond an accurate reflection of the historical record.
Report Post »westtitus
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:25pmWho even cares! He is an idiot, never even held a job. Why in the world would you vote for someone that NEVER held a job in his life! Are you kidding me, who gives a crap about his so-called college grades. He has no resume and should have been vetted and never was by the main stream media, but they sure go after Republicans on every single point, where they worked, who they married and the list goes on and on an on, but nothing on Obama. This guy is a turd and needs to go!
Report Post »applehill
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:18pmYou know how hard it is to look these thing up. I’ve read many of Jefferson letters in the past. Knowing about Jefferson writing In the “Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ”. I’ve seen it before. Now, all I can find is anti-Christian junk and why T. Jefferson was some victor for Atheist. Seems the internet is not as reliable as it once was.
Report Post »v15
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:08pmIt’s good to see someone challenging Barton, especially since it is not someone from the opposite end of the spectrum. Next time around it will make Barton pay more attention to adding more citations than before. Even if he can clear that up, can Barton, being an evangelical, look at the founders’ words without putting a biased Christian spin on them?
The thought of Jefferson trying to convert Indians is hilarious. “Listen, I know I am banging my slave mistresses and that I kicked you off your land when I got here, but if you have an hour or so I’d like to talk to you about the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” lol
Report Post »TreeTrimmerJim
Posted on August 17, 2012 at 12:40amYour proof of you statements are?
Our are you what you are claiming Barton is?
Report Post »frank_reuben_floyd
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:04pmBarton LOOKS like a televangelist (the hair).
Report Post »DoomsdayProphet
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:02pmI believe David Barton.
Report Post »geotico
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:07pmI just did a $100 donation to http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/campaign-0-4385 share this with friends and family. If we get this number big enough we can really put pressure on Obama. I would love to see his college records!!!
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 8:07pmI don‘t need to see no stinkin’ college record. It‘s his stinkin’ record as POTUS that’s killing me! What do I care what he did 20+ years ago at some stuck up Ivy League joint? He wasn’t killing me then. Peace.
Report Post »geotico
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 5:59pmVisit http://www.releaseyourcollegerecords.org and pledge money to force Obama to release his records. The more people that do this the great political pressure we can apply!!
Report Post »v15
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:11pmMy college records are now sealed. I’ll start the bidding at $100….
Report Post »Jenny Lind
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 6:24pmMe too.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 8:54amUm, how is giving money to people I don’t know going to force Obama to release his college records?
Report Post »