Exclusive: Historian David Barton Responds to Critics Amid ‘Jefferson Lies’ Book Controversy
- Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:24pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
This is a part of an ongoing series that TheBlaze has been writing about conservative author and historian David Barton.
David Barton (FILE)
Last week, numerous outlets broke the startling news that Thomas Nelson Publishers has canceled conservative historian David Barton’s book “The Jefferson Lies.” The publishing company is now claiming that the book — which like many of Barton’s projects encountered controversy and intense critique — has historical errors that were found to render it unsellable. In exclusive interviews with TheBlaze, Barton, one of his primary critics, and a representative from Thomas Nelson shed light on the ongoing controversy.
CONSERVATIVE CRITICS’ CLAIMS
The shocking decision to cut both distribution and sales of the book comes on the heels of a plethora of criticism that Barton has received from fellow conservative academics. Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College, is perhaps the leader of the pack when it comes to conservative evangelicals who have come out against Barton.
Throckmorton regularly blogs about what he sees as errors in the historian’s work; he also co-authored a book earlier this year entitled, “Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President,” alongside professor Michael Coulter. This particular project was a direct reaction to “The Jefferson Lies,” and, in many ways, it can be argued that Throckmorton‘s attention on Barton’s work led to Thomas Nelson’s decision and to the fury of media attention that has followed.
Among the articles focused on the subject was one that was published in WORLD Magazine. The piece examined the controversy surrounding Barton’s views on Jefferson, while noting that some conservatives are growing increasingly worried about the historian’s views. It also noted that Jay W. Richards, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a right-leaning think tank, like Throckmorton, has apparently taken steps to vet some of Barton’s past claims.
Here’s how WORLD described Richards’ attempts at verifying the information:
Jay W. Richards, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and author with James Robison of Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It’s Too Late, spoke alongside Barton at Christian conferences as recently as last month. Richards says in recent months he has grown increasingly troubled about Barton’s writings, so he asked 10 conservative Christian professors to assess Barton’s work.
Their response was negative. Some examples: Glenn Moots of Northwood University wrote that Barton in The Jefferson Lies is so eager to portray Jefferson as sympathetic to Christianity that he misses or omits obvious signs that Jefferson stood outside “orthodox, creedal, confessional Christianity.” A second professor, Glenn Sunshine of Central Connecticut State University, said that Barton‘s characterization of Jefferson’s religious views is “unsupportable.” A third, Gregg Frazer of The Master’s College, evaluated Barton’s video America’s Godly Heritage and found many of its factual claims dubious, such as a statement that “52 of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention were ‘orthodox, evangelical Christians.’” Barton told me he found that number in M.E. Bradford’s A Worthy Company.
But despite skeptics unleashing their criticism — and joining many liberal commentators who have done the same — the historian is doubling down and defending his record.
THOMAS NELSON & BARTON RESPOND
Last week, The Tennessean was among the outlets to announce that Thomas Nelson was pulling “The Jefferson Lies” off shelves over “historical errors.” Without going into detail, Casey Francis Harrell, director of corporate communications for the company, said that “a number of complaints” about the book led to the decision.
“Because of these deficiencies, we decided that it was in the best interest of our readers to cease its publication and distribution,” she said. TheBlaze reached out to the communications director to get more information about these errors and we received an e-mail reply from Harrell on Friday.
According to Harrell “several people have contacted the company since the book’s publication date in April.” Following these complaints, she said that Thomas Nelson was working to sort out which items were “matters of opinion and interpretation.” So, the publishing team entered into a review process that lasted several weeks.
David Barton and Glenn Beck (Photo Credit: GBTV)
“During our review we learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported,” she wrote, going on to say — as the had told The Tennessean — that this was the basis of canceling the book.
Assuming that the book was vetted by the publisher prior to publication, TheBlaze asked for details surrounding the process “The Jefferson Lies” went through. Harrell said that the company does, indeed, fact check, but that it also relies on the author’s expertise. That in mind, she offered few explicit details.
“We do have a careful editing process that we confidently use with every book we publish, as well as relying on the expertise of our authors concerning their subjects,” Harrell explained. ”It is extremely rare that the company would have to withdraw a book from the market based on concerns about its content.”
But Barton told TheBlaze that Thomas Nelson was heavily involved in the book’s editing process. He described a scenario in which editors reached out to him and actively checked his facts out before the book went to print.
“They questioned and we sent them the documentation,” he said, describing a large carton of documents that was, at one point, shipped to the publisher.
Interestingly, when TheBlaze asked Thomas Nelson how much of the book appeared to be problematic and which facts and posited ideas were based in untruth, Thomas Nelson declined to share this information. Harrell did say, though, that Barton, in phone and e-mail, “seemed to understand” the company’s decision.
However, this characterization was very different from the scenario that Barton, himself, described. In The Tennessean, he simply said that he received an e-mail notifying him of the cancellation. In an interview with TheBlaze, he expanded upon the process, describing his surprise in detail.
“[Thomas Nelson] had their publicity department call me and say, ‘What do you think about Throckmorton’s book? That was where it was left,” he said. “Next thing I heard – maybe five weeks later – I get a real curt email saying, ‘We lost confidence.’ I barely got notification before it hit the press.”
BARTON‘S RESPONSE TO ACCURACY OF ’THE JEFFERSON LIES’
Barton seemed anything but shaken by the controversy when he spoke via telephone with TheBlaze. He freely answered questions about the controversy and explained that he’s prepared to respond to some of the critiques, while dismissing what he believes is an “elevated level of hostility that’s not really rational in many ways.”
While he stands by his central arguments about Jefferson, Barton isn’t pretending to be immune from error. The historian said that the book has already gone through three or four printings and that there have been word and text changes based on spelling or grammar errors along the way. Also, he addressed a willingness to amend historical items, should they be pointed out and proven wrong by other academics.
“Our policy from day one on every book we’ve done [is] that if someone shows us valid things to change, we’ll change them,” Barton said.
He went on to explain that if only one percent of the 5,000 facts that were included in his book are incorrect, that would mean that 50 facts could be viably challenged. But he maintained that he and his research staff work hard to verify and back up each and every tidbit he writes and speaks.
While Barton is perfectly willing to fix errors, he believes that many of the items being raised by Throckmorton, among others, are simply overblown and — also — wrongheaded. He says that the next edition of “The Jefferson Lies” will have changes and additions: many of them will include more sourcing to corroborate his claims in the book (and disprove some of Throckmorton’s views).
“Throckmorton created an atmosphere for people to chime in,” Barton explained, when discussing who complained about the book and petitioned Thomas Nelson to pull it (Throckmorton has denied doing so). “All he did was assemble the wood, throw gas on it and give someone else the match.”
THROCKMORTON’S VIEWS ON BARTON
Though he admitted that it could put his “evangelical credentials at risk,” Throckmorton told TheBlaze that, up until about two years ago, he didn’t know much at all about Barton. But, over time, the professor — believing in the importance of academic integrity — started vetting Barton’s work.
After receiving an advanced copy of “The Jefferson Lies,” Throckmorton began to dig in to it, looking at the facts to see what was true and what, in his view, simply wasn’t. He explained that everyone — both liberals and conservatives — always seems to want the nation’s third president on his or her side of the aisle, specifically when it comes to the church versus state debate.
“For me, playing WWJD with Jefferson, whether you’re on the right or left –it only goes so far. It’s difficult to know what [the Founders] meant and what happened to them,” he said. “We’re a way different country than they [were] then.”
David Barton (Photo Credit: AP)
As for Barton’s book, Throckmorton said that he found many of the facts to be off-base. As an academic, he made it clear that he believes intensely in the value and power of “facts.” As a Christian scholar, he added, one should embrace the truth without worrying about which side it benefits or hurts.
“If we don’t have the right facts, we’re going to continue to talk past each-other,” he said. “Barton’s followers think that if you don’t agree with them then you‘re against God and you’re a liberal person.”
Quite the contrary, according to him. He told TheBlaze that he’s a “social conservative,” going on to say that he’s “conservative on most issues.” On the theological front, he’s also right of center, a factor that makes his stance against Barton that much more fascinating.
So, after intensive research, he published “Getting Jefferson Right” on May 1. Originally, the book was only available in digital, but it has now also come out in paperback. And it is likely that this book — a direct counterargument waged at Barton — played a role in Thomas Nelson’s inevitable decision.
Rather than an overt and calculated attempt to attack Barton, Throckmorton says that his rebuttal is more rooted in his thirst for truth, particularly when it comes to issues he’s passionate about.
“If things interest me and I see that the facts are way different from what’s being portrayed, I’m likely to write about it or speak about it,” he explained, “And I just couldn’t believe that some of these claims were being made and accepted by so many people.”
THROCKMORTON VS. BARTON: JEFFERSON’S FAITH
So, what are these supposed claims?
As the media continue to cover the debate surrounding “The Jefferson Lies,” few journalists, if any, have reached out and interviewed Barton about his responses to the specific charges waged by his critics. On Sunday, TheBlaze had extensive conversations with both Throckmorton and Barton, giving both parties adequate ability to explain and refute allegations.
Warren Throckmorton (Photo Credit: WarrenThrockmorton.com)
To begin, it’s important to distinguish between the divergent views that Barton and Throckmorton have on Jefferson’s theological views. As reported, Barton has a very nuanced explanation of the former president’s life and a candid response to characterizations that he was an atheist and/or non-believer.
“The easiest way to explain this — what if I only chose quotes from Ronald Reagan from the time he was a Democrat? Would that be an accurate depiction or not?” Barton asked. “Jefferson had several religious phases. During the last 15 years of his life he started to critique his former beliefs.”
In an earlier interview with TheBlaze, he went on to say that it’s unfair to examine the last 15 years of Jefferson’s life and to frame him based upon his behavior during that time, when he lived the first 70 years as a more traditionally-religious man. Ignoring the bulk of Jefferson’s life, Barton believes, isn’t an appropriate way to tackle the history.
Jefferson lived his life as a Christian, Barton said. As far as whether the former president and Founding Father died with the faith he purportedly espoused, Barton is divided. He called such a discussion “a complicated situation.”
“If you believe as many denominations do, ‘once saved always saved,’ you would believe he stayed saved. If you believe that you can lose salvation, you can argue that he could lose it,” he said. “If I could use an Obama phrase, ‘that’s above my pay grade.’ “He didn’t renounce the faith — he still was a great lover of Jesus. He just wasn’t sure Jesus was the divine son of God.
Throckmorton, though, takes a very different view. Of Jefferson’s life, he said:
“I think toward the end of his life you’d have to say if it could have been given a label – Unitarian. Jefferson said he thought he might be a sect of one…His religious influences were mainly [Unitarian thinkers]. Earlier in his life, I think he was certainly leaning [toward] Unitarianism. I think another good term is ‘theistic rationalist’ – Jefferson doesn’t really yield to modern categories of religious sects or denominations. He did not believe in the cardinal doctrines of the faith – deity of Christ or the virgin birth.”
Here it is evident that, while Barton sees two different faith experiences coloring Jefferson’s life, Throckmorton sees a more streamlined unitarianism.
Tomorrow, TheBlaze will delve into some of the explicit issues that are said to be at the heart of “The Jefferson Lies.” We‘ll also provide Barton’s response to each line of critique.
–
RELATED:
- 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) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 536 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 458 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 333 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 302 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 313 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 211 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 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 302 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 (365)
freedomisasfreedomdoes
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:02pmHow many books or publications written about past presidents, say Lincoln, where those that write the books and authors are not in agreeance with each other yet they still exist? Take a look at how many text books have false historical content in them, yet they are still published. Ridiculous. Witch hunt like. For what reason?
Report Post »Bigrod58
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 6:02pmLook at Obama’s books about his life and that of his father. Supposedly he wrote them himself. And they are chocked full of lies, falsehoods, stretches of the imagination, and prevarication‘s He can’t even get he and his fathers life right. Certainly there can be differences of opinion by real life scholars each looking back 200 years trying to do the right thing.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 6:03pmThe publishing company is a private company. If they pulled the book it’s well within their rights to do so. He can find another publishing company, no? Perhaps a Christian publishing company would be best. I haven‘t read Barton’s work, but based on the stories posted here, and some of his guest appearances with GB, I’d be concerned he picks evidence to support his religious believes rather than letting the evidence guide his narrative, and yes I’d still prefer he had some formal education in history.
Report Post »tradexpertbuysell
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 7:01pmI read it and each chapter is heavily footnoted. But typical of liberals that don’t like the truth they overreact with drastic action (in this case book banning) but then never get around to noting the specifics.
I’d love to see an open public debate between David Barton and his critics. But I’m not holding my breath for such an event to actually occur.
Report Post »P C BE DAMNED
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 7:18pmHow about the time President Obama told a crowd that President Jefferson had a copy of the Koran on his shelf and even published it and left it at that. When the truth brought out by David Barton was that Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Koran was a unbelievable crazy book espousing insane violent ideas of right and wrong, and published it with this understanding comment given before passing the Koran out. The perception given by President Obama was the lie. David Barton shows a completely different angle with the whole truth. Go David, Go Tea. We are winning. You can beat on the truth but you will only make it shine.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 7:22pm@tradexpertbuysell
Book banning? Who is banning anything? And, in case you are trying to paint this as against the First Amendment, that only applies to the government and not private individuals or organizations.
In case you didn’t read the article, it was quite clear that the critics were not left-wingers. They were Christian Historians.
Just because something has footnotes does not mean it is accurate. Al Franken‘s books have footnotes but I’m sure you don’t believe the arguments in his books do you? All a footnote means is that you got the material from a different source; it does not mean that your writing accurately reflects that information.
Report Post »AllLost
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 8:32pm@Godfather.1
So you think Christians are only right wing? You probably think Christians are all really followers of Christ. You sir are either ignorant or bigoted.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 8:33pmGodfather – Obviously you didn‘t bother to read the whole or article or do some research on Barton’s critics or else you’d know that none of them have degrees in history.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 8:40pmtradexpertbuysell says, “I read it and each chapter is heavily footnoted [jzs asks, "does that make it true?"]. But typical of liberals that don’t like the truth they overreact with drastic action (in this case book banning) but then never get around to noting the specifics.”
Expert, you need to make an effort to understand the issue. The publisher, which has withdrawn the book, is in the business of selling Christian literature. They aren’t a bunch of liberal Christians. They pulled the book because conservative Christian historians thought the book was so deceptive that it diminished the credibility of more respectable and responsible books written by Christians. This book, in their opinion, was THAT bad.
Sorry, it’s not some bunch of liberals who have rejected this book and called out its falsehoods. These are respectable, conservative evangelical Christians calling this man to task. And the publisher probably could make more money selling his book, but they’ve taken the high road instead – something rare among publishers.
Report Post »jhaydeng
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 8:51pmIf Jefferson mentions Christ or God during his life i would probably say he had a belief unless he blatently said no way!
Report Post »psychosocial1
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 9:09pmOh so many levels to this issue. First, conservatives and evangelicals are the ones waging this attack on Barton’s work. Liberals have been telling us for years that Barton is a “fraud” while individuals like Beck have been countering that argument. Does this new attack from his own side now make that claim so? It does put it in a new light. Second, Barton makes a great point FOR his opposition. He suggests that one cannot simply look at one piece of the puzzle but MUST look at the entire picture. Perhaps Barton is not following his own statement and is creating a kind of false narrative by only looking at certain pieces of the puzzle. In this case footnoted “facts” from original sources would be just that…facts. Chosen specifically to support his argument. However, Barton could easily leave out any facts that would create a counter-argument. Remember whole picture. A third point is context. Jefferson was very familiar not only with European history but also with the enlightenment ideas that were born of issues in European society of that time. The Scientific Revolution created a new way of seeing the natural world, and enlightenment ideas were an extension of this. Anyone interested in this should look up the philosophes. Any accurate historical examination requires an understanding of the time period being examined to gain a full contextual understanding of the subject. I believe Throckmorton makes this point in the article.
Report Post »Patrick Henry II
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 9:49pmThis reminds me of Hitler in the 30′s. Book burning. wow. This is beyond the pale even for liberals. This book companies actions are scary. Did someone force them? They pretty much said yes someone forced them. Who?
Report Post »Steelheadisadouche
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 9:50pmJZSilva
Report Post »It looks like you took the time to write something, but given the stupid eye ball and blather you usually post, why bother? How does that work for you? Seething in a fury over your drivel being over looked again? Write more crap, really.
Lunertic
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 9:55pmFor what reason would they be after Barton? Elementary. David Barton is associated with Glenn Beck. I’d say this whole thing is a feather in Davids hat.
Report Post »22AUTOMATIC
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 10:51pmBefore anyone assumes anything about anything you need to look at the underlying agenda of everyone and everything involved. I invite everyone to check out Mr.Barton’s work and background. His kindness, charity work, love of America, and decades of experience in studying history. Now, in contrast, look at those handful of individuals that want to bury him. Watch their videos, look who they’re associated with, find out what they believe, and examine where they got their information. Did they go to a certain college? Yes? Okay, who did they study under? Ok. Where did that person they studied under get his/her ideas? It is time consuming but you will be enlightened in the end and you’ll be able to stand on firm ground with your opinions rather than accepting what unverified sources say and becoming what David Icke once referred to as “a repeater.” (no research just repeating what other people say – 90% of the population). Below are some links that you can use as a starting point. Question with boldness; it is up to you to separate good from evil – no one can do that entirely for you. Bonus: Watch the film Agenda Grinding America Down (it explains everything)
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=118208
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/live-blazecast-at-230pm-et-with-historian-david-barton-plus-your-questions-comments-live-chat/
Report Post »Gorp
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 11:23pm@Justangry: You stated: “I haven‘t read Barton’s work, but based on the stories posted here, and some of his guest appearances with GB, I’d be concerned he picks evidence to support his religious believes rather than letting the evidence guide his narrative, and yes I’d still prefer he had some formal education in history.”
Just what the heck does that mean? You haven‘t read Barton’s work so you are basing your opinion on other’s stories and comments? And you still prefer he had some formal education in history?
Look at the IDIOTS the colleges are pumping out! A person doesn’t have to go to a college to get a decent education. Look at home schooled children. They are whipping the butts off “formal” educated children/graduates.
Why not actually read some of his works before you decide that he’s slanting his work to fit his agenda? That way you can make a “formally educated” comment.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 11:41pmYou mean crazy right wing fundamentalist Christians are trying to turn America into a theocracy?
Say it ain’t so!
Report Post »7jjjjjjj
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:10amI agree. David Barton’s character is well established. I have watched him for years. He researches his facts. Not above making a mistake but I totally trust his character. Never heard of this other guy. Wonder how many books he’s selling?
Report Post »pudssweetie
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:11am@Godfather, here is a quote from above article, “Last week, The Tennessean was among the outlets to announce that Thomas Nelson was pulling “The Jefferson Lies” off shelves over “historical errors.” Without going into detail, Casey Francis Harrell, director of corporate communications for the company, said that “a number of complaints” about the book led to the decision.
Report Post »Sorry but this is considered banning a book if you are pulling it off the shelves and refusing to sell the book.
Pontiac
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:20am▼ ▼
Report Post »▼
When you fabricate quotes and attribute them to the founders you do more harm for your position than the opposition ever could. David Barton has wrecked his credibility, why do we want him wrecking ours? Please stop elevating him as some sort of champion of conservatism. Because he’s not.
I wish there was some clear cut way of separating the fundamentalist from the fiscal conservatives so we’re not tainted by them…
▲
▲ ▲
ModerationIsBest
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 1:27am@PONTIAC
No, don’t get you get it? Isn’t it completely obvious that every founder was a die-hard Christian and wanting to set up a country that is ruled by Biblical law?
Extreme right wingers also seem to confuse the pilgrims with the founding fathers…..they weren’t the same people!
Report Post »ManThong
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:11amI wish they would put all that intellectual energy into exploring BHO, his belief in collective salvation and the path he has us on to societal breakdown, collectivism, state religion and one world government.
Report Post »RossPoldark
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:12amObama called the misinformation in his autobiography as “composites” of people he knew. Composites…what the heck does that mean??? Its just a political correct term for “made up”. This guy has a way with words to cover up his inconsistencies. Who can remember his stance going from Anti Gay Marriage to Pro Gay Marriage?. He did not use the word “flip flopped” but “evolved”, he does not use the word “lie” he calls it “mispoke”. I think in his autobiography he had to make his absent father seem like a hero, his mother a regular out to be a regluar Margaret Mead, Where did he get the money to fly all over the middle east when he was younger. Heck I couldnt afford a bus ticket from my house to the Mall. . Oh yeah, his grandma was one of those wicked bankers, but none of that is mentioned. Geez, and they call this historian research fiction.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:31am@Gorp, Yup, I’d be concerned based on what I know about the author that his books would be slanted to fit his world view as a theologian. And now that people that share his world view have come out and said the same thing that his critics in academia have been saying, I’m more inclined to believe that would be his issue. You just basically bashed all of academia as idiots based on what? You want your history written by a preacher, that’s fine. I’m not going to waste my time. A good historian‘s works are written so it’s not obvious what their personal beliefs are. That‘s what he’d learn if he had a formal education in history. That’s just he way I see it. You’re entitled to disagree.
Report Post »Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 3:54amMaybe if he had titled it differently than what he did, this wouldn’t have happened. If it’s a matter of interpretation, then it‘s not fact based and therefore can’t be called lies. Sounds to me like there is so much to understand about Jefferson the man, that it was probably difficult for even him to define what he believed.
Change the title, so no one can challenge it. Call it, instead “David Barton‘s Thomas Jefferson’.
Chaim Potok wrote “Wanderings: Chaim Potok’s History of the Jews”, and I‘m sure he hasn’t been challenged on his version of history as he saw it.
Report Post »jingo455
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 5:01amThis is a cult! There is something SEVERELY wrong with Christian Conservatives in America that they have to try and PROVE every founder believes as they do. They are overlooking that Benjamin Franklin was a sex maniac, and that many of the founders were actually horrible people, including George Washington who had his cousin (his “slave manager”) lecture his slaves that freedom was bad and beat George’s slaves when they demanded the same liberty they overheard Washington rant for at the dinner table. Many of those slaves ran away and joined the British forces as the British had made an “Emancipation Proclamation” during the Revolutionary War (which is omitted from ALL public school’s US history books).
Basically, TRUE Christians obey their King as commanded in 1 Peter 2, and “do not use your liberty as a cloke of maliciousness” as the rebels did. God is King of Kings. Republics are anti-Christian, since the first one, Rome threw Christians to lions.
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 7:33amIf you consider the possiblity that Jefferson was a Mason, you have your answer. Barton says he didn’t start questioning whether Jesus was the divine son of God until the last 15 years of his life. From the research I’ve done, the Masons don’t get into their religious views until after level three, and it says most people don’t get past level three.
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 7:36am@P C BE DAMNED
Good Point. I picked up the Book of Moron from my local GoodWill for 45 cents just to see what they believe that’s different than me. Because I have it on my side table doesn’t make me Mormon. If I saw copy of the Karan, I’d picke it up, too.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 9:41amSteelhead,
I publisher voluntarily withdrawing a book from the market because they no longer have confidence in the scholarship reminds you of Hitler in the 30s?!? Really, how insulting can you be? How disrespectful to the actual victims of Nazi oppression and atrocities.
Do you even see the problem with invoking Hitler every time some minor incident makes you feel that your ideology is being disagreed with?
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 10:25amNotice how freely Christians will appeal to emotion on issues like this? How many posts on here say something to the effect of: ‘Dave Barton is a good Christian man who has earned my trust, and I don’t know any of these other people.‘ Maybe it shouldn’t surprise you to learn that a christian ‘historian’ lets his religious delusion get in the way of the truth.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:49amThis is an ongoing story. The challenged citations haven’t been uploaded yet (frankly I don’t know what they are) but maybe we should look at the other stories in this news series as well. David Barton has been credible before, he deserves the benefit of doubt before we string him up.
Report Post »De minimus
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:55amWhat the hell do you mean “for what reason”?
The left always portray themselves as fair, objective, open minded and unbiased. But they aren’t, and they know that they aren’t, which is among the facts that they try to conceal from everyone else.
Their objective is simple, to destroy or modify the truth to benefit themselves and their causes and theis includes the destruction of those who are the purveyors of truth.
Why? Please try to grasp but a single truth that they attack and then examine why someone would do that, Why would someone try to destroy a known fact, a truth? Because it benefits them to do so because they have other purposes in mind which are not served by the truth being known.
When you do this you will them become “a crazy extremist” but you will be absolutely correct and you will then be able to identify your enemies and the enemies of all mankind.
Report Post »hwcmo4
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:34pmHey Git-R-Done hate to break it to you but David Barton doesn’t have a degree in history either… BA in religious studies from Oral Roberts
Report Post »armyofnibiru
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:21pmthrokmorton has a book written by someone who read a book about someone who read a book about someone who read jeffersons memos.barton has those memos,and wrote a book based on the actual memos and letters .throkmortons dilema,if barton is right throkmortons book is wrong.so he took a page right out of the leftest book ,attack,acuse falsehoods and when asked for comments and proof.silence,then this interview is over.let the media who hates beck and barton stew the story to make barton look foolish ,so throkmorton can sell more books.I say vett throckmortons books he’s an academic
Report Post »egghead professor.bartons just a historian,history teacher
armyofnibiru
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:47pm(‘hw4’ barton doesn’t have a degree on history)you do not need a degree from some leftist egghead college to be a historian.that argument smells like the one the leftist propaganda prone media said when the bloggers prooved they where lieing,wa wa these guys didn’t go to journalist school so their not journalists,so don‘t listen to them even though their telling the truth and we’re lieing.
Report Post »BigRob215275
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 3:18pmThis Throckmorton is an evangelical? My FOOT! or BullSh#t! Look how his picture hides his identity in darkness. A fitting Characterization of the weasel. Always a big red flag are these social PhD’s especially Psychiatry which prevents or places roadblocks in any true Christian to pursue a career in the specialty. Higher education in Liberal means just that LIBERAL anti GOD anti JESUS anti Christian anti Authority anti Israel.
Report Post »TO be a true Christian means you follow JESUS all of HIM and HIS WORD> I believe Barton to have been and continues to be BALANCED in his approach whereas Throchmorton is a tagalong to make money and oppose for unsubstantiated reasons. To disagree is not substantiation of fact regardless of peer support.
SJCapistranoman
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 4:09pmIsn’t it curious that those who wish to discredit D. Barton because he isn’t “an historian” will quote “Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College, is perhaps the leader of the pack when it comes to conservative evangelicals who have come out against Barton”? Is W. Throckmorton‘s opinion as a psychology professor somehow more valid than is Barton’s? Please apply the same measures equally if an honest debate is the goal here.
Report Post »macnews.com
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 6:52pmLet David print his book. Thomas Jefferson came to LDS President Wilford Woodruff in the St. George Temple in 1877 in the middle of September. He and George Washington and 48 other eminent men of the past asked for their temple work to be done along with their wives. So Thomas Jefferson knew that he had to wait past his mortal life to take definitive action like commit to a certain organized religion. But he was/is/and will be religious and he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints now as per his request. Let the man alone about guessing if he was religious alright?
Report Post »barryswhitehalf
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 8:40pmFor a quick review. Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: “the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen”. Sounds Christian to me.
Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: “God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”
John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; “The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were … the general principles of Christianity … I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
Report Post »suncats
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 9:41pmAs soon as I heard that David Bartons’ book about Jefferson was being pulled by his publisher, I checked out the availability at Amazon. Saw something I’ve never seen on Amazon before…a tab to click on to Sell it BACK! I purchased it from a secondary seller to read it for myself. Wonder how many people would like to sell back Obamy’s books that everyone knows are chocked full off lies!!!!!!
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:21pm“John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; “The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were … the general principles of Christianity … I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
It helps to put that into full context… It wasn’t just “principles of Christianity”. That is part of it to be sure, but also was a lot more to it than that, including many philosophers of the time religious, secular, deistic, and athiestic. It’s best not to over simplify the quotes, and take these quotes out of context to pigeonhole a singular view, when the original context was meant to be inclusive of many groups.
I’ll post the full quote in my next post or two if it takes that..
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:23pm“Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors.”
Report Post »Now, compare the paragraph in the Answer, with the paragraph in the Address, as both are quoted above: and see if We can find the Extent and the limits of the meaning of both.
Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants an
SacredHonor1776
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:24pmWho composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"].” Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.
Report Post »Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.
SacredHonor1776
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:32pmThe general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. IIn favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.”
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy.
Report Post »MomofHope5
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 7:53amIt IS similar to a witch hunt…Christian evangelical history professors who do not want Thomas Jefferson, a Biblical Unitarian, to possibly go down in history as labeled a “Christian.” Anyone who does not profess Jesus IS God, the 2nd person of a triune God, is, in their book, a ‘heretic.’
So, historians are darned if they call him a Christian (because they don’t want to admit, you can be a “Christian” if you believe in Jesus as the Son of God, not God) and darned if you don’t (so that the libs can say he wants separation of church and state).
The TRUTH of the history is this: Jefferson WAS a Christian, a believer, a follower of the man, Jesus Christ, and followed the morality of his one true God, our Heavenly Father. He wanted freedom to NOT believe in the Trinity & to keep the state out of the church! Funny, how over two hundred years later, he is still taking flack for not believing in the Trinity & his Christianity is still being questioned. He will have his retribution someday on the day of Christ, when you see him resurrected from the grave…
Report Post »Macstand
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:54amWhat is amazing to me is that anybody could think that books such as these are not written with some agenda to persuade the reader to their line of thinking. In addition it preys on the perceived ignorance and absolute gullibility inside of most people. Fact checking is not an inherent activity of most people. Do I think Barton has an agenda? Absolutely, does he mean well? Maybe. Will you figure it out reading agenda driven comments on this page? No, do the research yourself and become educated.
Report Post »free@last
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:40pmWow…. looks like all the Libs stayed home from …. oh… sorry… they‘re still in Mom’s basement… BUT… they’re really working hard to convince us of their ignorance…
Go Dave…
Report Post »piper60
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 3:24amIf you write a book exposing popular misconceptions. It goes with the territory to have lots of blockheaded criticism directed against your failure to be politically correct. Accepting them as reasons to assume the text is defective is a form of stupidity. A publisher should have a measure of disbelief for such nonsense.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 9:37amPiper, where exactly does political correctness come into this at all? Your pointless use of the term is just another example of how you Blazer folks roll out stock phrases and boogeymen whenever someone questions your counter-factual ideology.
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 10:20am‘against your failure to be politically correct.’
No. Sorry. You’re allowed to be a dumb yokel, but I have to correct you on this one. It was his failure to be correct, period.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:39pmI’ve looked up and down around this article and for the life of me, I can’t find any hard evidence of inacuracies beyond a publishers claim.
There are no direct quotes, nor any direct citations. Just two men with competing accounts.
This is fishy
Report Post »one.dakine.howlie
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:36pmThe problem here is that Evangelicals want Jefferson to share their Evangelical beliefs when he did not at all. He knew that Christianity as it was being taught by men since the death of Christ and His Apostles had holes in it and every church was contradicting each other. Jefferson was looking past Christian “tradition” and wanted truth. He saw the holes, he saw the contradictions, he saw the thousands of Christian churches that taught different doctrine, and he could see something was missing. It wasn‘t that he didn’t believe in God or Christ, it‘s that he didn’t share the accepted beliefs of the time and wouldn’t share many of the beliefs of 99% of the Christian churches today.
Report Post »Mr. Barton is on the right track but he still wants Jefferson to be an Evangelical like himself when Jefferson in fact had done the work to find the true doctrine of Christianity which isn’t what Evangelicals are taught in our day. There’s way way more to the Gospel than just accepting Christ as the Savior.
Deibido
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:57pmOh grass-hopper…so much more and so much less to make it better. Ooops, did I say that? There was a reason Jefferson selected sections of the Bible and constructed his own. Mmmm?
Report Post »Bryancpe
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:30pmI really like David Barton and his books. However, I hope the truth comes out even if Barton gets discredited in the end. If the accuser gets discredited then great, my faith will be reaffirmed but his claims sound credible. Only the truth matters and I hope GBTV and the Blaze stick to that and really dig down into the accusations and research the references regardless of the friendship. Plus we need to keep it civil instead rushing to the Hitler comments like David’s friend Rick Green. It’s pathetic and makes me now think that there is truth in what Throckmorton is claiming. http://www.rickgreen.com/attacks-on-david-barton-same-as-tactics-of-alinsky-hitler/ It’s like calling the opponent racist, the name caller automatically loses credibility.
Report Post »Credibility lies in the truth. Bending facts or intentionally distorting them to get across an agenda puts you in the Obama category. Let’s hope that is not the case. Matter of opinion is one thing, factual errors, out of context quotes and misleading claims is quite another.
VRW Conspirator
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:42pm@Deibibo
the Bible that you speak of was created by Jefferson for missionaries to carry into the wilderness to convert Native Americans to Christianity…now why would someone that didn’t believe in Christ and God do that…?? he obviously thought that a Christian life was better than a pagan life and that you had to know Jesus…
Now…Jefferson did cut out sections of the Bible..that is true…I know..I have a copy of it and many other Jefferson and Washington and Founders’ writings…Jefferson cut out the sections that he believed would confuse the Native Americans and hinder their conversion….so he removed the Immaculate Conception and most all of the references Jesus made to being the Son of God..which were not that many to begin with…Jefferson focused mainly on the teachings of Jesus that dealt with how we should treat one another, behave towards family, friends, neighbors, and generally live your life in a “Christian” manner….the Golden Rule stuff… “Love your neighbor as yourself”…
this was all an attempt to show the Native Americans that Christians didn’t mind the pagan gods but that the Christian God was superior to them and more active in daily living….
Jefferson‘s Bible would be more like a Founder’s version of “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis or the “Screw-tape letters”..a way to cause someone to logically come to the conclusion the Jesus was the Savior and Son of God….
Report Post »Lufts
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 8:26pmWell said. The desperate need by Barton to place Jefferson, and so many, into his particular religious “box” is where he gets into trouble. That Jefferson had faith, needs no more evidence than “endowed by our creator..” after that, does it matter? What if he were Catholic? Or a Jew? Would that change his impact on the foundational ideas of the nation? Of course not. Jefferson’s legacy is, and will always be his perfect description of the revolutionary Enlightenment ideals that rights are not granted by the state, or the church, but by G0d and nature.
Report Post »pdw
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 9:48pmBefore his death Jefferson torn out pages from the Bible and was creating his own “Bible” But then that is what most Christians do anyway. How many faiths study the complete works? and at the same time condemn other faiths? I doubt either group has it all together and each and everyone has an opinion that is why there is Mythology [my story] and History {his story] but even then everyone is written with a slant of their beliefs and no one can get past so doing. When we get to where our opinion is the only right opinion we will always censor others as being wrong.
Report Post »Canada_Goose
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:32pmMr. Barton is to the study of history, what FNC is to reporting news.
Both apply a great deal of truthiness to their work.
For those not familiar with the term, truthiness is the quality of seeming to be true according to one’s intuition, opinion, or perception without regard to logic, factual evidence, or the like.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:40pmGoose,
Come up with any links yet that disprove the fact that your Canadian health care system relies heavily on the US system to provide adequate care for your own citizens?
Report Post »Canada_Goose
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:03pmAhh Billy, long time no post.
And thanks for the great example of truthiness, it just makes my point.
Here you go, from of all places the Newscorp owned WSJ.
And if by “relying heavily” you mean less than 1% than I guess you’re right.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-08-09/commentary/33111026_1_canadian-system-single-payer-medical-system-medical-care
Report Post »Dr Vel
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:30pmCanada_Goose nobody here gives a crap about you opinion of American history. I highly doubt you are even that familiar with your own. I have friends in Winnipeg and have heard their opinion about their health care and taxes. Point in case if one of you need something fast to save your life you come here instead of waiting for a slow painful demise. Did I mention nobody here gives a crap about your opinion of our healthcare? Or in general anything in America? Go mind your own business but remember Obama destroyed our health care system so you are now and forever on your own. People who think like you have eliminated all possible recourse for both our nations.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:38pmGoose,
Really……that’s what you come back with?
A commentary from “Bill Mann’s Canada”, who also writes for the HUFFPO?
Here is his bio from “Bill Mann’s Canada”
“Bill Mann has followed Canadian news and affairs closely since becoming a columnist at the Montreal Gazette. Mann also did a radio show on French-language Montreal station CKOI. His humor book about Canada, “The Retarded Giant,” was a best-seller in Canada. Mann later was TV Guide/Canada’s Hollywood correspondent, then media columnist at the San Francisco Examiner and Oakland Tribune. He‘s currently a columnist at Huffington Post and Senior Media Analyst for radio’s nationally syndicated “Norman Goldman Show.” Mann lives near the Canadian border where he can receive Canadian TV and radio stations, and reports often from the British Columbia side of the border.
This link shows your same story, but also has the bio, that your link did not have.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:39pmOoooooooops,
Here is the link……..
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/myths-about-canada-us-health-care-debunked-2012-08-09
Report Post »FREEDOMoverFEAR
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:42pm@CanadaGoose
Report Post »First of all the American Government all ready spends twice as much on its citizens health care than Canada does. Secondly your country has a one of the weakest militaries you wouldn‘t be safe if it wasn’t for America. Thirdly we have millions of first generation imigrants who are poor and uneducated while your country only allows people with no criminal histroy and a job to enter. Fourthly your population is less than a tenth of ours. So stop comparing apples to oranges unless your goal is to reveal your ignorance.
Here’s some real sources not a Canadian blogger
–Meeting the Dilemma of Health Care Access” (PDF). Opportunity 08: A Project of the Brookings Institution. Retrieved 2007-06-21. (shows how Americans recieve twice the amount of Government assitance as far as health care is concerenced.)
–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Comparison_with_other_countries(military spending)
Canada_Goose
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:48am@ Billy
You can attack someone’s bio, that’s very impressive, how about refuting was he is actually saying or post a link to substantiate your claim.
You say “…Canadian health care system relies heavily on the US system to provide adequate care for your own citizens.” Prove it. Shouldn’t be that hard.
After all Mr. Barton (until now) actually got away with saying Jefferson was a hard core Christian.
You must think Canadians are all super wealthy since clinics and hospitals in the US would charge Canadians the uninsured fee for any given procedure. A bypass, for instance, is around $50k an MRI is $1,500 – $2,000. Some will pay, and 99.9% don’t.
We have private clinics here as well run by doctors who have developed and own proprietary procedures. You wouldn’t believe how many people will pay for a hernia.
Report Post »http://www.shouldice.com/
armyofnibiru
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 3:06pmbartons library on the founders letters and memos,and the writeings of figures throughout the US history .are second only to the library congress.like beck who does’nt claim someone said something.he shows the video of that person saying it.barton does’nt claim they wrote it,he shows the actual letters.and the left who does’nt want anyone knowing the true history attack them.like george will, throkmorton is a wishy washy conservative who cares more about what leftist talkshow heads think and say about them than telling the truth.
Report Post »DeVain
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:32pmI’ve noticed a few times Barton was wrong about things. The two off the top of my head is “The Salem Witch Trials” and “The Dark Ages”.
Report Post »garbagecanlogic
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 11:06pmAnd, your expertise is in what? Also, please do not leave us in the dark – please cite the errors.
Praise Be To Obama. Psalm 109:8
The U.S. Out Of The U.N.
Report Post »The U.N. Out Of The U.S.
Nevermind
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:31pmphrogdriver
Yep. Reagan raised taxes – because the COngressional democrats promised the would cut $2 of spending for every $1 of tax increased. They lied.
Yep. Reagan agreed to amnesty – because COngressional democrats promised they would secure the border. They lied.
And yep, Reagan “abandoned” Beirut after Iran killed 240 of my “real” Marine brothers – he left at the request of Amal militia, who was trying to put the country back together.
Facts really are pesky things – for ignorant liberal hacks.
*************
Gotta love the party of “ Individual Responsability” blaming others when they were in office for 8 years. So there was a gun to Reagans head telling him to raise taxes or pass amnesty? What about his “core” belief’s? For the folks who are tired of “ Blame Bush” you sure liek to blame others for Reagans crap. I love the double standards of the right, take credit for the good and blame the rest of the dem’s.
So let me ask you this, since he raised taxes ( the dem’s lied as you said) and the economy created over 20M jobs, that would be the dem’s fault as well right? Since Reagan clearly didnt want to go along with it and had a gun to his head?
Report Post »phrogdriver
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:57pmOh, you misunderstand. Yes, it is abolsutely Reagan’s fault. He never should have tursted democrats and he should have hammmered out ironclad deals. He was far too trusting. As a former democrat, he clearly did not recognize what the left was becoming.
And going into Beirut at all was a mistake – he never should have done that.
As for your question “who should get the credit”, I think the answer to that is pretty obvious even to a complete dingbat.
Report Post »phrogdriver
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:10pmOh, I was wrong – the democrats promised $3 in cuts not $2.
And I do find it interesting that you would compare an historically indisputable fraud perpetrated by your party to a shifting of responsibility. It just shows how low you guys have sunk. Your party has no shame and no honor. You will lie, cheat and steal to impose your will on the people. And you think, somehow, you are justified in advancing your cult like agenda. I can’t figure out why anyone would be so willfully ignorant – but that’s your choice. Enjoy your serfdom.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:39pmWow & you still are a liberal & probably vote Democrat. Reagan’s intention was to give amnesty & get the border secured. Congress didn’t provide the funds. The Democrat Congress never intended to secure the border & shived Reagan. I guess you are going with the dirtiest knife fighter because might makes right. that is your world you helped make it that way. Wallow in it!
Report Post »historyguy48
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:29pmBecause Barton doesn’t have a plethora of fancy degrees he must be stupid and if he is correct he is a danger to the establishment. Academia is no different than any other type of “proven” or “consensus” science, and truth really doesn’t matter, unless you are one of the “in” crowd, and then, of course, truth is what the consensus says it is.
Report Post »This whole witch hunt seems very much like the one being conducted by the “global warming” or “climate change” crowd. No matter how wrong their consensus is, if you don’t agree with them, you are a fool, or an idiot.
In todays book publishing climate I am not surprised they withdrew. If it isn’t politically acceptable there is far to much risk in keeping it published because it is politically dangerous.
jman-6
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:43pmExactly and remember a consensus doesnt always mean a majority.
Report Post »taxpro4u03
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:51pmre: “Degrees”: — B.S. – just what it sounds like. M.S.: — More of the Same; PhD — Piled higher and Deeper – Lincoln was a heckuva Lawyer – and prez-dent. — what were his records concerning ‘acedamia?’ — Education doesn’t come from Ivory Halls — but from one’s OWN desire for knowledge… from the SOURCE.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 6:31pmToday’s book publishing climate? Are you kidding? Every conservative, including Glenn Beck, has a half a dozen books on the shelves.
Secondly, no publisher is afraid of a politically dangerous book–those are typically the books that sell the best. Barton is not a threat to any establishment–he’s a joke trying to pass himself off as a historian. The publishers were not “afraid” of Barton, they just didn’t want their company associated with such sloppy work. Who can blame them?
Report Post »Belasaurius
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 7:08pm@Taxpro. While Lincoln was self educated, he bitterly resented his lack of education for the rest of his life.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 8:36pmPublius – You mean you lefties aren’t a joke trying to pass yourselves off as intellectuals? You lefties publish nothing but sloppy work.
Report Post »historyguy48
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 6:46amPublispencilman; I have first hand knowledge and, unfortunately, know exactly what I am writing about. Contrary to what those outside the world of writing, and publishing, believe, many fine books are never published because they are unable to find either an agent, or a publisher, because they are either politically dangerous or outside their belief system.
Report Post »When you couple this with the terrible pressure publishers are under primarily because of the major industry shift into e-books which are currently over 50% of books sold and the fact that many good authors are simply going the e-book route for financial reasons, many publishers have become unwilling to do anything they view as risky.
mydh12
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:24pmI really don’t care if Jefferson or the other founding fathers were orthodox Christians. What matters is that they WANTED Protestant Christianity to have a major influence on people and society. On that point, there is no doubt. Just look at Jefferson’s actions and those of the other founding fathers, They agreed that religion (at that time, 98% of US citizens were Protestant Christians) and morality were ESSENTIAL for this Constitution to work. Anything beyond that (like the founding fathers being true orthodox Christians) is just icing on the cake.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 6:33pmThen why did they explicitly outlaw the establishment of religion?
Report Post »Ayla_me
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 7:00pmAmen!
Report Post »Jeff Naujok
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 7:19pmThey outlawed the establishment of religion, or the prosecution of the free exercise thereof (why do the liberals always forget that second part?) because they’d just come from a country (England) where the slightest difference in doctrine meant a quick trip to the headsman.
To be fair, that was largely ending around the end of the 18th century, but the people who had fled to America had largely fled because the Church of England had to arrest, punish, prosecute, and, yes, sometimes behead, burn at the stake, etc, any of those rotten Catholics, or protestants, or whatever the flavor of the week in disrepute compared to the official stance of the crown.
That’s exactly what the founders wanted to avoid: the Emo Phillips “Die Heretic!” routine where the difference is whether you’re the Synod of 1872 or 1873.
Almost all the founding fathers accepted that the general principles of the Christian ideals, namely the golden rule, and the attendant philosophy, were the morally superior form of civilization that would support our nation. They could not have believed that our moral center would collapse and lead to the parasitic nature and godless society we have today.
Their intention if giving freedom of religion was not to encourage godlessness, but to ensure that the national open forum of ideas should find an ideal religion without the fear of trying alternatives.
They chose religious freedom, not to discourage it, but to encourage America to find its greatest
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 7:43pm@Publius – They didn’t, exactly. Think man! What had they just disengaged from? A mother country where the king was the head of a state run church. The constitution specifically forbids the federal government, only, tron establishing an official state church. Something that coulf force “tithes” from the people whether they wished it or not.
In fact, before the fed illegally federalized the States, several States had their own official religion.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 7:55pm@From Virginia
So you consider the Fourteenth Amendment illegal?
Whether or not states had official religions before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment does not matter. Before that, states were not bound by the Bill of Rights but after its passage states were required to follow the Bill of Rights.
That is exactly the type of thing that David Barton conveniently forgets to include in his writings. The Fourteenth Amendment wipes out anything that states may have been able to do regarding religion.
Report Post »psychosocial1
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 9:29pm@Jeff
Report Post »The only problem with your argument is the fact that religion and morality are two distinctly different ideals. There are religious individuals that aren‘t moral while there are moral individuals that aren’t religious. Surely you could admit to that.
NeoAnti-Federalist
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 10:27amGodfather.1: “Before that, states were not bound by the Bill of Rights but after its passage states were required to follow the Bill of Rights.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Did I forget wrong? Portraying your ignorance as knowledge makes you look foolish. The Fourteenth Amendment has been used to incorporate most of the Bill of Rights against the States, but the idea that the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment forced that right then and there is patently false. It has taken over 100 years to incorporate pieces of the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, the Second Amendment did not apply to the States until 2010 when the US Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago.
And the most ironic part of this is your criticism of Barton. You can’t even get something as simple as the Fourteenth Amendment correct yet you somehow feel qualified to criticize someone who has thousands of footnotes supporting his position? Gee, I don’t know who I should believe – the tool who claims knowledge based on flawed teaching in public school or a guy who has devoted his life to researching the Founding Fathers. Hmmm, tough choice, but after much deliberation, I think I will go with the guy who has spent years researching rather than the tool who chirps from the peanut gallery.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:52am@NeoAnti-Federalist
Yes, you are correct. The Bill of Rights were not incorporated immediately upon the Fourteenth’s passage. I never said that it wasn’t, I just didn’t explain it in my last post.
However, that does not mean that what I said was wrong. In fact, you actually acknowledged that what I said was correct by agreeing that most the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states. Regardless of the timeline, once the First Amendment was applied to the states through the Fourteenth, states were not allowed to have official religions. Thus, Barton‘s argument that because State’s have official religions upon the Nation‘s founding doesn’t mean anything now. At that time, they were not subject to the First Amendment. Because states are subject to the First Amendment, they can no longer have official state religions.
Just because you have footnotes cited in your book doesn’t mean ****. You can cite to something but that doesn’t mean you have presented it accurately. Also, his sources may lack credibility. A footnotes doesn’t change that.
All academic and scientific writing has footnotes. However, my guess is that you don’t believe a lot of it. And, a lot of scientific and academic writing is ********. So, the fact that you think that because he uses footnotes his work is somehow credible exposes you as a fool and shows your blind allegiance to people like him and Beck
Report Post »timpclimber
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:12pmthoughtful post. I’ve gone through periods of doubt, soul searching and change like liberal to conservative and in reading about Jefferson one thing stands out, he was always thinking and learning and so his writings should reflect this.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 7:50amYes yes, but none of that “context” undermines the fact that they explicitly specified that the government should be out of the religion business. They did this in fact to preserve the right to “free exercise” (a clause I know just as well as you do you patronizing putz). They ensured that institutions would be entirely secular so that individuals would have the right to free exercise without coercion.
And yes, all of the founders came form a Christian background, and many practiced some form, but that in itself doesn’t make this a “Christian country,” particularly since, as mentioned before, the establishment of a religion was outlawed. We also know that all the founders were white, but would you so cavalierly claim that this is simply a “Country for White Males”?
Report Post »woodyl1011fl
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:24pmRemember Thomas Nelson is no longer a Christian owned publishing house. They were taken over by the secular liberal Harper Collins Publishing Company we may be seeing the tentacles of liberal PC moving in to control what is published in a once fine Christian publisher. Much more specific information on the “alleged historical errors” must be made known. We don’t even know what Throckmorton’s theology is except his own self-description.
Belasaurius
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 7:09pmI knew that sooner or later, somebody would place Thomas Nelson in the vast left wing conspiracy.
Report Post »lapicsp1
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 10:04pmI went to Grove City. It’s a very traditional school. You can’t even visit the girls dorms during the week. They hire teachers that are in the same theological ball park as them. I had professor Throckmorton for 2 or 3 classes and based on his classroom mannerisms and teachings, I‘d say he’s right leaning theologically as he stated.
Report Post »ChristianHistorian
Posted on August 15, 2012 at 1:48pmOops! I bet they still believe “The Grassy Knoll” theory lol Everything that contradicts opinion is a left wing conspiracy. The only way our society has progressed in terms f equality has been having an open mind to new ideas. A closed mind, much like stagnating water breeds disease and corruption.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:16pmLook I don’t agree with Barton in all points or interpretations… But that is no reason to ‘censor him” or try to cancel his works.
I also don’t agree with his critics in all points either… Chris Rodda for example in her zeal to discredit Barton, seems to go into extremes that are incompatible and contradict the views and interpretation of respected “academic” credentialed professional historians who wrote on these subjects decades ago, even some that exist today.
I think its very easy to take Jefferson’s or any of the founders writings and twist them to support ones position. But in reality there is a more neutral position, which to a degree supports both views. Not just one or the other. If you look at Jefferson’s letter to Peter Carr. He was supportive of those who were impressed to following Christianity or Christ, and those who chose not to. His point was question with boldness, and whatever questioning leads you, whatever one can takes away from it that there life is improved either way!
Another thing you can take from the letter, was to avoid taking any single person’s POV as fact, and to do research for yourself. Because there were people on both sides who are corrupt. At the same time he said not to have prejudices to both sides, neither believing nor rejecting anything simply because another person believed or rejected things. That is to say you must learn for yourself and decide for yourself.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_c
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:40pmNo offense intended to anyone I mentioned in my above post.
But it seems there are many with ‘agendas’ maybe not intentionally; I’m not pointing names.
But it seems some one one side that tries to make the founders out to be some kind of supporter of theocratic government, champions of “Fundamentalist Beliefs”.
On the other side there are those who try suggest they were godless athiests, who hated all forms of “Christianity”, that all forms of public expression of religion should be suppressed out of “Freedom from Religion”.
Religion had its point back then. He didn’t want to suppress or allow a single dogma to control all the voices.
But times were very different back then. Its more complicated than both extremes try to portray it (in attempt to silence other views). Certainly religion (and Christianity) had its influence, it wasn‘t the only source of everyone’s knowledge. But rather a combination of many philosophies (as many secular philosophers were seen as inspirational), with no attempts to suppress any views.
Speaking of professional historians that take a more middle approach, I have respect for late Daniel Boorstin. Who in his books doesn’t deny Jefferson of having a form of “christianity”, but acknowledges that it wasn’t the traditional sort either (especially later in life). His views were tempered over time.
http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/Boorstin.htm
His influence can be found in much of the work of t
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:45pmHis (Boorstin’s) influence can be found in much of the Library of Congress, and the special exibits surrounding the founding fathers on the LOC website. His position neither fits into far lefts athiest “revisionism”, nor the far rights fundamentalist “revisionism”. But more of a neutral middle between both.
Report Post »Patrick74
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:55pmIt‘ isn’t about a “middle” ground approach – it is about facts and evidence. All of the facts and evidence do NOT point to Jefferson being what a lot on the right want to re-cast him as (basically, a type of born-again or Protestant evangelical). Of course, Jefferson was most certainly NOT an atheist. He was heavily influenced by rationalism and deism, and did reject miracles, including the divinity of Christ and the virgin birth. The last two, alone, place him outside of Christian orthodoxy.
I think a larger problem is that people have, since the reformation, decided to define Christianity so broadly and amorphously that all that’s left is a kind of Christian relativism. The battle then becomes not what is Truth, but what “versions” of the “truth” do we let into (or drag into) the tent. It’s really, really sad.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 6:46pmHell in his day, they were argueing what “christianity” was exactly… Every denomination had its version and dogmas… Even modern ‘interpretations” aren’t similar to what they had in his day… You couldn’t easily shoehorn them into any boxes.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 6:56pmAlso, the problem is that are different definitions of ‘deism’… He wasn’t quite “the ”clockmaker” built the earth, and then left the world to its own devices” type deism.
You can find while he may have denied divinity of “christ” at times (at least in miraculous birth, miracles, and resurrection). He did seem to have quotes that promoted a view of some kind of “afterlife” that is to say, that he contemplated what would happen to his soul after he died. If virtue had anything to decide where he ended up. Some may argue it was a fairly materialistic “works” based interpretation of worthiness for the afterlife.
The Jeffersonian “Christian” as Boorstin puts it, also seemed to have a common view that the United States was consistenty in the control of God through “Divine Providence” and laws of nature and Nature’s God as the constitution stated.
Boorstin points out in The Lost World of Thomas Jefferson, that he was skeptical of “miracles” because he believed God kept physics in order, and that there would be no need to ‘break’ natural order of things, just to receive more believers.
He was also kind of skeptical of institutionalized denominations corrupting the virtues of Christianity, perveting them beyond what they originally where.
That’s not to say that again he tempered his beliefs in another direction later on in his life.
So it might be better to describe him as more of a monotheist, than a christian, but more than a deist.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 7:01pmThere are several quotes Boorstin links to in which Jefferson actually make his own definition of “Christianity” that is more to say, that he believed in Christ as a virtuous individual, one worth following as far as morality and values. As a mentor so to speak, followed by deciples. A philosopher. Jefferson essentially said (and I’m loosely paraphrasing) I’m a “Christian” just not by the defintion that corrupt “pseudo-evangelists” in dogmatic denominations would define Christianity. He was very skeptical of many preachers and institutionalized religious denominations based on my own research.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 7:11pmLike I said, before, yes its about ‘facts and evidence’ the problem is both sides and I’ve seen it on both the far left and far right; tend to do a good job of ‘cherry picking’ and taking quotes out of context. Glossing over details that would discredit their certain perspective.
Another problem that arises out of this is ‘false attribution of quotes’. Where a quote is said to be from Thomas Jefferson or some other famous individual and used to prop up a person’s POV.
Now some of quotes maybe paraphrases of real quotes, just taken badly out of context. Jefferson may have described both anti-christian comment and a pro-christian comment in the same bit of writing. Leftist cuts out the pro-christian/religious aspects, and focuses on the part that might be used to support anti-christian or athiestic pov. While a far right person might take the other direction focusing on the positive reference to Christianity and ignore the negative side.
For example this is often abused by both sides;
“…those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, endeavored to crush your well earnt, & well deserved fame.” – Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, Washington, March 21, 1801
Left focuses on “most perverted system ever shone” while others focus on the CHristian philosophy is most sublime and benevolent!
Report Post »Patrick74
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 9:17pmI most certainly agree that Jefferson was NOT the same kind of deists many found in Europe – which tended toward the atheist side of deism, if you will. And his beliefs were not static. At the same time, he was very much a product of his time – a time that elevated the human intellect up to the level of the ultimate arbiter of interpretation. As for your other comments – so right! There are lots of letters between various people like Jefferson and Franklin and Adams where they rip other denom’s beliefs as being wrong or ludicrous, etc. But their devotion to modern Protestant ideology in the idea of Christianity being all these different beliefs are still part of some “invisible church,“ and their greater reverence for ”common sense“ or ”logic,” etc., helped them ignore the inconsistencies of their beliefs for politics and worldly goals.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 10:29pmExcellent post! I totally agree.
Report Post »Nevermind
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:15pmShiroi Raion
@Nomind You’re so incredibly wrong, it would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. We know the garbage you posted. We know he raised taxes when Democrats promised to cut spending, but they lied to him.
We know there are no perfect candidates, but you Liberal nut jobs seem to believe in a perfect people and a perfect society. Obama and government is your God. None of your beliefs will ever come to pass. There is no perfection in reality. If you agree with someone 100% of the time, you have @NOMIND.
*******
Do you actaully have any facts to refute what i have said or would you rather call names and stomp your feet like a child having a tantrum? I waasnt speaking of perfection so i dont know where that little diatribe came from. I am simply making the point that GOP/TEA dont care about facts and gave a few examples so this book is right up your alley I’m sure. Just dont tell any of your “facts ” to somone who actually made it further than high school or you will be laughed at.
If you want to get your info from people like Beck , i can point out many uneducated drug addicts that barely got out of high school you can learn from. Peopel wiht the exact same background are on the streets of every major city , but you odnt learn history fomr them. Why do it with Beck or Rush, that is all they are …drug addicts that barely made it out of high school yet you think you can learn from them? wow
Report Post »SREGN
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:30pmIf you’re going to call others uneducated, you might want to check your spelling before you hit reply. Just FYI, happens to the rest of us too, but it really hurts your credibility. Deep breath, serenity now, check the spelling, then calmly hit reply.
Report Post »winin2012
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:30pmDude, hit the spell check button.
Report Post »WisePatman
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:05pmInformation is either true or not, regardless of the source. Both Rush and Glenn can (and often do) report accurate historical facts, cherry picked perhaps, but accurate.
Report Post »William Cowper said in 1782
“Tis hard if all is false that I advance,
A fool must now and then be right by chance.”
So I will continue to “Get my Facts” from wherever they come, and then do my own research. It is a fool indeed who discounts or dismisses information simply because it came from someone with whom he disagrees. A closed mind gathers no knowledge, and is the surest sign that wisdom abides elsewhere.
BUDDY LITTLE
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:14pmYou should know,……RUPERT MURDOCH’s Pastor is Rick Warren the author of “THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE” Published by Zondervan,..Zondervan is owned by RUPERT MURDOCH…
Report Post »TulsaYeeHaw
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 9:53pmSo what
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:10pmSo, he got angry over the religious right who persecuted him over his marriage – called backsliding – backsliders are welcome back by God. Besides, Isaac Newton believed – who was smarter?
Report Post »taxpro4u03
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:59pmEinstein was an ‘agnostic.‘ Does that mean the theory of relativity is ’wrong’ along with 2+2 is REALLY 5? He also dropped out of ‘school’ in 8th grade, I believe… Reason, wisdom and logic. Too much like work.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 6:35pmSearching,
And if Isaac Newton were alive today and had the opportunity to read about the Theory of Evolution, what do you think his reaction would be?
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 1:24pmThe same.
Report Post »Keith Wilson
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:06pmThe more you attack Barton and Beck the stronger, richer, and more powerful they will grow. Keep it up just remember that they will have the last laugh….all the way to the bank.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:12pmYeah, but they’re not going to the bank with my money–they’re going with yours!
Report Post »The Giver
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:25pmThey’re giving Barton free publicity. Look what happened when they did this type of attack on Rush. He got more new people listening. May Barton’s book sales go through the roof. I just want to make sure Nelson publishing doesn’t make another penny from Barton, I’m waiting for the new publisher of this book.
Report Post »rox
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:30pmWhy didn’t Mercury Inc. publish this book?
Report Post »The Giver
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:04pmThis looks like a witch hunt to me. How many books are out there that one could dispute some of the “facts” ? INCONVENIENT TRUTH comes to mind. I trust Barton’s character and know that his work is the result of much research. Looks like this really touched a nerve. Who would think we would be arguing about Thomas Jefferson. Glenn is right. We already won : )
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:12pmPeople argue about Thomas Jefferson all the time–they argued about him well before the Tea Party got going. I’m not sure how you can call it a “win” when your ideological pseudo-history gets laughed off the book shelf.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:14pm“I trust Barton’s character and know that his work is the result of much research.”
So how do you reconcile this trust with the idea that his work is often wrong, the quotes he uses are deliberately taken out of context, and he so clearly approaches his research already knowing what he wants to find that it seems to matter very little what he is actually looking at?
Report Post »Marine25
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:24pmGlenn is right, arguing about Jefferson is a good sign for intelectual discourse in this country. On the other hand, I read Barton’s book and the man is anything but an intellectual. When the conservative Christian historians can’t even get behind this tripe you know there is a problem. Jefferson had little use for organized religion and even less respect for Christianity. So demonize him, ignore what Jefferson himself wrote, but don’t concoct a bunch of lies drawn from historically biased sources to reinvent the man. Barton is a hack, an Elmer Gantry, and the tea party zealots will defend him to prove just that point.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:36pm@PUBLIUS wrote:
” the quotes he uses are deliberately taken out of context, and he so clearly approaches his research already knowing what he wants to find that it seems to matter very little what he is actually looking at?”
Wow Publius, just insert the word “they”, in all the places you wrote “he”……….and rework the grammar a bit to make it read correctly…………and you have just accurately described every liberal talking head in the country.
Report Post »Grizzlyof5
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 6:12pmI respect David Barton and admire his love for history. Our home is full of his books and materials. We use them for homeschooling and leisure reading. He is a gifted historian and author!
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 6:40pmRightofBilly,
And every Conservative talking head as well. I’m personally no fan of talking heads in general, but Barton claims to be an actual historian–not a TV News “personality.” I don’t particularly care what degrees he does or does not have, when publishing a book as nonfiction history there is a certain standard for transparent research and sticking to the facts.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 6:53pm“ We use them for homeschooling ”
wow, do you use the Bible for Science class too? your kids’ career path – assistant curator at the Creation Museum. good luck with that.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 8:07pmPhillyathiest – Upset that parents are deciding what’s best for their kids instead of you Marxist government stooges?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 9:45amGit-R-Done,
I think the problem is more that while most other countries in the world are teaching their children the kind of math a science that will drive technological advances in the future, a large portion of this country is teaching their children that the earth is 5000 years old and that the cavemen hung out with dinosaurs.
In the end, of course, it‘s the parents’ choice, but when those folks start agitating to change public school curricula (as they have in many places), it becomes a real problem.
Report Post »BUDDY LITTLE
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:03pmFirst you should know …If you bought a bible recently you probably bought it from RUPERT MURDOCH BECAUSE HE OWNS A MONOPOLY OF BIBLE PUBLISHERS!!
Report Post »Eblaze44
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:19pmWhat has that got to do with the price of eggs in China? or with this discussion about Jefferson and his religious beliefs? Murdoch is a businessman – Bibles sell – although you can pick one up at most thrift stores for a dollar in most any version you like. And probably as many Bibles are printed by China as well.
Report Post »Nevermind
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:50pmIt dont matter to the GOP /TEA, facts mean little to them . They still think Reagan cut taxes his whole time in the oval office. They dont want to hear pesky facts like he rasied taxes, gave amnesty to illegals and cut and ran from Beiruit ( which real marines still see as an act of cowardice that is unforgivable) .
Barton is an idiot hack being peddled by an idiot drug addict as a source of history. You wonder why the GOP/TEA are ridiculed for not being so bright, stupid people learning from more stupid people. But then to make it worse they make fun of people that are actaully educated by calling them ivy league , have to love it when a party ridicules educated people.
Report Post »libsrparasites
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:01pmNow facts are important to this obot who made his children sing songs in praise of the “O”
And you libs wonder why we laugh at you?
Report Post »Edohiguma
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:02pmYou mean “educated” people like Obama, Biden or Pelosi, who know actually nothing but still speak a lot? Their law degrees are ridiculous and prove no education whatsoever. Even a monkey can get a law degree.
Ridiculing someone as stupid proves absolutely nothing. It only indicates that those, who ridicule the Tea Party as stupid have no actual arguments against anything the Tea Party says.
Report Post »Shiroi Raion
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:04pm@Nomind You’re so incredibly wrong, it would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. We know the garbage you posted. We know he raised taxes when Democrats promised to cut spending, but they lied to him.
Report Post »We know there are no perfect candidates, but you Liberal nut jobs seem to believe in a perfect people and a perfect society. Obama and government is your God. None of your beliefs will ever come to pass. There is no perfection in reality. If you agree with someone 100% of the time, you have @NOMIND.
constitutionaldirective
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:04pmDon‘t y’all EVER get tired of trying to blame Reagan for the Democrats failures to uphold their word?
Had the Democrats BEEN TRUSTWORTHY.. the border would have been sealed, Katrina would NOT have destroyed New Orleans.. and our national debt today would NOT be as it is..
YES Reagan made mistakes but nearly every one of them hinge on the fact that you can’t trust a Democrat or a liberal to keep their word!
Report Post »Edohiguma
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:06pmPS: most of the “educated” people you seem to love so much com out of ivy league colleges with bachelor degrees. That’s undergraduate. Bachelor degrees and similar scream only one thing: “I’ve done the minimum to get a degree”.
In the real world their bachelor‘s aren’t worth a lot.
And when one of your beloved “educated” people tells us that an atmosphere with 100% CO2 is exactly the same as one with 0.038%, which Al Gore did, then well, I don’t need to ridicule someone that stupid, because that person already did it him/herself.
Report Post »phrogdriver
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:11pmYep. Reagan raised taxes – because the COngressional democrats promised the would cut $2 of spending for every $1 of tax increased. They lied.
Yep. Reagan agreed to amnesty – because COngressional democrats promised they would secure the border. They lied.
And yep, Reagan “abandoned” Beirut after Iran killed 240 of my “real” Marine brothers – he left at the request of Amal militia, who was trying to put the country back together.
Facts really are pesky things – for ignorant liberal hacks.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:14pmNevermind, Tell me something. Do you really think that Reagan tried anything at all like 0bama and just waved his hands and made all of that happen? Yes, he did give this nation it’s largest tax break in history, and did it with a near full Dem Congress. That being said, the near full Dem Congress that is, Reagan had to deal with them to get other things that he wanted. Those tax increases did not affect all of the populace as his tax cut did. And yeah, he got fooled into signing the bill into law giving blanket immunity to illegal aliens. I remember being pissed as hell at that one. But, unlike 0bama, Reagan did deal with the Congress, and actually got his way a lot, or at least a large percentage of what he wanted. Just gotta remember that you get everything that you want.
Report Post »Bigrod58
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:27pmNevermind – you are so smart. you must be a lettered scholar from Northeast what they it..Ivy League University. I am in awe. You see right through those stupid Tea Party fanatics don’t you. I am surprised someone of your stature in life even spends time reading these silly conservative Blogs. You should be over waxing philosophic on the CNN page or the MSNBC page where someone like you belongs. You low life piece of pig excrement.
Report Post »winin2012
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:28pmAnther lib automatically goes to name calling tho show the rest of us his intellectual level. LOW!
Report Post »dtbox
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:12pmNEVERMIND, I see the words “It dont matter” appear at the beginning of your comment’s. Actually, it should be phrased as “It doesn’t matter“ and when comes the time for you to properly use the word ”don’t”, remember it has an apostrophe. Also “rasied” is spelled “raised” and maybe you should look up the spelling of the word “actually” as well as when to use the word “who” instead of “what”. Clearly, you are poorly educated but I don’t hold that against you, that can be fixed. (notice the correct usage and spelling of the word “don’t”) But, it does seem a bit comical when one of your limited education attempts to disparage others with such a dull blade. Your delusion that TEA party members are intellectually inferior, is helping you to prop up your flawed conclusions, but purposeful ignorance will only get you so far. Your average TEA party member is more informed, better educated, harder working and a more agile thinker than your average Obama voter. This may be unpleasant for you to hear but you know it’s true, ouch. The Obama campaign has rolled out the red carpet for the uninformed, it is counting on them to be it’s largest voting block. Don’t be one of them. Open your eyes and educate yourself, you still have time. Otherwise you’ll continue to embarrass yourself as you have done here.
Report Post »phrogdriver
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:39pm@DTBOX – I think your post could best be summed up by the old saying: “It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Report Post »contkmi
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:46pmHey ecninom and best: Do you two morons go and critique every history book published? Were you there at the writing of the Bible? The signing of the Constitution? Any other historical occasion?
Try to not waste our time with your puerile posts. And, no, I won’t give you the definition of puerile. Go look it up, if you know how.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:18pmYou‘re comparing Barton’s dribble with the Constitution and the Bible?
Did you give that post any thought at all?
Report Post »contkmi
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:00pmHey Publius: youthe point.
Report Post »BUDDY LITTLE
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:46pmFIRST you should know Thomas Nelson Publishers is owned by…RUPERT MURDOCH.who owns Fox news.The Blaze and many others.
Report Post »betterthantv
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:22pmYou honestly think Rupert Murdoch owns The Blaze? It must hurt to be that ignorant!
Report Post »SHASTADIANE1
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:53pmThe Blaze is not owned by Murdock. It is owned by Glenn Beck and his partner.
Report Post »phrogdriver
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:20pm@shasta – I’m confused. Is his partner Rupert Murdoch? Or Satan? I’ve been hearing it was Satan, but maybe it’s Murdoch.
Oh, wait – what am I thinking? Rupert Murdoch IS Satan.
Oh, I am SO sending this scoop to Chris Matthews . . .
Report Post »BUDDY LITTLE
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 11:13pm@BETERTHANTV, …I through in the Blaze as a JOKE ! If Murdoch bought the Blaze it would only be to TEETHE on of his Grand-kids!!
Report Post »barryswhitehalf
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 8:54pmWhat does this story have to do with Rupert Murdoch, you dolt?
Oh, I get it. You’re envious and jealous of those that have made something out of their lives unlike you.
Report Post »Sucks to be you.
progressiveslayer
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:44pmAll we need now is a book burning from lard @ss Michael Moore to complete the censorship.
Report Post »Two men disagree on Thomas Jefferson, big surprise so the answer is to ban the book?
sWampy
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:50pmYou know the truth, when liberals want to silence the opposition.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:10pm“Two men disagree on Thomas Jefferson, big surprise so the answer is to ban the book?”
Who banned the book? Barton will likely just self-publish, as he did with all his previous books. His right to do so is not being infringed.
Report Post »taxpro4u03
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:43pmI‘m going with Barton ought to find out who Bill O’Reilly’s publisher is. (Killing Lincoln – short on verifiable footnotes = unsupported, tho‘ interesting ’story’) . — Irrespective, here, Barton relied on this ‘particular’ publisher to reach the target audience he wanted — EVANGELICAL Christians. I have no doubt it is a good read – Anyone interested in the founders can and SHOULD read everything published from both sides and make up their own mind. Jefferson is NOT elevated to the ‘god’ status as some have done with say ‘Lincoln.’ — Further, it is MY opinion Jefferson struggled not with the ‘Separation of Church and State’ at the Federal and State levels insomuch as he advocated for the INCLUSION of RELIGION and State. — ‘Church’ is the denominationalization (over 35,000 KNOWN sects of ‘christianity’) of divisive tenants of ‘thought,’ — philosophically originated in the writings of Ciscero {103-63 B.C.?) whereby Natural Law and REASON are brought into the fold as FROM ‘a Creator’ exclusive TO mankind as a human animal — Bear in mind it was the ROMANS who ‘institutionalized’ everything, INCLUDING the First Council at Nicea circa 325A.D. — THREE CENTURIES after the life of Jesus… Much is written concerning the ‘crusades’ AGAINST ‘Islam’ – Same ‘game,‘ different players in the Abrahamic ’regligious‘ ’holy wars’ today. That’s all I got. :-)
Report Post »Belasaurius
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 7:14pmThe book is not being banned, Barton has already found another publisher and soon people will be able to make him richer while he peddles hie distortions.
Report Post »mpfaff
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:40pmI think the progressives are desperate now. Luckilly I know David Barton, just like Glenn, always backs up hos work.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:50pm“I think the progressives are desperate now.”
Thomas Nelson, the world’s largest publisher of Christian material, is “progressive” according to you?
“Luckilly I know David Barton, just like Glenn, always backs up hos work.”
Which hos? It their work is being written by a ho, that -might- explain the issues.
Report Post »The Giver
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:12pmMPFAFF, You are absolutely correct. They‘ve gone nuts giving Barton’s book poor reviews on Amazon too. Anyone who’s read the book and loved it, go to Amazon and help Barton in this witch hunt. I will not purchase from Nelson publishers again.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:20pmYou loved it because it told you exactly what you wanted to hear and reinforced your ideological assumptions. That’s not the same things as being a legitimate work of historical scholarship.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 8:31pmPublius – You leftists know nothing about historical scholarship.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 9:48amGreat work Git-R-Done! There is no way I can compete with your experts “I know you are but what am I” argument! Clearly you’ve learned how to produce a thoughtful and well supported argument from Barton himself!
Report Post »Countrygirl1362
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:39pmI made the mistake of sending the link to one of the things to someone and boy did they set me straight about the lies in the video. Glad this has come out.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:38pmGood, glad The Blaze finally reported on this. Submitted a tip on it last week asking why Barton (whose book had a foreword by Beck) having his book pulled was not reported, when Barton had been so frequently discussed before. Add to that when Jonah Lehrer lost his publisher it was worth an article on here as well (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-yorker-journalist-resigns-after-admitting-he-used-fake-bob-dylan-quotes-in-book/), and it looked like serious oversight. Perhaps they were just waiting for the facts, but better late than never.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:48pmHis book was pulled because of the same reason conservative pages are pulled on facebook, lying fearful hate mongering liberals, the same kind of idiots that burned books in Nazi Germany, and in the US in the 70′s.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:57pm@Swampy
“His book was pulled because of the same reason conservative pages are pulled on facebook, lying fearful hate mongering liberals, the same kind of idiots that burned books in Nazi Germany, and in the US in the 70′s.”
You are accusing Thomas Nelson, the world’s largest Christian publisher, of being Nazi Germany?
There’s crazy, and then there’s Swampy-crazy!
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 10:01pmNext Barton will make that case that Thomas Jefferson died on the cross for our “sins.”
Report Post »encinom
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:33pmSo will Beck is caught pushing the works of a scam artist on the Blaze. Barton is being exposed for the fraud he is. Beck’s empire of lies is beginning to crumble.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:43pmThey are only lies to liberals who think every day is opposites day. Those that believe government is good, people are to stupid to lead themselves, that Christians are evil, Muslims are good, that choice comes after sex, rather than before it. You guys make Sponge Bob and Patrick seem like rocket scientists.
Report Post »Ben__Franklin
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:48pmGood Luck with that…LoL. Your everything Beck boycott from years ago is paying off too….LoL! Where is a new troll, your pretty much dried up and wrinkly at this point.
Report Post »LIBSALWAYSLIE
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:54pmENCINOM, still stuck on stupid I see.
Report Post »Edohiguma
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:03pmAnd yet you 100% subscribe to Obama’s empire of lies.
How amusing.
Report Post »FREEDOMoverFEAR
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 5:51pmHow is Beck being revealed as a fraud? His website posted the story didn’t it?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 7:32pmBeck‘s website is giving Barton space to defend Barton’s proven lies. Barton is a cash cow for Beck, Beck promotes this liar to milk his followers.
Report Post »pdw
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 9:59pmYou need to change your name to Slander, hate is a terrible thing to waste? I enjoy the read and make up my own mind. We all hear, see and read but at the same time we only retain those thing we wish to retain at is what makes us different and it is not all bad. :)
Report Post »Best_Patriot
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:30pmLOL, “historian?”
Report Post »00100111
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 3:56pmDid you wet yourself again?
Report Post »RLTW
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:08pmLOL, “Patriot?”
Report Post »phrogdriver
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 4:21pm@RLTW – It’s kind of like “Kentucky Colonel”. Pretty much anybody can claim the title, but it’s nothing like the real thing.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 9:52amSo, I take it that the Beckbot definition of “Patriot” is that you only believe historical “research” on the founders–no matter how shaky–that confirms what you already want to believe about them.
Somehow, it is more patriotic to deliberately misrepresent and manipulate the words of the founders to for your own purposes. Strangely, other might say that this is profoundly disrespectful… Hmmm…. they must be Anti-American!
Report Post »ebaybus
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:07amDavid Barton is not a historian he’s a christian wacko with an agenda.
Report Post »