Founders Scholar David Barton vs. Jon Stewart: ‘Boom, Winning!’
- Posted on May 5, 2011 at 11:47am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
On Thursday, Glenn Beck recounted founding father scholar David Barton’s Wednesday-night appearance on “The Daily Show” With Jon Stewart. Beck summed up the interview in two words: “Boom, winning!”
In part one of the interview, Stewart and Barton square off over whether the founding fathers intended for America to be a Christian nation. And you can guess who falls where int he debate.
For example, in describing the controversy surrounding prayer in public schools and institutions, Barton says, “…the fact that it might make me feel uncomfortable is not enough to keep everyone else from practicing their faith…just because I’m uncomfortable with the way they do it.” Stewart rejects this notion.
You can listen to both parts below, which Beck said shows how Barton “schools” Stewart on the founding fathers:
The New York Times profiled Barton today:
Mr. Barton is a self-taught historian who is described by several conservative presidential aspirants as a valued adviser and a source of historical and biblical justification for their policies. He is so popular that evangelical pastors travel across states to hear his rapid-fire presentations on how the United States was founded as a Christian nation and is on the road to ruin, thanks to secularists and the Supreme Court, or on the lost political power of the clergy.
Through two decades of prolific, if disputed, research and some 400 speeches a year on what he calls the forgotten Christian roots of America, Mr. Barton, 57, a former school principal and an ordained minister, has steadily built a reputation as a guiding spirit of the religious right. Keeping an exhaustive schedule, he is also immersed in the nuts and bolts of politics and maintains a network of 700 anti-abortion state legislators.
Read the rest here.
The Blaze’s Billy Hallowell contributed to this report.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 690 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 482 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 375 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 336 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 323 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 310 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 323 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 221 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? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 310 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 (549)
DaveOregon
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:19pmSome times with Stewart I’m not sure if the clown act with Conservatives and others he brings on is not so that he can get the Conservative message out without loosing his fan base, or not. Because I have hard time believing the guy actually thinks he can embarass or “win” the argument with them. Oberman – sure, he believes his own press – but not sure Stewart does. So I think there is more too it then that. At least his audience did not boo and crap. I think they knew they were stupid and did not want to draw attention to themselves ;)
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:39pmOr, maybe his audience is just polite? Do you watch his show on a regular basis?
Report Post »survivorseed
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 6:05pmIts called an objective interview. You wouldn’t be used to that after all your years of fox watching. This is how respectful interviews used to be done before Ailes, Oreilly and Beck changed the format.
Report Post »Drum Man
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:19pmStewart = FAIL.
Report Post »autumnsmommie
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:17pmDavid Barton I applaude you! Jon Stewart can not wrap his closed minded head around the actual words of the constitution. That was his down fall. If you want to try to prove David Barton wrong, do not bring him on.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:51pmWhere does the constitution say we are a Christian nation, again?
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:36pmNick84:
Report Post »At least one of Barton’s instances where the Constitution references religion is at the end, where it dates itself in the twelfth year of independence, which is an acknowledgement of the Declaration of Independence, which does mention “nature’s God“ and a ”Creator.” Therefore America must have been founded as a Christian nation. Don’t you SEE?
Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:30pmMany of the founding fathers were deists. “god” and “creator” aren’t always terms specific to Christianity. It is also one thing to use a figure of speech, but it is something else to assume they wanted us to be a Christian nation. If I wrote a letter which said: “god forbid we become a nation with a national religion”, would you say: “look! He believed in god! He wants a Christian nation”? Of course you wouldn’t, but that is essentially what you are arguing now. Even if every one of the founding fathers was christian (they weren’t), they had the wisdom to want a secular country. In your opinion, what does the first amendment mean? It forbids an established state religion, correct? Doesn’t that contradict the notion that we are a Christian nation?
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 4:20pmLol wow… I guess you meant that sarcastically lol. Sorry, I’m used to people actually arguing like that on here.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 5:00pmNick84:
Report Post »Glad not all attempts at irony have to be accompanied by a:)
joan k
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:16pmSo glad to see Barton on Stewart’s show not only educating Jon Stewart, but his younger listeners, as well.
Report Post »joan k
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:14pmBarton is de Man… and I am so glad to see him on Stewart’s show educating not only Stewart but his younger listeners!
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:55pmI see your avatar says: “no sharia in America”. If you are against sharia law, how do you support someone who wants to make laws based off of any religion? If you want one religion to be acceptable on a national level, all others would be too, as disallowing anything other than Christianity would make Christianity our national religion, which clearly violates the first amendment. Or don’t you like the first amendment?
Report Post »DontTread
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:20pmJoan: Stand Strong on No Sharia! Muslims should be free to practice their faith, but they should not be allowed to impose their religious laws upon us or others. Sharia law by its nature is incompatible with the US Constitution. They can not coexist. Sharia isn’t free speech……it’s sedition. A precedent for this is the restriction on polygamy in the Mormon church. Their law allowed it, but we know how that turned out. Now we are to allow religious laws that dictate “honor killings”? Not on my watch. We have to get over the idea that making concessions to radicals will magically get us in their good graces. All it accomplishes is throwing another shovel full of dirt on freedom’s coffin.
Report Post »cshepherd6
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:12pmIs it possible John Stewart is not as smart as he thinks he is……..?….Hopefully Stewart opens his mind to facts instead of using Emotions and his Ideology that America is Evil.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:33pmHow can you even say that Jon Stewart thinks America is evil?? Have you ever watched his show? Can you provide an example of him being anti American? Perhaps when he interviewed first responders to 9-11 on his show and pushed for support of the zadroga bill (spelling?). Or was it when he said he hates the families of the victims of 9-11? Oh wait… That wasn’t Jon Stewart was it?
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:11pmStewart loses, but he should be used to it since he has been a loser all his pathetic life.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:50pmYes, Jon Stewart is a pathetic loser. He is only the host of a very popular tv show. He has appeared in some larger movies. He is well respected from many people on both sides of the isle. What is it that you do again?
Report Post »Liberal_Atheist_Critical_Thinker
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:10pmMr. Barton is a self-taught historian …
Meaning he has no PhD.
There very good reasons for getting a formal education and the requirements existing to get one.
I don’t know what video you all watched, but there were no great points put forth by Barton.
Boom, losing
Report Post »trappedinwv
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:24pmYeah because a principal wouldn’t know anything about education. Typical tactic of when a liberal loses an argument you have to dicredit the person who just kicked your ass.
Report Post »fixer
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:26pmBoom, another liberal dumbass
Report Post »suttonea76
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:28pmSo you depend so highly on a doctorate for education but to be really educated you have to branch away from the classroom where there is no depicted curriculum but the eagerness to learn it more intently. Looking for a title just resonates the like think mentality that says only those with title can be construed as intelligent and the rest we must discard. So much for being a critical thinker, huh. Please change your screen name to Liberal_atheist_Knee Jerk Reactor….suits you!
The rest of us know that changes are made when you supercede the status quo and actually rely on history and facts to change the way we think and what we know going forward. I bet you know little about his man and just looked at his title and stopped there. Critical thinker…..boom, lost!
Report Post »Stone Cold Truth
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:43pmEverything he said is true. You don’t have to be Christain to live here, but you should at the very least respect and recognize the very large role Christainity DID play in forming the ideals and foundations of the United States Constitution and also in the Declaration of Independence. If it wasn’t a part of the foundation then our country would resemble European and communist styled societies from the start. “Critical thinkers” like yourself can try to erase our true beginnings and replace them with anti-capitalist, anti-religion, John Lennin like commie propaganda all you want, but you will never erase the truth from the hearts of those who seek it. The difference between us and say Islamic theocracies is that while we maintain Christain values and project that into the smooth funtion of our society, we do not force anyone to do believe one way or another. You are only free to be a “critical thinker” because our founders and their successors felt that God has given you that right and they can therefore not infringe upon it. Secular regimes have no real reason to not infringe because they “create” their own “morals” and priorities based on power and control. There is a reason suicide rates are higher in those type countries.
Report Post »Non-sequitur
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:59pm“Yeah because a principal wouldn’t know anything about education.”
Principals are not necessarily educators. Most of them are glorified clerks.
Report Post »TTRR
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:00pmAre we to assume one is required to navigate the liberal bastions of higher education in order to be included in your club of elitists? In my close to 50 years on this rock, I have met more than a few “self taught” who would run intellectual circles around any Ivy League professor in a debate. I have also met my share of highly educated people who if dropped off 100 miles from their home, wouldn’t have the capacity to find their way back.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:09pm“I have met more than a few “self taught” who would run intellectual circles around any Ivy League professor in a debate.”
How many ivy league professors do you know personally?
Report Post »TTRR
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:44pmNick, I’m smack dab in between Yale, Harvard & Brown… I have held conversations with a few from these Universities. I’m not saying they are not intelligent by any stretch but I am saying that it is not a prerequisite to attend a university in order to be so. Let’s not get all defensive, shall we.
Report Post »markcon
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 4:01pmtypical lib -think your smarter then everyone
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:17pmNon Seq Wrote:
“Principals are not necessarily educators.”
I’ll go one further and say that many teachers today are not “educators”
Report Post »BrownEyedGirl
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 10:40pmBenjamin Franklin had only had a formal education to the age of 10. Dare you to argue that he didn’t prove his wisdom without a PhD.
BOOM! WINNING!!!!!
Report Post »RedHarley
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 10:11am“There very good reasons for getting a formal education and the requirements existing to get one.”
Name those reasons.
You apparently have the notion that ONLY those with a PHD can be intelligent enough to merit being listened to. Some of the most brilliant people in our history have not had PHD’s. Some had no formal training in their field of endeavor, Would you listen to Bill Gates if he was speaking on the issue of computer software ? No degree…….dropped out of Harvard after 2 years to start Microsoft.
Like any good liberal, you have the idea that the only intelligent people are those with degrees and that those with degrees from institutions like Harvard and Yale are better than most.
What a crock. Book smarts mean NOTHING. I know people with degrees that cannot change a tire of fry an egg. What you get in many cases with a PHD from Harvard or Yale is an elitist who just THINKS they know everything.
I will take street smarts over book smarts any day.
Report Post »alecj
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:10pmHe should be required reading. I learn something every single time i hear him speak.
Report Post »MsBigRed
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:09pmThe only way we can save this country is to bring God back into it. The only way the progressive’s can push their agenda is to take God out. God save our country!
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:28pmWhat if someone said “the only way to fix the united states is to bring Allah into it”? They would be saying something nearly identical to what you said, only with a different religion. Yet, I bet you would be terrified of us becoming a Muslim nation. The constitution forbids us from creating a state religion, so if Christianity is allowed to dictate laws,Islam would be also. Or are you a hypocrite that wants secularism when it suits you?
Report Post »crzyredhead
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:50pmNick, I understand where you’re coming from, but the fact of the matter is that much of our law is based on Biblical principles of justice and how to treat your fellow man. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Report Post »crzyredhead
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:57pmAlso, allow Christians to acknowledge the Christian heritage of the country is a lot different from establishing a state religion. No one is advocating forcing everyone in the country to convert to Christianity.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:03pmThank you for the polite response, but I have to disagree with you completely. Laws against murder and such are not based off the bible or any specific religion. If they were, there should be no pre-Christian laws against it.
“One of the oldest known prohibitions against murder appears in the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu written sometime between 2100 and 2050 BC. The code states, “If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.”"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Legal_analysis_of_murder
Can you name a single law on our books that is solely based off of Christianity?
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:07pmAnd I have to disagree with you again. There are many people who comment on the blaze that want us to “bring god back into government”. I have also seen people on the blaze comment about how we should kick out all Muslims or all atheists. You can say no one is trying to force people to convert to Christianity, but people are trying to pass laws solely based on their Christianity. I have yet to hear an anti gay law argument that does not bring religion into the discussion.
Report Post »crzyredhead
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:19pmWhether or not they existed beforehand is not really the point, if you look at the history of common law, it is explicitly based on Judeo-Christian principles. My more overarching point however is that allowing Christianity to be expressed (though not established as a state religion) in the public arena poses no threat to anyone who may have different beliefs. It is quite different from sharia laws that require someone to forfeit their hand from stealing. This is what I meant by comparing apples to oranges.
As a side note, because this is seriously bothering me, I do want to apologize for my fellow conservatives who would rather throw insults than discuss things. Especially those who claim to be Christians (as I am) because they should understand the concept of grace more than anyone else.
Report Post »crzyredhead
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:26pmThose who would like to “kick out all muslims and atheists” are a minority, albeit a vocal one. There is nothing wrong with bringing Christian principles into the discussions of law and there are already principles of faith in the law debates whether anyone would like them to be or not. For instance, the majority of Christians have a strong conviction that abortion is murder. The current laws in favor of abortion impose an atheistic and secularist principle on the the entire country, whether desired or not.
A secular atheist is just as much a person of faith as a Christian. The difference is that the atheist’s object of faith is their own logic and reasoning skills. A value set and worldview is being applied in all cases whether it is Christian (those who place their faith in Jesus), Atheist (those who place their faith in themselves), or Muslim (those who place their faith in Muhammad and Allah).
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:42pm“As a side note, because this is seriously bothering me, I do want to apologize for my fellow conservatives who would rather throw insults than discuss things. Especially those who claim to be Christians (as I am) because they should understand the concept of grace more than anyone else.”
Thank you for that. You do not have to apologize on behalf of others, but the thought is appreciated.
Whether they ape users beforehand is exactly the point, in my opinion. If you claim we have something, due to Christianity, we should not be able to find another example of that value predating Christianity. I could much easier argue that our law on murder is based off of the first anti murder laws. Arguing that it is due to Christianity is to ignore all culture before Christianity.
I honestly wouldnt have a problem with people expressing their Christianity in public, if the same consideration was given to non-Christians. Look at the cases of mosque protests in the united states by Christians. There was a story a while ago, about how an atheist put up an atheistic sign in public, and it was stolen shortly after. There has also been a recent atheist billboard campaign where many of the atheist billboards were defaced. I understand that not all Christians are like that, but the fact is, a significant number are.
Clearly, I don’t want sharia law either, but there are many Christians pushing for Christian law. There are laws in the bible about stoning people who work on
Report Post »MsBigRed
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:45pmGeeze, you don’t need to get that deep into what I said. All I meant was we need to bring God back into our hearts. Never said anything about into government. I also do not believe we should be removing His name from everywhere. This whole country is blessed by God but as the Bible says – the Lord is with you when you are with Him.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:54pmIf we are going solely from Christianity, how did we decide to exclude those biblical laws from American law? Again, I don’t want shariah law, but I dislike Christian laws against homosexual rights just as much. There was a man in the news a while ago (I’ll find the link when I remember his name), who ran for a city counsel (or something similar) position. He was an atheist, and his opponents tried to use a state law barring anyone who didn’t believe in a god, against him. So, basically, I think Christians should have as many rights in public as they are willing to give others.
Also, you don’t have to be atheist to support secularism. The abortion debate isn’t a religion vs non religion debate. Many religious people I know support abortion if the life of the mother is at risk. Abortion is never mentioned in the bible, and the only “biblical” argument against it is one based off of a literal interpretation of a figurative passage. I dont support tax payer money for abortions, unless it is a case of rape, incest, or life of the mother, which is currently how it is. It is completely ridiculous, in my opinion, for a Christian to try to restrict private insurance companies from paying for abortion. If we went with the Christian view on abortion, should we listen to the Catholics, who think any kind of birth control is evil? If you have a logical argument, it should be heard, but “the bible says so” should never be taken into account for law.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:59pmLol that was suppose to say “whether they are laws” not “ape users”. Stupid iPad lol.
MSBIGRED
That is exactly my problem, though. It’s fine if you are Christian, but what are you saying by “bring him back into our hearts”? It implies that anyone who isn’t Christian does not belong here.
Report Post »crzyredhead
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:31pmMy point was that, if you study how modern common law and US law was originally formed it was consciously based on Judeo-Christian principles. You don‘t have to agree with me that that’s how it should be, but that’s how it is based on history.
My other point, was that secularism and atheism are just as much faith systems as anything else. Therefore there is nothing tolerant or fair about keeping secularism and atheism the prevailing worldview of how we form law today. So Christians are just as justified as seeking to return to the Christian principles on which this country was founded as any atheist or secularist is. By suggesting that homosexual marriage or abortion, using the examples you used, is to say that the atheist or secularist worldview is the superior and only worldview to use. So secularists and atheists are imposing their will on the rest of the country just as much as they are afraid Christians would.
I could continue to debate with you, but neither you nor I are going to agree and it’s honestly not solving anything by continuing to do so. So feel free to post whatever rebuttal you may be interested in posting, but I’m going to withdraw from this debate.
Report Post »crzyredhead
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:34pmMy apologies, bad grammar: *by suggesting that homosexual marriage and abortion should be legal practices*
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:23pm“My other point, was that secularism and atheism are just as much faith systems as anything else. ”
I suppose we see secularism differently. I see secularism as neutral. A secular stance is one that doesn’t take religion or anti religion into account. However, secularism usually seems to be on the same side as atheism, as atheists generally favor science, and science is a big basis for law in a secular society. If someone feels they have a religious reason for not wanting something, that is fine. They shouldn’t be forced to do something that is opposed to their religion (as long as it is reasonable). However, if religion is the sole argument for someone believing something, it should not be made into a law. You can say our laws are based on Christian ethics, but I can come up with a non Christian reasoning for our laws. I would say the majority of our laws are to protect ourselves from things. We don’t want to be murdered, or have our things stolen, so let’s have laws to protect us from murderers and thieves. I don’t see what is so Christian about that line of thinking. You are free to think that murder is bad because god says so, but you should be able to see there are non Christian justifications for laws like that. The only true “Christian” laws I see now, are laws restricting rights of groups like homosexuals, or anti abortion laws. If your religion teaches you to not be gay, or have an abortion, fine, but don’t pass laws banning others from doin
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:25pmUntil you have a reason based off of logic. Like I said, “the bible says so” should not be a basis for laws against someone who does not believe in the bible.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 4:13pmThis posted in the wrong spot. Hope you see it before you leave:
NICK84
Report Post »Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:33pm
But I just noticed that you said you are done discussing this. We might not be able to come to an agreement on this topic, but thanks for being polite and reasonable.
bjt141
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:09pmAnybody who thinks somehow Barton “won” this or whatever is just blindly following their own political side. He basically talked in circles, kept interrupting questions, changing the subject. His points weren’t very clear and were pretty big twists on wording. Not saying he came off bad in any way because I do think it’s funny that he was an editor on books that he kept his name off of and they are accepted. I agree there is bias from the liberal side when they find out someone has a point of view (conservatives do it too, like right now with Bin Laden) to make that person look bad even if they agree with them. His whole twist on the constitution and establishment of religion was pretty absurd though. It’s a very clever way of getting around it, but it is complete bs and everyone knows it.
Report Post »fixer
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:24pmhey bjt141,you are obviously another stupid ,liberal twit.We have decided not to grace your stupid posts with any kind of recognition at all and maybe you’ll go back to the head TROLL and tell him what a ****** you really are.goodbye…goodbye..
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:36pmYes, fixer, anyone who disagrees with you must be a troll, as there is only one point of view on anything, and if anyone disagrees, they must be faking it.
Report Post »Liberal_Atheist_Critical_Thinker
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:43pmI agree bjt141, Barton had no great stand there. I fail to see what’s so wonderful about what he said.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:25pmBarton sure did spend a lot of time making sure Stewart and the audience knew that he had pushed to get more women and minorities into textbooks. Sounded pretty PC to me!
Report Post »bjt141
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:19pmFixer, grow up
I am not a troll or whatever, but this website is filled with extreme viewpoints and to act like this was some type of beat down or something is an extreme viewpoint. Sorry but I watched the interview on tv last night which is why it blows my mind that this site is acting like it was a beat down. It was not. It was an interesting interview but Barton definately skirted around things. He made some good points too but I just don’t agree. I think he is twisting words to his own ideals. Not in any way saying that he isn’t knowledgable in history though, he obviously is. I just don’t like seeing people twist things. His viewpoint can be compared to this….if the constitution said somethign to the effect of government shall make no law establishing murder as being allowed in the U.S…..his argument would be that it says government can’t make a law to ban murder, so murder should be allowed if a state wants it. I know it’s a stretch comparison, but it’s the similar idea. He’s basically using the “Congress shall make no law establishing religion” to mean Congress can’t stop states from having religion run everything if they want to. It just doesn’t work, This country is too mixed with point of views to have one viewpoint or religion dominate society.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:01pmLiberal_Atheist_Critical_Thinker WROTE:
“I fail to see what’s so wonderful about what he said”
Now tell us something we don’t know.
Report Post »You fail at everything.
techengineer11
Posted on May 8, 2011 at 10:21amHe uses original sources.. What are you talking about his twist? lol
Report Post »hcnthree
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:07pmOK, I manned up and actually read the article. The pull out quote in my opinion is in the section when they are trying to show the flaws in David Barton’s research. The quote is quite telling how progressive wish to move this country. PRIOR to stating that David is trying to spin and distort history the “professor” states: “The problem with David Barton is that there’s a lot of truth in what he says,” said Derek H. Davis, director of church-state studies at Baylor University, a Baptist institution in Waco, Tex.
THE TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA! .. that is unless you DISAGREE with the truth according to the critics.
Report Post »Untameable-kate
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:05pmAt the end Jon Stewart says “this is the kind of conversation I dont get”, anyone surprised??
Report Post »bjt141
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:17pmAnother person who doesn’t understand anything and only looks at it from their point of view, this gets tiring……he said that because it was another interview where the person being interviewed did nothing but talk in circles, constantly change subjects so details couldn’t be brought out to prove what they are saying, the interviewer gets annoyed and basically gives up, Barton was all over the place. I find it amazing that people on this site think he is an amazing historian, he is an extremely religious person who got into writing history and wow, amazingly, everything was actually based on religion according to him……….you people really can’t put two and two together can you
Report Post »Untameable-kate
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:35pmDid you watch the clip??
Report Post »You can‘t discount everything a person says just because you don’t agree with their religious or political point of view. He is a famed historian who is admired by all, right up until the left hears his name. Do you realize how discriminatory that is??
AuH2Oconservative
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:15pmbjt141
Report Post »The reason that “everything (history) is based on religion (Christianity per se) according to him” is in an essential and unseperable characteristic of the Christian Theistic worldview. According to this worldview, God is absolutely (in all instances) sovereign. Nothing is outside of His passive (allows/disallows events to happen) and active (explicitly causes events to happen/not happen) control. This, however, must and is the primary necessity of any trancendental being (of which by rules of logic and reason, there can only be One). That is to say that if He is God, then there is nothing outside of His vision or control. By mere definition, if there is even a single electron, of a single atom, of a single element, of a single compound, of a single being in the created order, outside of His “gaze”; then He is not God. That is why Barton’s positions (and those like him) on history, science, mathematics, et al are not “amazing” at all, philosophically speaking. What is “amazing” is the utter lack of pressupositional philosophical alignment or comportment with reality those like Stewart have, and still hold to their beliefs. Talk about great leaps…
bjt141
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:13pmto AUH
You make a good argument and I understand that is his viewpoint, but I‘m sorry I don’t agree. If you want to believe that you have no control or free will, which is pretty counterproductive to what the Bible says, then his argument and yours makes sense. I don’t come from the mentality that god has his hand in all matters. It is pretty nonsensical to believe that is also true. However it is nice to get a legit viewpoint from someone instead of the name calling and I thank you for that.
Report Post »AuH2Oconservative
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:57pmThanks for the kind words. However, my deficiencies in explaining the sovereignty of God, the doctrine of the nature of man, and how they interact are not sufficient for total and outright rejection of my line of thinking (hence: you refering to it as “nonsensical”). My answers must be incredibly brief, the reason for this being systemic to message boards. That being said, my view of the “will of man” (the perameters of the debate must be set here and “will”, “free will”, “moral will”, and “ordinary will” must be defined) and the sovereignty of God, with my limited understanding (or standing on the shoulders of the understanding of those before me, who are quite a sight more intellectually/theologically gifted than all the posters on this site collectively), are in no way contradictatory to reality nor Biblical theology (re: Psalm 103:19, Matthew 10:29, these are references of the establishment ,within Scripture, of the understanding of God’s works of providence)
You say you believe none of this, therefore I respectfully ask (and will probably not be able to respond for some time) two things of you:
1) Is there an empirical uniformity found in nature?
2) If so, from whence does that said uniformity come?
3) If no, explain the laws of science, math, time etc..without refering to any sort of uniform pattern?
respectfully
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:03pmI checked out Barton and he is solid. Stewart actually showed him a little respect by the end. As long as we can debate the facts we win because the facts are on our side.
Report Post »WSGAC
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 4:10pmYou may want to check again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewwWM4psFo8
Report Post »NOBALONEY
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:01pmThat’s the longest peroid of time on his show where there is silence from the audience.
Report Post »bjt141
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:13pmactually that’s not true, the audience is usually pretty respectful when an interesting interview happens with people of opposing point of views. You’d learn this if Glenn Beck had a set to let Stewart interview him or to let Stewart on his show. I guess that’ll never happen though because Glenn Beck does not talk to people of opposing points of views or have them on his shows. He looks like a fool when he has in the past. Take a look at the clips from him on the View where he basically gets caught red handed in a lie and makes it out to be no big deal.
Report Post »NOBALONEY
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:24pmone of the few
Report Post »suttonea76
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:31pm@BJT
Why would Beck want to give any face time to Stewart. Stewart faces the comedic side of life and Beck uses history and engaged political discussion. What next, cries for Howard Stern to be on O’Reilly? Get real!
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:40pmSUTTONEA76-
Actually, beck referrs to himself as a comedian.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:42pmGlenn has already admitted that he is not good at confrontations. For someone with that affliction, it is hard to think and provide answers, because your mind basically goes into flight mode from the anxiety.
Report Post »Non-sequitur
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:01pm“Beck uses history and engaged political discussion.”
Now THAT, Ladies and Gentlemen, is comedy!
Beck himself compared himself to a rodeo clown. He’s ACTING serious, which doesn’t mean he IS serious. See: Colbert
Report Post »The Eradicator
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:18pmNick84,
Actually, Beck refers to himself as a “Commentator”.
Maybe, if you actually listened to his show, you would know that. Typical liberal. Bash, bash, and more bash, yet you’ve maybe caught one hour of his radio show all year.
Get outta here.
Report Post »suttonea76
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:37pm@ NON-SEQUITUR
Rodeo Clown?? Apparenlty, you don’t understand Beck. He ALWAYS pokes fun at himself and his flaws to make you understand he isn’t perfect and he is not the message as the message stands alone. He doesn’t take himself seriously, but he surely takes the message seriously. You are a typical hovering blogger that offers not perception for criticism….I know….it’s much safer in your delusional world. Keep the walls padded for your buddies.
Report Post »Malachai
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 11:20pmBeck is not “Good at confrontations” in the sense that he is not good at confronting annoying things like “facts” and “counter arguments.” I can make convincing arguments that the moon is made of green cheese or that the Earth has a creamy nugget center if I had an hour/day to misquote and pick-and-choose what information I presented.
Report Post »I.Gaspar
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:01pmKinda like what the Seals said to Bin Laden, “Kaboom, losing!”
Report Post »trooper
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:00pmI will remain stead fast in my Christian beliefs as I empty out what I have to give these “bent over” liberal animals, in an instant, from the time my hand is forced.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:23pmI love how you consider yourself a Christian, but you refer to other human beings as animals.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:37pmAnd I’m curious what you are going to “empty out”?
Report Post »crzyredhead
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:46pmWow, that might have been one of the most NOT Christian things I’ve ever read
Report Post »welovetheUSA
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 11:57amDavid knows more about this country and her history than any and all those in the white house and all the colleges combined.
Report Post »Non-sequitur
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:58pmDidn’t know the treaty of tripoli though were the founders wrote that the USA is not founded on christian religion.
Or maybe he just omitted that, would hurt his argument I guess.
Report Post »jedi.kep
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 11:54amGo DAVID BARTON! Way to go brother!
Report Post »Cptnjarhead
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 11:54amJon should just stick to comedy.
Report Post »TexasCommonSense
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:05pmHe’s a comedian?
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:12pmDid you mean stick to sick comedy?
Report Post »TEXTHEDOG
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 11:53amDavid Barton is the greatest historian of our era.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:07pmIf you want a conservative historian who is at least respected by professional historians, try Larry Schweikart or Paul Johnson. David Barton’s history is mostly just special pleading and what might be called “founderology.”
Report Post »WSGAC
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 4:24pmHardly! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewwWM4psFo8
Report Post »Malachai
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 11:17pm“Historian” in the sense of “Making stuff up and ignoring things you don’t like.”
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 11:53amDavid Barton, I’m sooooo proud to be a fellow CHRISTIAN, TEXAN, and AMERICAN.
You make me smile, and I’ll be you even make GOD just down right chuckle!
Good for you, young man.
GOD BLESS AND PROTECT IN JESUS’ PRECIOUS NAME, AMEN.
Report Post »Adam
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 11:51amBarton is my hero.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 11:50amJohn Steward loses big time,
Report Post »flashlight
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:13pmJon is an good interviewer and does not cut off the person while they are trying to make a point. A fine exchange of ideas from two bright men. Why was this a win-lose moment? And
Report Post »when is Glenn going on that show?
Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:21pmGreat comment, flashlight. Jon is possibly the most courteous and respectful host I have ever seen. I have never seen him yell at, or insult anyone he is interviewing. If anything, he deserves a lot of respect for interviewing people that have such different opinions. Glenn Beck will never go on the daily show because he is full of BS and will look like an idiot just like he did when he went on the view.
Report Post »Robert-CA
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:22pmYeah Stewart thought he can win this one but ouch !!! he failed .
Report Post »Mr Barton is amazing I wish that Stewart didn’t interrupt him .
I-HATE-THE-WORD-DISENFRANCHISE
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:45pmJon is the lefts conscious. When they know they’re wrong, like on most issues, a joke eases or clears their conscious.
Report Post »I-HATE-THE-WORD-DISENFRANCHISE
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:49pmSorry ment conscience.
Report Post »Citizen
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:00pmSo true about joking and easing out when they are stung.
Report Post »USAMama
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:18pmThats funny, Flashlight, because as I watched the whole interview online I thought “Geez, Jon, let the guy finish a thought!” Seemed to me he kept trying to redirect David’s answers to what he thought they should be, rather then listening to what he was actually saying. In fact it was interresting that Jon Stewart actually admitted that when he met David Barton he was completely different then what he had expected because he had only heard the spin and not the facts. He admitted that by comparing him to the two Darrins on Bewitched and saying he felt like he was prepared to interview the first Darren but instead got the second Darren :) Everytime he countered David it was that he “heard it said that you….,“ or ”you were criticised before because…,” never actually using his own personal assessment of Davids comments, but quoting others who have had issue with something he said and David Barton cleared it up with context EVERY time.
True, though, he was courteous and respectful for the most part, and I did enjoy the debate very much.
Report Post »M-Theory
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:37pm@Flashlight. What interview were you watching? Steward cut Barton off several times.
Report Post »WSGAC
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 4:21pmJohn loses, but here Barton loses…big time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewwWM4psFo8
Report Post »Whitey4West
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 11:49amMr. Barton is a good man.
Report Post »TexasCommonSense
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 11:56amYes he is. I am proud he is from Texas.
Report Post »Finch88
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 11:59amI agree he just knows what he is talking about.
http://politicalbowl.com – Political Videos
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:06pmStewart is a typical homely liberal. He doesn’t want to hear the truth because it would destroy everything he stands for. Stewart is a coward that makes millions of dollars off the backs of unwitting bottom-feeders. He’s got the same attitude of Letterman when Rand Paul took him to the woodshed, which is that “something just doesn’t “seem” right in what you are saying…”. Which basically means, “I don‘t have a clue about what we’re talking about in terms of facts, but I don’t want what you are saying to appear to be correct, so I am going to reduce myself to diminishing your argument by stating that it doesn’t seem right.”
Report Post »RightWrite
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:06pmDavid is the wonderful scalpel we need to keep the truth. The recapturing of the true American history is heaven-sent. It’s impossible for Barack H. Osama to protect and defend the Constitution when he hates what it stands for.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:10pmA good man? The problem with people who don’t want us to be a secular nation is the fact that they only dislike secularism when it comes to their religion. I constantly hear conservatives worry about sharia law. Well, if you want to allow Christianity to dictate law, then you have to accept the possibility of sharia law if Muslims ever gain any political power. You can’t just have a “Christian nation”, as that would be favoring one religion above others (making a state religion) which is completely against the constitution that conservatives claim to love so much. Also, anyone is allowed to pray in school, it just shouldn’t involve the school. Would you like it if the school your children went to sponsored events praying to Allah?
Dustyluv
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:15pmMade Jon look like an utter fool…Which wasnt hard to do anyway…
Report Post »banjarmon
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:21pmJon Stewart would not let David Barton finish anything when Barton was making a point or winning the argument.
Report Post »MrBigBillyB
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:21pmOK. It’s time to play the game “NAME THAT STATE CONSTITUTION”. Just using the two articles below, name the state: (I have to separate them into two posts.)
Art. II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.
Report Post »MrBigBillyB
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:21pmAnd next:
Report Post »Art. III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffcused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
Kitsune
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:22pm@ Hauschild : It’s just another symptom of the “All or Nothing” philosphy that Progressives (and unfortunately, some Religious Conservatives) have.
It’s easier to demonize your opponent when you can think of them as a single unit who all have the exact same ideology.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:23pmDavid Barton is indeed a very intelligent fellow. God protect him.
Report Post »Jon Stewart (David Letterman lite) should stick to his brand of comedy of making fun of people, just like Letterman does. He is no journalist, nor news anchor, and I wish people would quit treating him like he is, right Blaze?????
Kankokage
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:24pmI decided to hold my nose and read that New York Times article. As expected it was slanted and condescending, but what made me nauseous was reading the first page of comments. To think that the liberal left of this country actually believes that if you switch out “God” with “Allah” in Christian texts then you basically end up with Radical Islam…it is astonishing. We are truly in the age where good is called evil, and evil is called good.
Report Post »Miguelito
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:31pmYes, a Godly man.
Report Post »American Capitalist
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:32pmHe is just simply reading the words of the founders and telling the world. I too have done this and it is very clear that the majority of the founders were God fearing men that established a society based on Judeo-Christian beliefs aand that the system WILL NOT WORK if we leave these values
Report Post »rodamaa
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:33pmDo not mess with David!
Report Post »Cape_Lookout_RW_Extremist
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:34pmTexascommon Sense! I’m still singing Yellow Rose of Texas!
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdmjbxMs7hg
Huguenot Descendant
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:35pmBarton is indeed a very good and intelligent man. He can out perform Stewart in every way yet Stewart does not want to listen. The fact that Stewart did not want Barton to speak is proof of this, every time the facts were brought in front of Stewart’s face he had to open his mouth allowing little to no time for Barton to speak. But even with that Barton still won with facts.
Report Post »godfather
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:41pm@HAUSCHILD
Did you actually watch the interview or any of the other interviews the Jon Steward conducts? He consistently interviews people he disagrees with. How is that turning a blind eye to the other side? And, if disagrees with the person, why can’t he voice that opinion? According to you, he should just sit there and not say anything, even when he disagrees.
If you want to talk about someone who won’t listen to the other side, take a look at Glenn Beck. When was the last time he had a guest on his show that didn’t agree with him?
Report Post »jblovesAmerica
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:42pmFacts defeat emotion everytime-
Report Post »Unix
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:48pmmost liberals don’t get it, so what is news here? that jon has removed all dobut? he got hammered not schooled, then ran away from the subject like a good little communist….pfffft
Report Post »Non-sequitur
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:53pm“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli
This is pretty much an open and shut case as even the founders themselves didn’t see the USA as a christian nation.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:59pmNON-SEQUITUR-
Didn’t you know that the treaty of tripoli is a liberal commie Marxist socialist secular islamicist lie? We are clearly a Christian nation, as the first amendment gives us the right to establish Christianity as the national religion LOL. Seriously though, most people on here will ever understand it. They already “have” the answers and only listen to information that they think supports them, while completely ignoring glaring facts that contradict them.
Report Post »lovenfl3
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:02pmThis guy is awesome, I like it when Glenn has him on his show. Barton is very well spoken, and knows his stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le53dbWpg_Q
Report Post »VegasGuy
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:02pmThe wife and I saw Barton at the Restoring Honor Beck rally in Salt Lake City. He is fascinating to listen to. I love how he can recite the facts of history without hesitation.
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:05pmGodFather:
You can’t really disagree with facts, unless you’re a progressive. That‘s what you people just can’t get into yer thick skulls.
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:10pmNick, you say “Would you like it if the school your children went to sponsored events praying to Allah?”
This is already happening in some California schools, where have you been? Instead of asking conservatives your question, I think you’d better ask your liberal buddies, because it’s coming whether we like it or not, and once it takes firm root, neither you nor I and all our buddies will be able to keep it out of the schools, the government, the entertainment industrie, and essentially all of life including how you clean yourself after going to the bathroom. Are you ready for that?
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:29pmSPARKY101
Link, please.
Report Post »Jayldd
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:33pmI don’t understand why Barton spent so much time saying he was not working to establish a christian point of view in our education system. The interview really went nowhere because Barton would not just come out and say it right from the start. As Christians we have no reason to hide the ball. We should be proud of our view and state it without hesitation. I have heard Romney talk about his Christian faith and nobody has to work so hard to get him to say that it is central to his beliefs and influences his policy positions.
Report Post »Unix
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:40pm@Nick84 – go back to selective listening class, your sleepy town calls you. Ignorance is bliss for you types, you can have it.
Report Post »70S_KIDS_FIGHTING_SOCIALISM
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:43pmConservative Christians can live and work next to all types of liberals, the problem is they cannot live with or stand anybody who disagrees with them. They must intrude, invade all parts of our life. Including invading and taking over Christian Churches. They don’t start their own they have to take over what they can not stand. How about all the Theology professors at schools like Harvard who don’t believe in Jesus. He just had some good ideas and well throw out the rest. What type of maniac teaches Christian theology but don’t believe. Only the one that has a satanic influence trying to take over the true Church and bring it down into the mud with them. They do not do the work of God but of Devils.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 1:50pmNick,
“I constantly hear conservatives worry about sharia law.”
___________________________________________________________
In discussing this topic with conservative friends I find that the initial disussion, a general one, might sound like a worry about Sharia Law as a whole. As we discuss the topic further and define our concerns more, we find that it is more the chauvanistic aspects we have heard about that we dislike. If Sharia Law truly gives women few rights then that is a concern.
This may not be so much religious as cultural. Women had fewer rights up until the early 1900′s in America. The culture was different. They were treated as subordinate rather than equal by many, probably most, males in America. While it is not a truly equal situation yet, it has gotten better over the last century.
I find it difficult to allow America to slip backward when it comes to equal rights for women in America. Freedom should not be different for a man than a women. So this will become a sticky situation for conservatives. Yes, we are for allowing American citizens to practice religion as they see fit but there are aspects of the practice of a religion that may be/can be/or will be counter to our views on individual rights such as the case I make about womens rights.
Please give specific examples on current laws that, as you see it, “dictate” our law? Without specifics it is hard to give any type of point/counterpoint.
Report Post »Florida_Freedom_Fighter
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:00pmEmbarrassing for Jon, Everything was supposed to be up to the states, with only certain duties of the Fed, …………..by design………I wish Barton would have tossed up the Fed papers, Bible, and the Constitution on his desk and tell him to read them……………dope
Report Post »Unix
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:02pmTo all the Godless heathens out there reading this – I PITY THE FOOLS! Your on a collision course to Hell, it will burn ya! I still will pray for you all though, it is the least I can do for you as a Christian! I don’t look down on you, I just pity you, I don’t judge you, I leave that to the Man upstairs.
God Bless America – the asleep! Go back to sleepy town now – all is well and the economy rocks, housing is beautiful, oil is abundantly flowing, the dollar is KING – LOL!!! Ignorance is bliss for those who are uninformed. Keep the heads in the sand and hope a rhino doesn’t run across you.
Report Post »USAMama
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:07pmThey didn’t even show the best parts, go to thedailyshow.com and watch the whole interview. Its great :)
Report Post »TexasCommonSense
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:09pmCape_Lookout_RW_Extremist, North Carolinian people are good people and North Carolinian conservatives are certainly welcome in Texas.
Report Post »JN
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:18pmI feel like Jon Stewart will eventually become some kind of conservative. If you watch his show regularly, you‘ll see that he’s starting to see the issues with mainstream liberalism and how it just doesn’t measure up with rational thought. Just my take
Report Post »TexasJJ
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:18pmTo the few:
Report Post »Christianity is black and white. There is a right and there is a wrong. Good and Evil. Light and salvation is FREE to ALL. it is a choice. I choose to follow the one true God, I Am. There are consequences to every choice. No, I don’t want Sharia law. It does not coincide with the inerrant Word of God. It is unfortunate you can’t see the true freedom in biblical Christianity. You are free to choose right and wrong.
Professional Infidel
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:29pmHeart from the Heartland. GREAT
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:30pmAnd, my thanks to Jonathan Seidl, and Billy Hallowell, too, for this story.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:34pmNick,
“You can’t just have a “Christian nation”, as that would be favoring one religion above others…”
_____________________________________________________________________________
I have not met a conservatie yet that wants “just a Christion nation”. What Mr. Stewart and possibly you have a difficult time understanding is that the founders were establishing that the Federal Government can not, and should not, establish one religion over another. In addition to that the founders wanted the states to make their own determinations, including religious determinations, not the Federal Government.
I believe your assumption is based on a false premise. We (conservatives) don’t want a the United States to soley be a Christian nation. We do have an issue with the Federal Government dictating that a church can not display a manger scene because it may offend someone.
If we take this to an extreme, should the Federal Government ban Burkas because it may offend? Perhaps someone from a religion other than muslim or someone who is athiest?
I personally believe that the power should be as close to the people as possible rather than centered in Washington and ruled by a small group that is influenced heavily by special interests.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:38pm@Non-sequitur
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 12:53pm
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli
This is pretty much an open and shut case as even the founders themselves didn’t see the USA as a christian nation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You really reached for that one, didn’t you?
The INTENTION of the Founders was that there would be no Government-ordered religion, not that there would be no religion in government. That’s where “separation of church and state” comes in. To shoot holes in your claim, our inalienable rights are endowed by OUR CREATOR. Prayer opened the first session of Congress.
Nice try, but BOOM! FAIL!
Report Post »Veritas vos liberabit
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:39pmWatch Part 3 on line!! The whole interview is a great back and forth! I love David Barton. He’s not an intellectual. He’s a regular guy who went looking for the truth and ended up making it a career. Awesome!
Report Post »etrnlife
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:44pmDavid Barton is a GREAT man…had him speak at our church about 6 weeks ago on the topic that American IS a Christian Nation. Loved it SO much, I got a copy of the service on CD and listened to it 6 times. It has made the HUGE impression on me and I am forever grateful for what I have learned from him.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:54pm“I love David Barton. He’s not an intellectual. He’s a regular guy who went looking for the truth and ended up making it a career. Awesome!”
__________________________________________________________________
Veritas – I have to agree with you. He is a religious man but I have yet to see him jam his religious beliefs down anyones throat yet when he has appeared on television.
He has done more to help me understand the contribution of non-whites in the early years of America than anyone else in my nearly 50 years on this planet.
Report Post »Mugatu
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:59pmI notice the extended interview part 3 is not here. It shocked me that Barton said he has no problem with a city adopting Shariah law if they wanted, at the 8:26 mark.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:06pmBarton is a good man, if a religious con man can be considered a good man. He has invented issues to get donations and face time with congressman. His history is pure spin divorced from fact. He is on Beck‘s program cause he is useful to Beck’s debunked geo-political theories. Stewart showed what a joke this man really is.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:10pmNick84;
Report Post »“You can’t just have a “Christian nation”, as that would be favoring one religion above others (making a state religion)….”
—————————-
What Christian religion are you talking about? There are MANY.
Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:10pmTEXASJJ
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 2:18pm
To the few:
Christianity is black and white. There is a right and there is a wrong. Good and Evil. Light and salvation is FREE to ALL. it is a choice. I choose to follow the one true God, I Am. There are consequences to every choice. No, I don’t want Sharia law. It does not coincide with the inerrant Word of God. It is unfortunate you can’t see the true freedom in biblical Christianity. You are free to choose right and wrong.”
So is killing your children when they are disrespectful right or wrong?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:11pmBArton is no Constitutional scholar, he forgot the small fact that the 14th amedment applies the bill of right to the States. The man is another Christian Taleban looking to turn this country away from the Constitution and into a religious State.
Report Post »Unix
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:17pm@encinom – hey shizzizle, your going to sizzle for sure.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:20pmSo many of you are truly pathetic. I am all for an honest and open debate, and no one but a moron could think that Jon Stewart was offering Barton anything but. Those of you who complain about Barton being cut off should go on the Daily Show Website (just as Stewart says you should) and see the rest of the interview.
But, for all of you folks waving around the “Congress shall make no law” banner, think about this: The free speech clause also fits under this phrase, yet we are perfectly willing to claim Constitutional rights of free speech no matter what state we are in. Plain and simple: you cannot have free speech applied on the state level without having the establishment clause applied on that same level.
But hey… enough with the Establishment Clause. What about the Free Exercise Clause? Well, you folks would be the first to say that anything dictated by the government is an exercise of control rather than freedom. Therefore, if the government dabbles in religion, it’s the opposite of free exercise, right? Or do all of you love government so much that you think real freedom comes through government intervention?
Report Post »freeus
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:22pmJon got educated.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:24pm“…he has no problem with a city adopting Shariah law…”
____________________________________________________
@mugatu – David Barton strikes me, from watching him in multiple interviews, as a libertarian. So I guess it does not strike me as odd that he said that. Part of me agrees with him, as I noted earlier, I believe the power should be as close to the people as possible. As I noted as well, my concern regarding Shariah would be how womens rights and for that matter, non-muslim rights, etc. would be impacted.
It seems to me, also, that it would be chaotic to have two sets of laws Shariah Law and city/state law.
Report Post »GRANNYMOO
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:26pmyes he is and way to smart for stewart,who knows nothing about the constitution, nor does he care about it or any other decent history lesson. he’d rather rewrite history to suit his own liberal veiws
Report Post »M-Theory
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:31pm@Non-Sequitur “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli This is pretty much an open and shut case as even the founders themselves didn’t see the USA as a christian nation.
BUT, they did see themselves as a religious nation (Christians were the majority religion back in the day). “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams 1798 http://ourrepubliconline.com/OurRepublic/Article/41 Digressing on whether it’s a Christian nation or a Religious nation is beside the point. The point is, the Constitution is inadequate to a nation who doesn’t value MORALS and RELIGION (all of them, even Christianity – as long as they don’t harm anyone in the worship thereof).
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:33pmBut I just noticed that you said you are done discussing this. We might not be able to come to an agreement on this topic, but thanks for being polite and reasonable.
Report Post »MADDRICK99
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:35pmAccording to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were “intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripoli_Agreement
from same quote as earlier
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:41pmDALE
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:10pm
“Nick84;
“You can’t just have a “Christian nation”, as that would be favoring one religion above others (making a state religion)….”
—————————-
What Christian religion are you talking about? There are MANY.”
———————-
Well, people on here keep saying we are a “Christian nation”. I am arguing that we are not. Your point about there being many Christian religions only furthers my point. If we are a Christian nation, which denomination of Christianity? Should we follow Catholicism and make all birth control illegal?
Report Post »SoCalWalt
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:44pm@ hauschild: Well said!!
Report Post »stifroc
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:48pmNick84 = forum troll
Report Post »hope you’re unable to reproduce.
orkydorky
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:53pm@ Nick84…………………………………Constitutional law is derived from the constitution, through our legislature, not through religious doctrine. Sharia law is derived through religious doctrine, got it???
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 4:08pmPajamas
“I have not met a conservatie yet that wants “just a Christion nation”. What Mr. Stewart and possibly you have a difficult time understanding is that the founders were establishing that the Federal Government can not, and should not, establish one religion over another. In addition to that the founders wanted the states to make their own determinations, including religious determinations, not the Federal Government.”
Are you serious? Read some of the posts on here arguing that we are a “Christian nation”
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 4:17pmSTIFROC
“Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:48pm
Nick84 = forum troll
hope you’re unable to reproduce.”
Anyone who disagrees with you HAS to be a troll, don’t they? I’d say I am generally pretty respectful to people on this site, unless I am disrespected. But hey, go ahead and remain ignorant of any opposing point of view.
ORKYDORKY
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 3:53pm
“@ Nick84…………………………………Constitutional law is derived from the constitution, through our legislature, not through religious doctrine. Sharia law is derived through religious doctrine, got it???”
You are only making my point for me. The people I am debating with are saying that we were founded as a Christian nation. It seems you agree with me.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 4:24pmRobert A. Hall is the actor who plays the coroner on CSI if you watch that show. He also is a Marine Vietnam War veteran.
This should be required reading for every man, woman and child in the United States of America .
“I‘m 63 and I’m Tired”
by Robert A. Hall
I’m 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I’ve worked hard since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven’t called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn’t inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there’s no retirement in sight, and I’m tired. Very tired.
I’m tired of being told that I have to “spread the wealth” to people who don’t have my work ethic. I’m tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.
I’m tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to “keep people in their homes.” Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I’m willing to help. But if they bought Mc Mansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.
I’m tired of being told how bad America is
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 4:25pmI‘m gonna wade out into dangerous water and say that I’ve seen a bit of a change in Stewart….and it seems to me that that change was most notable after 8/28 and the Restoring Honor Rally on the Washington Mall…I don’t know if anyone else noticed it…but, I did…I don’t know if the “questioning” or more of a “thoughtfulness” I saw in him was because he saw how huge the turnout was and he realized, maybe for the first time, that there was a whole other America out there that he didn’t know even existed, and he wants to play to us more to increase his ratings…OR…that he is actually becoming a more “thoughtful”, “patriotic” man…I would bet that we see Jon mellow out and come closer to the center…hope it doesn’t take him too long!
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 4:45pmDifference in the time frame. Mr Barton speaks to a time of Strong State Power outlined by the Constitution with a weak Central Government that’s why he keeps referring to the States. Mr Stewart Comes to the conversation in todays time line with a Strong Central Government and weaker State Governments.
Report Post »godfather
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 4:57pm@MUGATU
There is a reason the entire interview is not posted here, because if it were, the people who only get their information from this site would not be aware that he did say it would be OK for Muslim parts of the country to adopt Sharia law. Because so many Blazers are deathly afraid of anything Islamic, hearing this guy say that Islam could have the same influence as Christianity would cause most Blazers to say that he is crazy and wrong. Glenn like to cite Barton as a source to support his view that this is a Christian nation that should follow the Bible as law. To hear Barton then say that Muslims could use their religion as law in this country would then go against that theory.
Also, I don’t get how so many of you on this site have so much bad to say about Jon Stewart. He was not rude or condescending. In fact, if you watch the entire interview, you’ll see that he is very respectful and grateful for the opportunity to have the discussion with Barton.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 6:14pm“I believe your assumption is based on a false premise. We (conservatives) don’t want a the United States to soley be a Christian nation. We do have an issue with the Federal Government dictating that a church can not display a manger scene because it may offend someone.”
Link of that happening, please.
Report Post »Jack007
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 6:42pmAll my X’s live in Texas :|
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 6:53pmNick84, I just love it when those with an apparently feeble understanding of Christianity spout stuff like you did in your response to another, who said in part “It is unfortunate you can’t see the true freedom in biblical Christianity. You are free to choose right and wrong.”
You responded “So is killing your children when they are disrespectful right or wrong?” Please provide book, chapter and verse that instructs Christians to do this. (Remember, I took the time to give you some links you requested, and made them available to all.)
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 7:06pmDeuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version)
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+21%3A18-21&version=KJV
Yet I have a feeble understanding of the bible? Can you provide your links again, or point me to where they are posted, I seem to be overlooking them
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 7:13pmHere’s another gem:
Numbers 15:32-36 (King James Version)
32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
Report Post »SlimnRanger
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 7:14pmYes sir he is a very good man and a very intellegent man
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 7:47pmI‘m guessing you won’t respond, though. It‘s easier yto walk away and act like those verses don’t exist.
Report Post »thebarbarian
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:00pm@nick 84 5may12:10
1st your argument is weak for the following.
1- this nation was fouinded on Judeo-Christian beliefs
2- Our Founders fled the lod world to escape a cornucopia load of intolerances and persecutions- religeon being one of them
3-they did not set up a State religeon to insure freedom of choice pretaining to religeon
secndly this wopuld not be the case under sharia. by it’s very nbature is limiting and the enforcer os subjugation apon the countries that it INFESTS. though the system that America was founded is not perfect it does allow for tolerance and self correction. sharia does not. for example. under Judeo-Christian beliefs slavery was abolished. it however is flourishing in muslim countries. in fact the arabic word to depict Negroid races is aahbid-litteral translation:slave. there is no other way of politely discribing the Negroid races in islam/sharia.
and finally, i’ve seen real religeous persecution and bigotry. IT IS MOST OFTEN FROM THE LEFT AND SO ARE THE MURDERS IN IT”S NAME! being a Buddist/Toaist i am regularly asked about it where i live with great respect to my personal convictions.been to quite a few chuches: from the invitation of truely wonderful people. this includes Mennonite,Ahmish,Catholics,Methodist, and so many more.
it’s a pitty that you leftist are so blind.
Report Post »Listenup
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:01pmThe truth is that Jon Stewart makes a better “journalist” then anyone at NBC, ABC or CBS and that HE at least is willing to have members of the opposite party (opposite from him) on his show to air their opposing views. And Jon is polite (as polite as a comedian can be..) and not idiotic like Matthews or O’Donnell or Maddow. All of that makes him watchable for me
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:12pmNick, I asked you to tell me where it tells Christians to do as you said. I figured you didn’t really understand much about Christianity, or you would have known something. You need to read the parts where Jesus (since we are talking about Christians) sets us free from the Law. Of course that’s way over your head, but I understand. I can help you with those aspects of Christianity, but it would be easier if you just read the book.
I posted a bunch of links to stories about California, Oregon, and Texas schools forcing students to dress like muslims and pray their prayers, but the Blaze decided I shouldn’t be able to do that. I’ll post a few more, but I don’t want to spend my time doing what you should be smart enough to do. Heck, even my dog can google, can’t you?
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:15pmSo Nick, since you are so woefully inadequate, I’ll try to post a few even you could read: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/1/230708.shtml , “Same Judge OK’ed Muslim Prayer.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-muslim-special-treatment-from-schools_N.htm, “Some say schools giving Muslims special treatment”
Now, go google “California schools forcing Muslim prayers” or something like that. Then you can apologize, but I don’t think you are able. So, I’ve trashed you twice in one thread. Too easy, you.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:18pm1- this nation was fouinded on Judeo-Christian beliefs
Evidence? The treaty of tripoli says different. Aren’t the main Christian laws the 10 commandments? If we are a Christian nation, doesn’t that mean more than 3 of 10 should be laws? Also, of the 3 that are, I can provide you with examples that pre date christianity.
2- doesn’t that further my argument? The same thing for #3.
You seem to be arguing for a secular government, but are calling it a Christian government.
Slavery was abolished in spite of religion. Sure, there were Christians that opposed slavery, but the bible lists rules for slave trading. These were used as a justification to continue slavery. Can you tell me where the bible says slavery (other than the Jews) is a bad thing? It is quite the opposite to be honest.
“and finally, i’ve seen real religeous persecution and bigotry. IT IS MOST OFTEN FROM THE LEFT AND SO ARE THE MURDERS IN IT”S NAME! ”
Would you consider Uganda to be liberal?
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:22pmWell Nick, I posted two more, one from USA Today, and another from a fairly well respected source. The Blaze didn’t appear to allow either (or maybe they just didn’t want to see any one slap you down so bad). I’m guessing it was the latter. Bye.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:24pmhttp://bible.cc/matthew/5-17.htm
Jesus says he didn’t come to abolish the law. However, if he did, why are Christians against homosexuals? Did Jesus ever say homosexuality is wrong? Or are Christians allowed to pick and choose what parts of the old testament to follow?
Another question, since the Jews don’t believe in Jesus, should they keep following those laws?
What cracks me up is you ask me to provide you with links, but you insult me for asking the same of you.
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:28pmNick(the woefully inadequate Christianity scholar), they did post two of my links. Hope you had time to catch them – a little more knowledge will surely help you out.
Report Post »cassandra
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:40pmI have bought all his books and pass them around they are great!!!
Report Post »techengineer11
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:48pmcassandra: I watched his video “Our Godly Heritage” about 15-20 years ago and it lit a flame in me.. Truly incredible information which he points out..
About 7-10 years ago I read his book “Original Intent” and once again very stimulating and enlightening.
Report Post »Cotten
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:55pmDavid Barton for President!
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 8:59pmNick, try 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 for a peek behind the scenes of Christianity. There’s much more, but I simply suggest you read it. Romans has an excellent explanation of what benefit the Law has for a Christian. Obeying the law does not get one into heaven, not at all. No one can completely follow the law anyway, only Christ was able to do that, and he explains it to us.
We were not speaking about homosexuality, I suggest you read Romans 1:20-32 a couple of times – slowly. Again, your knowledge and understanding of the Bible seems very superficial that you wouldn‘t know these things but would speak out at what does exist and claim it doesn’t, and speak up for what does not exist and claim it does.
Jews are God’s chosen people. God gave the Law to Moses, and they were to try to follow it. If you ask me should Jews follow the law, since they don’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah, I’d have to ask you what weekly, monthly and annual sacrifices do they make at the Temple? Perhaps you should ask them, not me. I think Daniel was pretty clear that the Messiah would enter the world prior to the Temple being destroyed. So, what should they do in the meantime? Jesus is looking pretty good.
Report Post »Luke21
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 9:15pmTo say that God and Jesus aren’t mentioned in the Constitution is disingenuous at best. In addition to the references Mr. Barton sites, all overlook the most obvious reference of all. Its on the signature line and a similar one exists on the Declaration as well:
“Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.”
Who is “our Lord” referring to? Hint: it isn’t Mohamed.
Everyone of the men that signed the Constitution read that line and willfully signed it w/ the full understanding of what it meant. None of those wishing to revise history can ever change that fact.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 10:07pmhttp://www.christianpost.com/news/report-over-350-public-schools-teaching-the-bible-41129/
The prayer is a bit much, but it is hardly different. I’d like to think the students could have opted out of it, but I can’t find anything about that either way.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 10:10pmLUKE21
The year of our lord was a common phrase. That is like saying I am a Christian for using BC and AD. Furthermore, even if they were all Christians, they clearly didn’t want a religious government as they wrote the first amendment.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 10:12pmhttp://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 10:15pmGlenn likes to put these stories on his website to divert attention away from the fact he’s deathly afraid to have an open and honest debate with someone holding a different opinion. For a person with so many facts at his disposal, why doesn’t he use these facts to beat these liberals into submission? I guess Fox will have to get Megyn to go head to head with the liberals since Glenn is apparently intimidated by them.
Report Post »Malachai
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 12:11amNice how Barton flat out lied about the court case they are fighting so that they pray on “National Prayer Day.” Again, he doesn’t let actual facts get in the way of propaganda. The issue was the GOVERNMENT issuing a day of Christian prayer, NOT to keep people from praying like Barton tried to frame it. The FFRF is quite OK with people praying to whatever God(s) they choose, whenever they choose.
But hey, keep on making stuff up; it’s worked well for you so far!
Report Post »FormerLib
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 12:22am@NICK84
Are you seriously drawing some sort of equivalence between Christianity and Islam? Let’s review: Christianity lead to the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the formation of the United States.Virtually every country in the world that is historically Christian is a free country living under some sort of democratic republic. What has Islam led to?
I don‘t know if you’re really this unthinking of if you’re a troll, but neither are desirable traits to display on a forum.
Report Post »dr_funk
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 12:32amMr. Barton’s story of rediscovering history is almost identical to my own. When I graduated from school, I started running into historical evidence and accounts of things that flew completely in the face of what we were taught in school.
For instance, our public school history teachers completely distorted the purpose of the 3/5ths compromise.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 12:58amFORMERLIB-
What about the crusades, the witch trials, and the fight against science (galileo’s imprisonment for example). What about Uganda? What about the pope contributing to the spread of AIDS due to his “teachings” on birth control?
A better question would be: what makes them so much different in your opinion?
Report Post »freedomofspeech
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 4:13amlove your name WHITEY4WEST lol
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 7:59amBarton P0wn3d Stewart.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 10:10am@M-Theory: “Open and shut case”?
Yes, but in the opposite That was a letter from Adams to a Muslim leader. Adams was soundly criticized for making it.
He was criticized because everyone else felt that we were, in fact, a Christian Nation.
The Founding Fathers have spoken.
Report Post »TexasJJ
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 12:03pmNick 84:
Report Post »While I don’t understand why God chose to create that law I do know that His Son sacrificed himself we can live under His atonement. Under the new covenant that rule/sacrifice is no longer necessary. God desires a personal relationship and a change of heart rather than a strict adherenceto the law. (Romans 6:14) Therefore, when Jesus died, a new covenant was created where it is no necessary to kill your kids. So, yes it is wrong to kill your kids for being disrespectful.
Nick84
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 12:33pmTEXASJJ
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 12:03pm
“Nick 84:
While I don’t understand why God chose to create that law I do know that His Son sacrificed himself we can live under His atonement. Under the new covenant that rule/sacrifice is no longer necessary. God desires a personal relationship and a change of heart rather than a strict adherenceto the law. (Romans 6:14) Therefore, when Jesus died, a new covenant was created where it is no necessary to kill your kids. So, yes it is wrong to kill your kids for being disrespectful.”
This is exactly what makes me sick about religion. They generally believe in things like absolute truth, good/evil, right/wrong. However, they contradict themselves by showing a change in morals. “well it used to be good to kill your kids…”. How about it was always a disgusting thing to kill children? It is exactly your kind of thinking that leads to disgusting things happening.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 12:58pmThe funny thing is, that regardless of how you folks try to refute Nick, he’s made his point quite effectively. After all, the fact that he clearly has a different interpretation of Biblical law, etc., just shows you how unreliable theological argumentation is as the basis for civil law. For any given absolute truth you claim to have read within the Bible, I have no doubt that there is another person, just as knowledgeable as you who is just as convinced of the opposite interpretation (and that‘s of course setting aside the people who don’t think absolute truth resides in the Bible at all). The sad fact is that these sides are irreconcilable as long as each is convinced that their respective truth should be the basis of civil law.
But hey–all you bible-thumping Tea Party-ers are already hypocrits. You believe in less government, but are OK with the government legislating morality based on your own interpretation(and if you’re not, then you‘re not the kind of person I’m talking about).
In the end, no one has a problem proving that murder and theft are bad for society, so why bring the Bible into it at all?
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 1:19pmPUBLIUSPENCILMAN-
Thank you. That was extremely well put.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 1:54pmNickwithIQof84 has proven only one thing in his multiple fallacious posts–that he is an amazingly poor reader who will misinterpret, decontextualize, and otherwise twist anything that doesn’t fit his own worldview, and then claim his own fallacies have made his point all the stronger.
Report Post »Listen to the extended interviews. Barton reminds Stewart of the context of the Tripoli Treaty–Adams was distinguishing the US from Tripoli’s other enemies of the day. All the other European countries WERE founded ON religion. The distinction was NOT that the US was areligious, but that it’s government–while anchored in Christian PRINCIPLES of morality–was not going after the Barbary pirates ON religious grounds.
“Christian Nation” simply does not mean what you think it means, Nick. No one’s suggesting that no other religion (or lack thereof!) need apply. But it would be stupid and ahistorical (yes, you are!) to suggest that the principles of freedom enshrined in the Constitution do NOT grow out of a Judeo-Christian set of morals.
But because I’m a charitable guy, I’ll give you some friendly advice: try to understand peoples’ beliefs for how THEY believe them to be, even if you disagree with them. That way, when you DO try to make a case, it will have a basis, rather than consist of continual fallacy, counter-accusation, and inability to comprehend context.
TexasJJ
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 2:19pmWell…I never contradicted myself. I said it is wrong to kill your kid. And disgusting things happen because I think it is wrong to kill kids?
Report Post »I know you are showing us how smart you are with all this, however like it or not I love and respect you. I believe you are trying to convince yourself. I also believe the God I serve loves you and has incredible plans for you and your talents. All you have to do is let go.
Love you, brother.
Nick84
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 3:01pmHappyStretchedThin-
Here is a simple question, that maybe you can answer since you are so smart. Can you name which laws our founding fathers wrote that are specifically based on Christianity? If you name one, I should not be able to find a similar law from a society that predates Christianity.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 3:11pmTexasJJ
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 2:19pm
“Well…I never contradicted myself. I said it is wrong to kill your kid. And disgusting things happen because I think it is wrong to kill kids?
I know you are showing us how smart you are with all this, however like it or not I love and respect you. I believe you are trying to convince yourself. I also believe the God I serve loves you and has incredible plans for you and your talents. All you have to do is let go.
Love you, brother.”
You believe that God did create those laws, right? Your argument is that he phased them out in the new covenant, correct? You believe that God is all good, and not capable of commanding evil, correct? Do you believe it is evil to murder a child for being disrespectful? Do you believe it wasn’t evil back then, but it is now? If so, you are admitting what is good and what is evil changes throughout time, which seems pretty contradictory. If you believe that it was always evil, you are admitting god commanded evil.
It is nice of you to act like you care about non-believers, but please drop the condescending act. I was raised Christian and I don’t agree with it. I have read much of the bible and disagree with it. I didn’t make a decision to not believe, I just simply don’t.
Report Post »Hula Calhoun
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 3:48pmNon-sequitur: Using wikipedia to prove a point? Pathetic.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 4:27pm“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Really, how much more clearer do they need to be than “is not, in any sense”? How is it you can honestly try to twist your argument around such an explicit statement?
But OK, Barton’s theory of context. Look at the grammar: you have three distinct clauses. The first two are key:
1) As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
2) as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen
These are, grammatically equal claims (both falling under the declarative “as”). The grammar does not in any way support the idea that the second clause should be context for this first. That simply does not make sense. These are what we call premises–THEY are the context for the declaration of peace that comes after, not the other way around.
OK loonies–whatcha got?
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 4:35pmNick,
Report Post »Thanks for responding. Trollspanking is one of my favorite pastimes.
In your silly question obviously intended as some kind of trap to prove how smart/right you are, you have committed what we educated thinkers refer to as the false dichotomy, or false dilemma fallacy. You conclude that there’s no Christian basis for the US constitution on two false premises: 1. that only a law based SOLELY on Christian texts counts as Christian; 2. that any law from a non-Christian or pre-Christian society which shares any similarity to a Christian law invalidates the “Christianity” of the law.
Christianity teaches PRINCIPLES of morality, but prescribes no form of government. Nevertheless, the US Constitution could not have been conceived without the history of religious oppression in Europe and the need for a religion-NEUTRAL form of government in the new world. Christianity is therefore the sine qua non of the legal framework of the US.
Now if you want to repeat and insist on your fallacious question, I’ll be happy to respond correctly when you clean it up first. Burden of proof on you to show that ANY just law has NO antecedent in ANY religion. Burden of proof on you to show that non-Christian morality systems CAN’T overlap with Christian ones.
Your question reveals a thought process analogized (fairly!) by the following ridiculous statement: mathematics is not scientific because there are examples of mathematicians from before the scientific method was formulated.
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 4:55pmThere you go again, Pencil, pretending to be able to read again.
Report Post »I’m no loony, but I’ll try to help because I suspect your illiteracy is selective, and not total.
You have correctly identified the key clauses, and proceeded to evacuate the key elements of any clause: the verb and its arguments (noun phrases, for the uninitiated). “Not Founded on” means what? This is the crux of your malliteracy (I coined the term just for you). Only completely bereft of its context as a communication from the only state at the time which guaranteed FREEDOM of religion to a religiously based state can you maintain the claim that “not founded on” means “completely devoid of” as you claim it means. In its proper context, “not founded on” really means “not beholden to” which simply doesn’t support your claim that religion never had anything whatsoever to do with the Founding.
The second clause you are also wrong about. The dashes do NOT indicate grammatical equivalence, but rather logical dependence. They mark a clause which qualifies the proposition of the first.
And by the way, Barton was talking about HISTORICAL context, NOT grammatical context, but no matter, the grammar itself is sufficient to prove you wrong anyway. But then again, by the very nature of your arguments, I already know that you refuse delivery on almost ANY kind of contextualization.
Barton’s right. The fed govt must allow for ALL religious expressions (even irreligion!), NOT promote irreligion-that
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 4:57pm(sorry, got truncated!)
Report Post »that would be attempting to maintain a false neutrality.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 5:33pmObviously, this causal relationship makes no sense, so it does not quite qualify the previous statement. You might suggest that the second follows logically, but that still means the first is a premise. Typography in this period was different from what it is today (which is obvious in the use of BOTH a comma and a dash as the beginning and end of the clause) and dashes did not always denote a subordinate clause–nor do they today, but I don’t want to confuse you.
Certainly the historical context of the statement was to reassure the Tripolitans that the US was not their enemy, but it’s still a premise in the article. AS this, THEN this. Quite simple. Now… your suggestion that I said there was no religion at all in the early Republic is nonsense, and isn’t actually based on anything I said, so please stop making things up. And most of all, when it says “not founded on,“ read ”not founded on,” and not some other phrase that better fits your agenda.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 5:38pmHappyStretchedThin-
LOL there’s no reason to respond like such a douche. I love how you call me a troll. Anyone with an opposing viewpoint MUST be a troll, right?
Anyway, to simplify your argument, you are claiming that we were founded upon Christian morals, correct? My argument is that none of the morals we were founded on are specific to Christianity, as many non Christian societies share them. I provided an example of an anti-homicide law from a society predating Christianity.
I guess this is where you lose me… You seem to agree that these laws/morals are shared by Christian and non-Christian societies. However, you claim that they are Christian. I would agree that the morals or laws we are talking about are common between many societies (including Christian ones), but, you don’t have to be Christian to have them. That, by definition, makes them more than just Christian morals. I could very easily say (for the homicide law example) that Sumerian law influenced our murder laws. Are you arguing that those laws influenced Christianity, which influenced us. Are you just arguing semantics, then?
The problem is that you cannot name a single law that the founders wrote that is solely based on Christianity. Wouldn’t it just be easier to say that our government is greatly influenced by many different governments of the past? Why is it so important for it to be Christian, especially when you cannot name a single solely Christian inspired law?
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 6:12pm“The fed govt must allow for ALL religious expressions (even irreligion!), NOT promote irreligion-that…”
So, you are arguing for “all” instead of “nothing”. So should our government take time to celebrate every religious holiday? Should taxpayer money be spent on it? Should religion be taught in schools? What curriculum should it replace? I imagine a lot of room would have to be made to teach students about every religion. Should congress begin with a prayer to every god imaginable, as well as an affirmation that there are no gods? The point is, you are arguing for something completely unreasonable. How much time and money would you like wasted on our government satisfying every religion? The simpler argument is to keep government out of religion, and religion out of government.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 6:31pmPublius,
Report Post »Please accept my sincere apologies for conflating your fallacious views with those of Nick84, which you nonetheless declared open support for. You are correct to say I assumed wrongly, you did not personally state any denial of the historical fact of religious involvement in the Founding.
However, you still are reading selectively and continue to stubbornly insist no historical context is necessary when dealing with the CONTENT of the propositions (just the punctuation, apparently). The “premices” you refer to, regardless of punctuation, have two possible readings, one of which (yours!) is refuted upon examination of historical context. “Is founded upon” DOES require parsing, and the 2nd clause DOES require an appositional reading because it is the single most salient point of distinction between the US and all other treaty seekers with Tripoli at the time. There was no reason to mention religion whatsoever, unless as a means to show that being “founded on” religion in the European sense wasn’t the nature of the US govt. But clearly, no one can clear up your own confusion on this since its a choice you’re making to persistently misinterpret.
No one is arguing for a theological justification for any law, Tea Partiers are not hypocrites to believe that the federal govt IS the best institution to guarantee certain basic rights and freedoms when properly limited by the Constitution.
You‘re the one putting words in people’s mouths, I’m sad to have to t
TexasJJ
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 6:54pmNick,
Report Post »I wasn’t being condescending or pretending to care about you. These are my first posts like this anywhere. When I looked at the story your name jumped out at me immediately. It seems to me you were hurt by a “christian” when you were younger. I am really sorry. You did not deserve that.
As for your other remarks:
1.personal morals change just like anything else. as we learn more and are exposed to more our definitions become more precise. we “prune” away the bad, dead, hurtful, selfish thoughts and beliefs thereby changing what is important and how we react, as well as our perspective. just like any skill, doing the right thing is learned.
2. is it wrong to kill your children–give me a break. of course it is wrong. i don‘t confess to understand God’s plans or desires. He decides what is right or wrong. He doesn’t change. that question is like asking if He can do anything, can He make something so heavy He can’t lift it?
3. I am dead serious when I tell you-God loves you. He wants you and your heart back.
4. I was definitely taking a shot at you when I said you are showing us how smart you are, however is that not the truth?
I do love and care for you. like it or not. God wants you back.
David Barton is correct. btw
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 7:01pmNick,
Report Post »If a troll is a person who twists others’ views to intentionally provoke them, then however douchie it makes you think I am, I’m still going to call you on it. You’re fundamentally dishonest.
I have demonstrated that your premice is flawed and that therefore no one should have to fall into the easily spotted trap of your question. You don‘t really want to know what’s specific about Christianity, or I’d be happy to tell you. But since you refuse delivery on logic, and refuse to comply with your burden of proof, perhaps a different tactic: why don’t YOU supply an example of a single law that is non-Christian. By your own reasoning (if you can call it that), there should be plenty of it to choose from, and if I can show that at any point it has been coopted by Christian thought, I still win.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that the very idea of freedom of religion, limited govt, rule of law, etc. could not have found their expression in the US Constitution without the influence of Christianity? The fact that you can rationalize any law by other means is entirely irrelevant (which is the straw man fallcy too). It’s like saying trying to use the blunt end of a screwdriver to pound in a nail when you have a hammer in your toolkit.
And your next post just continues the malliteracy (selective reading for the purpose of twisting): I said govt should ALLOW all expressions, not PROMOTE any. You’re the one that wants lack of belief PROMOTED or even imposed.
Nick84
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 7:10pm“I wasn’t being condescending or pretending to care about you. These are my first posts like this anywhere. When I looked at the story your name jumped out at me immediately. It seems to me you were hurt by a “christian” when you were younger. I am really sorry. You did not deserve that.”
I appreciate the thought, but I don’t understand how one has to be “hurt by a Christian” to not agree with it. I simply disagree with things that cannot be reached through science. Furthermore, the god of the old testament is someone who is “evil” if there is such a thing.
Here is the point that seems to be going over your head:
“2. is it wrong to kill your children–give me a break. of course it is wrong. i don‘t confess to understand God’s plans or desires. He decides what is right or wrong. He doesn’t change. that question is like asking if He can do anything,”
God commanded that in the old testament. You are saying God is wrong. However, you hold the belief that God can’t be wrong. This either shows that you are wrong, and it was at one time moral to kill your children for being disrespectful, or that your view of religion is wrong.
Report Post »CatKrazy
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 7:45pmMr Nick84…I cant stand it anymore! You are obviously fighting TRUTH with everything in you. God has always, and always will, demand payment (that is sacrifice) for sin. You obviously also know sin is any action that seperates a person from Him. BEFORE Jesus, that sacrifice was different things for different sins, theft, lying, etc… The death of a child was ONLY after the child refused to adhere to his famly’s worship of God. The people, and children, were well aware of the consequenses. God STILL demands sacrifice for sin, but Jesus paid THAT HUGE sacrifice for ALL OF US!!! Got It?
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 8:19pm“By your own reasoning (if you can call it that), there should be plenty of it to choose from, and if I can show that at any point it has been coopted by Christian thought, I still win.”
That is exactly my point. If you are arguing that Christians co-opted morals and laws from other cultures, I’d agree. However, many people seem to think these things can’t exist outside of Christianity. Its one thing to argue that there are many different paths to thinking murder is wrong (Christianity being one of them), but many people refuse to believe there are other ways of reaching the conclusion that murder is wrong. I agree that Christianity most certainly had an influence on people around that time, but I’m not sure if we agree on what kind, or the extent. In my opinion, the founding fathers didn’t want a government run religion like the church of England. Since that was a Christian church, it clearly influenced them to want to separate church from state. So yes, Christianity did influence them in that regard. It may have also influenced their personal views, but if they felt that Christianity should be involved in government, why didn’t they mention Christianity in the constitution?
I guess where we disagee is mainly semantics. You think that a value Christians have is a “Christian value”. I feel that is a misleading term here. I feel that “Christian value” implies that it originiated with Christianity, which is clearly false.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 6, 2011 at 9:50pmHappy,
I admit, I am at a loss. I honestly have no idea what you are arguing, since you concede every point (while managing quite of bit of posturing!). I know the history far better than you give me credit for. Is it correct to say that although the treaty says quite clearly that the US is “not, in any sense” founded on Christianity, that you are still arguing the US is necessarily founded on Christian morality and principles? If that’s your argument, then it actually has nothing to do with the content of the treatyat all, since you are simply applying your own outside notions here.
So, really, I have the same objection as Nick on this point–while you keep pointing at Christian morals or principles, you still never seem to explain what is specifically “Christian” about them. So with all the huffing and puffing, what is the point of claiming the Christianness of the laws anyway? Is it simply to make yourself feel better and to make non-Christians feel less American? That’s certainly what it seems like.
Report Post »zteater
Posted on May 7, 2011 at 2:34am@TEXASCOMMONSENSE
“Yes he is. I am proud he is from Texas.”
Excuse me, but I am proud he is an American….
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on May 8, 2011 at 1:37pmI claim victory. Nick was evidently unable to respond to the truth I showed him. I was happy to show him where to look for the truth. I hope, now that he has been educated somewhat, that it will take some of the edge off his hatred of God and God’s people. It is a result of his misunderstandings, but he is comfortable with that. That is because as he investigates, he will find how wrong he is. No one likes to admit when they are wrong, so Nick will probably never fully investigate the God he mistakenly hates. Nick is much more comfortable believing he is right. What a real shame.
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on May 8, 2011 at 1:44pmPubicpencil says “After all, the fact that he clearly has a different interpretation of Biblical law, etc., just shows you how unreliable theological argumentation is as the basis for civil law. For any given absolute truth you claim to have read within the Bible, I have no doubt that there is another person, just as knowledgeable as you who is just as convinced of the opposite interpretation.”
Therein he digs his own hole (once again). If only he would spend some of his time actually reading the book of which he is so critical (and wrong), he would not make such stupid statements. He constantly shoots the messenger, perhaps because he is truly afraid of what he will find.
Pencil, quit sparring with the troops, and go spar with the King. You will find, as all do, that he is not the hateful, spiteful, mean and unfair God of which you accuse him. Quit yelling at us and thinking badly of us (bigotry and bias) and go direcly to the source. We are tired of your foolishness and don’t have near the patience of God.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 8, 2011 at 11:37pmLol what a douchebag. I like how you wait until days later to post again. Maybe so it looks like you got the last word in? Wtf is the question I am “unable” to answer?
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on May 8, 2011 at 11:38pm” I hope, now that he has been educated somewhat, that it will take some of the edge off his hatred of God…”
How can you hate something you don’t believe in?
Report Post »