Understanding the fake historian behind America’s religious right

[Followers4christ]

Except the OP isn't about the history of the Republican Party is it? I thought it was about one guy (and a couple of others mentioned by name) liking someone who's been shown to be wrong about American history consistently. So, while you can try and make this about something else I'll just keep pointing out that that doesn't actually address the OP.
tulc(just thought he'd point that out)

That's not very true is it? Since the story you used talks about Brownback only to cast doubt on Republicans as a whole.

From the site you used:

Many political figures, including Ted Cruz and Roy Moore, have embraced a form of Christian nationalism or Dominionism, based on the idea that the American government should run on Christian principles. Barton’s focus is giving this idea legitimacy.

He perpetuates a cycle: By creating a deeply unbalanced history of America’s foundations, he is able to legitimize the Christianized state he would like to promote. And as an (at least ostensible) historian, he’s able to partner with Republican lawmakers to cast a veneer of academic respectability over a thoroughly anti-academic message.

 

[tulc]

That's not very true is it? Since the story you used talks about Brownback only to cast doubt on Republicans as a whole.

From the site you used:

Many political figures, including Ted Cruz and Roy Moore, have embraced a form of Christian nationalism or Dominionism, based on the idea that the American government should run on Christian principles. Barton’s focus is giving this idea legitimacy.

He perpetuates a cycle: By creating a deeply unbalanced history of America’s foundations, he is able to legitimize the Christianized state he would like to promote. And as an (at least ostensible) historian, he’s able to partner with Republican lawmakers to cast a veneer of academic respectability over a thoroughly anti-academic message.

alright...you have a solid point there.
tulc(thinks right is right, even when it shows he was wrong)

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Understanding the fake historian behind America’s religious right

tulc(MAGA by pushing a fake "America history"?)

Since the debate is really over whether people of faith should be allowed to express their religious principles in their government of, by and for the people. Secularists say no, only they are allowed to express their "secular principles" in our government as per the 1st amendment. Why not just go to the primary source documents for a proper understanding of the 1st amendment. The original state constitutions?
Here is Massachusetts of 1780
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence, or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other, and of forming a new constitution of civil government for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain, and establish the following declaration of rights and frame of government as the constitution of the commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
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.
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 diffused 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.
And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subject an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.
Provided, notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right and electing their public teachers and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.
And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship and of public teachers aforesaid shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid toward the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.
And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
Art. XVIII. A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty and to maintain a free government. The people ought, consequently, to have a particular attention to all those principles, in the choice of their officers and representatives; and they have a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates an exact and constant observation of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of the commonwealth.
Art. II. The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; and unless he shall, at the same time, be seized, in his own right, of a freehold, within the commonwealth, of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.
Article I. There shall be annually elected a lieutenant-governor of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, whose title shall be "His Honor;" and who shall be qualified, in point of religion, property, and residence in the commonwealth, in the same manner with the governor....
CHAPTER V.--THE UNIVERSITY AT CAMBRIDGE, AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF LITERATURE, ETC.
Section 1.--The University
Article I. Whereas our wise and pious ancestors, so early as the year [1636], laid the foundation of Harvard College, in which university many persons of great prominence have, by the blessing of God, been initiated in those arts and sciences which qualified them for the public employments, both in church and State; and whereas the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and the other other United States of America....
Art. III. And whereas by an act of the general court of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, passed in the year [1642], the governor and deputy governor for the time being, and all the magistrates of that jurisdiction, were, with the President, and a number of the clergy, is the said act described, constituted the overseers of Harvard College; and it being necessary, in this new constitution of government, to ascertain who shall be deemed successors to the said governor, deputy governor, and magistrates, it is declared that the governor, lieutenant-governor, council, and senate of this commonwealth are, and shall be deemed, their successors; who, with the president of Harvard College, for the time being, together with the ministers of the congregational churches in he towns of Cambridge, Watertown, Charlestown, Boston, Roxbury and Dorchester, mentioned in the said act, shall be, and hereby are, vested with all the powers and authority belonging, or in any way appertaining, to the overseers of Harvard College: Provided, that nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the legislature of this commonwealth from making such alterations in the government of the said university as shall be conducive to its advantage, and the interest of the republic of letters, in as full a manner as might have been done by the legislature of the late province of the Massachusetts Bay.
CHAPTER V.
Section 2.--The Encouragement of Literature, etc.
Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools, and grammar-schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, and good humor, and all social affections and generous sentiments, among the people.
CHAPTER VI.
Oaths and Subscriptions; Incompatibility of and Exclusion from Offices; Pecuniary Qualifications; Commissions; Writs; Confirmation of Laws; Habeas Corpus; The Enacting Style; Continuance of Officers; Provision for a Future Revisal of the Constitution, etc.
Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councilor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."
And the governor, lieutenant-governor, and councilors shall make and subscribe the said declaration, in the presence of the two houses of assembly; and the senators and representatives, first elected under this constitution, before the president and five of the council of the former constitution; and forever afterwards, before the governor and council for the time being.
From: The Original State Constitutions

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Never heard of him.

This.

 

[tulc]

This.

Not a problem. he started a group called "wallbuilders" and has been an ardent President Trump supporter for years now. this is him:
David Barton (author) - Wikipedia


tulc(he's big among the dominion crowd)

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Not a problem. he started a group called "wallbuilders" and has been an ardent President Trump supporter for years now. this is him:
David Barton (author) - Wikipedia


tulc(he's big among the dominion crowd)

Here's a bite from the article linked above:

"In 2012, Barton's New York Times bestseller[65] The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (published April 10, 2012)[66] was voted "the least credible history book in print" by the users of the History News Networkwebsite.[29] A group of 10 conservative Christian professors reviewed the work and reported negatively on its claims, saying that Barton has misstated facts about Jefferson.[57][67]

In August 2012, Christian publisher Thomas Nelson withdrew the book from publication and stopped production, announcing that they had "lost confidence in the book's details" and "learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported."[68][69] Glenn Beck, who wrote the foreword, promptly announced that his Mercury Ink imprint would issue a new edition of the book[70] once the 17,000 remaining copies that Barton bought of the Thomas Nelson edition had been sold.[71]

A revised edition of The Jefferson Lies was published by Joseph Farah's World Net Daily Books in January 2016."

So thanks for the heads up, never know when bytes of info may prove useful.

 

[tulc]

Here's a bite from the article linked above:

"In 2012, Barton's New York Times bestseller[65] The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (published April 10, 2012)[66] was voted "the least credible history book in print" by the users of the History News Networkwebsite.[29] A group of 10 conservative Christian professors reviewed the work and reported negatively on its claims, saying that Barton has misstated facts about Jefferson.[57][67]

In August 2012, Christian publisher Thomas Nelson withdrew the book from publication and stopped production, announcing that they had "lost confidence in the book's details" and "learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported."[68][69] Glenn Beck, who wrote the foreword, promptly announced that his Mercury Ink imprint would issue a new edition of the book[70] once the 17,000 remaining copies that Barton bought of the Thomas Nelson edition had been sold.[71]

A revised edition of The Jefferson Lies was published by Joseph Farah's World Net Daily Books in January 2016."

So thanks for the heads up, never know when bytes of info may prove useful.

You're welcome, remember though, he's pretty much been shown to be wholly inadequate as a real historian and does tend to...grossly exaggerate certain things to try and bolster his pet theories.
tulc(is always happy when people quote Barton, he's pretty easy to be shown wrong)

 

[Simon_Templar]

Understanding the fake historian behind America’s religious right

tulc(MAGA by pushing a fake "America history"?)

The problem with stuff like this is that neither side is interested in truth.

As a general rule once something becomes a political issue, truth has gone out the window and has essentially become irrelevant to all involved in the political discussion. Both sides employ sophistry because they only care about winning, not what is actually true.

The religious right does frequently construct a skewed narrative. They often don't paint accurate pictures of the founders because they turn them into the Saints of the Church of America.

The secular post-modern left does exactly the same thing in reverse.

The reality is that most of the founders were Christians, but some of the famous ones (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin) were not orthodox, or probably not orthodox. Most of those who were not orthodox were Unitarian leaning. This was a common trend among some of t he congregational churches due to the influence of Enlightenment thought. Yet at the same time, they considered themselves to be Christians and they were not the disinterested deists that many modern secularists imagine. Almost all of them viewed secularism of the modern stripe as dangerous and detrimental to society.

At the same time, the nation as a whole was decidedly and undeniably Christian.

This kind of thing is actually easy to resolve. If you actually care, just go read what our ancestors wrote and get to know them for yourself instead of depending on someone else, with vested interests, to tell you what you should think about it.

 

[pat34lee]

The problem isn't "someone believes America was founded on Christian values" (it wasn't) the problem is they picked someone who thinks Dave Barton knows what he's talking about. which is what the OP was about.
tulc("America founded on Christian values"?)

Of course America was founded on Christian (biblical anyway)
values. What else did you think it was based on? Not Muslim.
Not pagan. Not Shinto or Buddhist. Definitely not atheist. Not
tribal African. Not Native American.

Three documents prove it:
Proof That America Was Founded As A Christian Nation – International Cops for Christ

"we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government."
~ John Adams

"In order to answer the question “Did America have a Christian Founding?” properly, we must first understand it. Let us begin by considering what, exactly, would constitute a Christian Founding?

One possibility is simply that the Founders identified themselves as Christians. Clearly, they did. In 1776, every European American, with the exception of about 2,500 Jews, identified himself or herself as a Christian. Moreover, approximately 98 percent of the colonists were Protestants, with the remaining 1.9 percent being Roman Catholics."
Did America Have a Christian Founding?

 

[tulc]

Can you post say 10 Scriptures that say "Life, liberty and the pursuit happiness" are rights all men have been given by God?
tulc(will wait while you find them)

 

[Simon_Templar]

Can you post say 10 Scriptures that say "Life, liberty and the pursuit happiness" are rights all men have been given by God?
tulc(will wait while you find them)

I'll get right on that, after you post a verse that says every Christian belief must be explicitly stated in the bible.

 

[tulc]

I'll get right on that, after you post a verse that says every Christian belief must be explicitly stated in the bible.

So...that would be a "No, I can't actually find 10 Scriptures that would support that belief so instead I'll try and re-frame the question so as to try and put you on the defensive instead." response? I suspect that means I'm right America wasn't founded on Christian values.
tulc(does appreciate when people confirm his beliefs)

 

[Simon_Templar]

So...that would be a "No, I can't actually find 10 Scriptures that would support that belief so instead I'll try and re-frame the question so as to try and put you on the defensive instead." response? I suspect that means I'm right America wasn't founded on Christian values.
tulc(does appreciate when people confirm his beliefs)

No, that was a "your request is dumb and irrelevant" and ignores the development of a Christian culture over 2000 years of history

 

[Simon_Templar]

So...that would be a "No, I can't actually find 10 Scriptures that would support that belief so instead I'll try and re-frame the question so as to try and put you on the defensive instead." response? I suspect that means I'm right America wasn't founded on Christian values.
tulc(does appreciate when people confirm his beliefs)

For the record, America clearly was founded on Christian values and only someone who knows nothing about history could doubt this. HOWEVER, the Christian culture of that time period was significantly influenced and I would say poisoned by the developments of the Enlightenment. As a result the kind of Christianity that America was founded upon is not pure biblical, historic Christianity. Rather it was a Christianity that was mixed with a bunch of other ideas. Some of those other ideas were compatible and some where not.

 

[tulc]

No, that was a "your request is dumb and irrelevant" and ignores the development of a Christian culture over 2000 years of history

...still no Scriptures huh? Didn't think there would be. That was a sweet little bluster in your post though.
tulc(would give it 7 out 10 on the bluster scale)

 

[tulc]

For the record, America clearly was founded on Christian values and only someone who knows nothing about history could doubt this.

Ones that people can't actually point at and say why they would be considered "Christian values" apparently.

HOWEVER, the Christian culture of that time period was significantly influenced and I would say poisoned by the developments of the Enlightenment. As a result the kind of Christianity that America was founded upon is not pure biblical, historic Christianity.

Wow...that sounds...suspiciously secular to me.

Rather it was a Christianity that was mixed with a bunch of other ideas. Some of those other ideas were compatible and some where not.

...ok...so..not so much actually "Christian" when someone uses the phrase "America was founded on Christian values"? More accurately it should be phrased "It was founded on a somewhat Christian culture but one also heavily influenced by Calvinist theology and secular culture draped with Christian phrasing to make it more palatable to the mass of people involved in the American revolution."?
tulc(is just wondering)

 

[Simon_Templar]

...still no Scriptures huh? Didn't think there would be. That was a sweet little bluster in your post though.
tulc(would give it 7 out 10 on the bluster scale)

lol what are you, 11? apparently you haven't figured out yet that trolling isn't a valid form of argument.

 

[tulc]

lol what are you, 11? apparently you haven't figured out yet that trolling isn't a valid form of argument.

still no Scriptures huh? How about 5 of them? since 10 seems to be so daunting, surely 5 of them can be found?
tulc(liked the 11 year old comment but thought the trolling one needed some work)

 

[Simon_Templar]

Ones that people can't actually point at and say why they would be considered "Christian values" apparently.

Wow...that sounds...suspiciously secular to me.


...ok...so..not so much actually "Christian" when someone uses the phrase "America was founded on Christian values"? More accurately it should be phrased "It was founded on a somewhat Christian culture but one also heavily influenced by Calvinist theology and secular culture draped with Christian phrasing to make it more palatable to the mass of people involved in the American revolution."?
tulc(is just wondering)

you seem to be laboring under the delusion that I give a crap about defending the "religious right's" mythic founding narrative. I don't.

What I care about is accuracy.

Just because I think many on the "religious right" are full of crap, doesn't mean I think the "secularist left" is any better. Their narrative is just as bad.

Neither side cares about the historical truth at all.

History is complex. It is never just one group doing one thing etc. When you talk about "Christian" values you have to take into account that there are at that time probably at least 5 or 6 different versions of Christianity in European culture.

All of those different versions were heirs of the 1700 years of Christian cultural development that came before. Then you throw into that mix, Catholic Christianity, Lutheran/Anglican Christianity, Calvinist/Reformed Christianity, Anabaptist Christianity Congregasionalist Christianity, Unitarians who still claimed to be Christians and still had a Christian culture but denied fundamental doctrines of Christianity etc. The Unitarians were generally those who were strongly influenced by enlightenment thought and they viewed themselves as bringing Christianity into line with the advancement of Reason.

Thomas Jefferson would fit into this camp. Yet strongly defended the fact that he was a Christian, and even argued that he was more Christian because he more accurately lived out the teachings of Christ and so called orthodox Christians. He got quite testy when minister's in his own time said he wasn't a Christian because of his unorthodox beliefs.

So yes, there were lots of influences that were not "Christian" but the culture as a whole was clearly and undeniably Christian in its outlook and values.

It was not unmixed, pure Christianity.

And yes, the sanctity of life and the dignity of the individual person, including liberty, are long standing christian values that long predate the Enlightenment. However, the enlightenment did significantly change some of those things and how they were understood.

 

[mindlight]

Understanding the fake historian behind America’s religious right

tulc(MAGA by pushing a fake "America history"?)

Does Brownback liking Barton mean that agrees with everything he says? The basic analysis of America as an historically Christian nation seems clear.

America is a Christian nation by headcount, by historical affiliation and by an assessment of the influence of its founding principles and ideas. That does not make it a perfect nation. Most of the founding fathers were Christians however unorthodox some of their views. Not sure opposition to the LGTB agenda is a mark against Brownback at all.

You may have mistaken views like the writer of the article on what a Christian theocracy is.

The real roots of America go back even further to the British and the 13 colonies. There the mixture of faith, greed and guns that has characterised America throughout its history were also quite obvious.

Maybe you could specify precisely what you think Brownback and Barton has wrong. His basic conception seems quite sound.