Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
David Barton, like all of us, is to be judged by the totality of his work. Anyone who makes up material that the Founders supposedly said to make their beliefs "consistent" is simply not to be trusted. I will not address this part of the discussion again.
David Barton, like all of us, is to be judged by the totality of his work. Anyone who makes up material that the Founders supposedly said to make their beliefs "consistent" is simply not to be trusted. I will not address this part of the discussion again other than this edit that Barton's mistakes are easily queried and presented in a very understandable manner.
There are too many articles, blogs, historical and academic sites to post stating without doubt that Barton is a quack, bogus historian as he has no training or background whatsoever in the field, and has admitted manufacturing quotes of Founders to "match their intent".
Many written by the Christian right themselves.
David Barton, like all of us, is to be judged by the totality of his work. Anyone who makes up material that the Founders supposedly said to make their beliefs "consistent" is simply not to be trusted. I will not address this part of the discussion again other than this edit that Barton's mistakes are easily queried and presented in a very understandable manner.
How about starting a Thread on him and bringing some evidence to the table. Most of what I posted on him was verified by other sources. I've not seen anything related to the topics here, that is fabricated.
He admitted to it. What more do you need? He calls them "questionable".
Then please show me where he admitted it.
You keep making these claims without supporting it with evidence. Even the American Revolution Blog is nothing but someone's opinion. And the references given to back up this opinion?
Critique of David Barton's "America's Godly Heritage"
David Barton, in his taped presentation called America's Godly Heritage, peddles the proposition that America is a "Christian Nation," legally and historically. He also asserts that the principle of church-state separation, while not in the Constitution, has systematically been used to rule religion out of the public arena, particularly the public school system. This is not a new argument, but Barton is especially slick in his presentation. His presentation has just enough ring of truth to make him credible to many people. It is, however, laced with exaggerations, half- truths, and misstatements of fact. His citation to supporting research is scant at best and at times non-existent.
This booklet contains a short critique of some of the major points that Mr. Barton raises.
The above seems to be a decent critique of Mr. Barton's assertions and it does at least quote sources. I have not reviewed the sources. However, that does not make the critique accurate or even nullify Mr. Barton's point of view.
What is a Christian? is a question that will bring up many, many different answers from people.
Today's liberals and anti-theists want to assert that there were no or very few Christians among the Founding Fathers. They assert time and time again that these men were "deists" in order to defend their point. Where do these people get off defining who is a Christian or not?
Did you by chance watch the video in your link that purports "This video is a perfect example of Barton's ridiculous "historical" claims:"? If so, what did you find to be untruthful in what he said and upon what do you base your beliefs?
Immie
I have at times not taken the time to fully consider a list of quotations and, while most were adequately sourced and verifiable, have almost certainly included one of the more 'questionable' ones in a posted list. The presence of one that is not verifiable, however, does not nullify all the rest. One particular quotation in question re Patrick Henry wasn't 'made up' by Barton but was in fact stated in a Virginia publication in an article including reference to Patrick Henry and was inadvertently picked up and used as a Henry quote thereafter. And while I know the quotation does not appear in any of his writings or transcribed speeches, I almost certainly have included it in 'lists of quotations'. I do try to catch it and remove it but don't always take the time.
It is possible that Barton also picked up the quotation in the same manner, and while he and I would characterize the quotation as spurious re it being a Patrick Henry quotation, that does not translate to either of us having 'made it up'.
Unless they have reason to deem it of significant importance, honorable people will shrug off such inadvertent error and continue to focus on the issue at hand. The anti-religion and/or anti-Christian crowd, however, do not seem to want to focus on the real issue and they divert and promote their agenda with their own spurious accusations.
It happens all the time.It is possible that Barton also picked up the quotation in the same manner, and while he and I would characterize the quotation as spurious re it being a Patrick Henry quotation, that does not translate to either of us having 'made it up'.
More on your boy David Barton:
Dude wants to regulate gay sex:
Top Evangelical David Barton: "Why Don't We Regulate Homosexuality?" - YouTube
More on your boy David Barton:
Dude wants to regulate gay sex:
Top Evangelical David Barton: "Why Don't We Regulate Homosexuality?" - YouTube
David Barton, like all of us, is to be judged by the totality of his work. Anyone who makes up material that the Founders supposedly said to make their beliefs "consistent" is simply not to be trusted. I will not address this part of the discussion again other than this edit that Barton's mistakes are easily queried and presented in a very understandable manner.
How about starting a Thread on him and bringing some evidence to the table. Most of what I posted on him was verified by other sources. I've not seen anything related to the topics here, that is fabricated.
I have given you evidence. You do not want any evidence. The evidence is all over the internet. The evidence is on the damn site he has.
You could care less about the facts. The facts do not fit your agenda and ideology.
Barton is a fraud of the highest order. You know damn well he is.
You ARE smart enough to have ALREADY found that out with your research yourself on Barton.
You are just too damn stubborn and proud to admit YOU ARE WRONG.
You know you are wrong. Shame on you. All this BS asking for evidence and the evidence is all over the internet and the man HIMSELF admitted to doing it.
Barton himself calls them ON HIS OWN DAMN SITE WALLBUILDERS YOU FOOL:
WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Unconfirmed Quotations
With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth
No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to
The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So what your saying is the SCOTUS set the precedent that now separates the church from the state and has ruled in agreement with its precedent many times since, further defining the separation of the two.
So who's lying to you?
The SCOTUS?
You folks want a preacher's "point of view" taught in the public schools as historical fact of what someone said when in fact, they never said that.
That is acceptable to you.Never to a historian or teacher.
I find it troubling that none of you have researched Barton's intent with these quotes. He used them with his lobbying for these to used in the public schools.
And you folks find nothing wrong with that. "happens all the time" is your excuse.
How hard would it have been for Barton TO USE ACTUAL AND TRUE QUOTES, instead of manufactured ones?
Must be very hard for you guys to debate the subject when your only evidence is someone that fabricates the evidence.
With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth
No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to
The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The word pistol doesn't appear in the 2nd amendment either.
More on your boy David Barton:
Dude wants to regulate gay sex:
Top Evangelical David Barton: "Why Don't We Regulate Homosexuality?" - YouTube
Thank you for putting in the effort.
I have to say, I don't like it when a show such as Ed's cuts off a person in mid sentence. It always leaves me wondering just what Ed didn't want us to hear.
I've tried to find the full version of Barton's statements but so far have been unsuccessful. For now, this is a black mark in my book on Barton, but seeing as how I can find a lot or ire over his words, but not a complete text of where he went after he was cut off, I have to hold full judgment for now. I did go look at wallbuilders.com. I did not find anything in reference to that interview but I saw titles of articles that I don't particularly find... well, let's just say Christlike, IMHO, when I searched for "homosexuality" on their site.
I am certain you can understand why I don't trust Ed or MSNBC to be honest to a fault.
Immie
There is a difference between case law created doctrine, specific clauses in the constitution and federal laws.
Freedom of religion is a clause right in the constitution. The separation of church and state doctrine is a case law created doctrine established in 1947 in the Everson case. Yes it is a well established doctrine and does look like it will change any time soon. But well established case law doctrines can and do change. For over a half century the case law doctrine of the Separate but Equal clause was undisputed and an established case law doctrine. Thankfully it was overruled. Who knows one day a case may overturn the Separation of Church and State doctrine, since it's not in the constitution case law can overturn it!
With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth
No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to
The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So what your saying is the SCOTUS set the precedent that now separates the church from the state and has ruled in agreement with its precedent many times since, further defining the separation of the two.
So who's lying to you?
The SCOTUS?
And that is why cases are brought challenging it. The word "arm" in the 2nd amendment is argued by liberals to only mean rifles and does not include pistol sized guns!
It same thing with separation of church and state doctrine!
With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth
No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to
The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The word pistol doesn't appear in the 2nd amendment either.
And that is why cases are brought challenging it. The word "arm" in the 2nd amendment is argued by liberals to only mean rifles and does not include pistol sized guns!
It same thing with separation of church and state doctrine!
With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth
No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to
The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The word pistol doesn't appear in the 2nd amendment either.
