Chris Rodda gives away her book on religious revisionist American history

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

He's taking back "time" from the scientists.

Yeah, I mean the stupid scientists can't even figure out the earth is 6000 years old...

Seriously though, this was briefly amusing to me, but then I started reading more and more of his bullsh*t again and thinking about how influential he is and now I am sad.

After reading more of his stuff, I am forced into one of two conclusions. Either he is a deliberate lying, leaking sack of monkey spunk or he's mentally ill.

To be sort of fair to Barton (I know, I didn't think I would ever say that either), Darwin didn't really come up with that theory. He just expounded on it and made it more mainstream.

But of course Barton is still batsh*t insane.

Paleocon wrote:

After reading more of his stuff, I am forced into one of two conclusions. Either he is a deliberate lying, leaking sack of monkey spunk or he's mentally ill.

In at least a sense, he may even be dangerously so.

Shockingly the Plato and Aristotle were geocentrists. Thus Galileo and Copernicus were full of sh*t. But if you had a time machine and took them to the 16th century, what then?

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

To be sort of fair to Barton (I know, I didn't think I would ever say that either), Darwin didn't really come up with that theory. He just expounded on it and made it more mainstream.

Of course.

But to suggest that the Founding Fathers had great debates on teaching evolution vs. creationism in the classroom is ludicrous.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

To be sort of fair to Barton (I know, I didn't think I would ever say that either), Darwin didn't really come up with that theory. He just expounded on it and made it more mainstream.

Of course.

But to suggest that the Founding Fathers had great debates on teaching evolution vs. creationism in the classroom is ludicrous.

I'd say that goes without saying, but because of Barton, we have to say it.

KingGorilla wrote:

Shockingly the Plato and Aristotle were geocentrists. Thus Galileo and Copernicus were full of sh*t. But if you had a time machine and took them to the 16th century, what then?

I'm actually David Barton, and I want you to know that Plato and Aristotle lived in the 16th century. Also, they rode around on saddled dinosaurs.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Shockingly the Plato and Aristotle were geocentrists. Thus Galileo and Copernicus were full of sh*t. But if you had a time machine and took them to the 16th century, what then?

I'm actually David Barton, and I want you to know ... saddled dinosaurs.

I want it to be true.

So at what point will we regress back to an earth centric solar system society?

Another point on the "liar" side of the scale.

wordsmythe wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

After reading more of his stuff, I am forced into one of two conclusions. Either he is a deliberate lying, leaking sack of monkey spunk or he's mentally ill.

In at least a sense, he may even be dangerously so.

So would the title of Rodda's book be less offensive if we called it "Lying, leaking sacks of monkey spunk for Jesus"?

Paleocon wrote:

So would the title of Rodda's book be less offensive if we called it "Lying, leaking sacks of monkey spunk for Jesus"?

I'm sure it would be if it were only about Barton, but there are other liars mentioned in it as well.

Another article on Barton. The reporter actually fact-checks his interview claims, and also checks with historians, one of whom is a Christian evangelical. Barton fails every claim.

So why are his books New York Times bestsellers? Apparently confirmation bias is a great way to make a living.

You know it seems to be that people are so beholden to their political perspectives that when one of their demigods has a gaff, they do all the retroactive mental wrangling required to make it fit their world view.

So when do we get to call Barton a liar? What does it take?

He is a liar... *crickets chirping*

I know this harkens back to another thread but calling him a liar seems moot since people won't care. The damage is done whether everything he posits is repealed or not. The people who are prone to believing it have already gotten their justification regardless of what comes after. And then there is the whole point of someone referencing it ten years from now because something written in the past automatically receives some measure of historical credibility.

Something like someone digging up a copy of Paul Bunyan as proof there are blue oxen.

Some further details:

Jay W. Richards, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and author with James Robison of Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It's Too Late, spoke alongside Barton at Christian conferences as recently as last month. Richards says in recent months he has grown increasingly troubled about Barton's writings, so he asked 10 conservative Christian professors to assess Barton's work.

Their response was negative.

A full-scale, newly published critique of Barton is coming from Professors Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter of Grove City College, a largely conservative Christian school in Pennsylvania. . . In a response posted on the WallBuilders website, Barton says that Throckmorton and Coulter's book typifies attacks by "academic elitists" who position themselves as the "sole caretakers of historical knowledge."
Richards emphasizes that he and the scholars he consulted about Barton are politically conservative evangelicals or Catholics. They largely agree with Barton's belief that Christian principles played a major role in America's founding, but Richards argues that Barton's books and videos are full of "embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims."

So yeah, he's pretty much a liar.

Barton has received support from Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and other political leaders.

An influential, potentially dangerous liar at that.

Jay W. Richards, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and author with James Robison of Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It's Too Late, spoke alongside Barton at Christian conferences as recently as last month. Richards says in recent months he has grown increasingly troubled about Barton's writings, so he asked 10 conservative Christian professors to assess Barton's work.

So Barton is too crazy even for the Discovery Institute.

PiP wrote:
Jay W. Richards, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and author with James Robison of Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It's Too Late, spoke alongside Barton at Christian conferences as recently as last month. Richards says in recent months he has grown increasingly troubled about Barton's writings, so he asked 10 conservative Christian professors to assess Barton's work.

So Barton is too crazy even for the Discovery Institute.

Yeah. If your lies are even too outrageous for the Discovery Institute, you're way beyond tin foil hat territory.

In a response posted on the WallBuilders website, Barton says that Throckmorton and Coulter's book typifies attacks by "academic elitists" who position themselves as the "sole caretakers of historical knowledge."

Barton got his degree from Oral Roberts University. A high school dropout is an academic elitist compared to him.

OG_slinger wrote:
In a response posted on the WallBuilders website, Barton says that Throckmorton and Coulter's book typifies attacks by "academic elitists" who position themselves as the "sole caretakers of historical knowledge."

Barton got his degree from Oral Roberts University. A high school dropout is an academic elitist compared to him.

In that case, it's far more worrisome and alarming that his material is being taken as anything other than very dry and dark satirical comedy by the general public.

His stuff is usually New York Times bestsellers, Larry. He's a thought leader on the Right. He's a linchpin in the axle of modern Christian political and social activism.

That's kind of the problem, I think. Someone that wrong on facts shouldn't be capable of being taken seriously. Analogously, a scientist who vociferously claims to adhere only to a geocentric solar system model would probably not advance very far in astrophysics. No one would be able to take him seriously.

Facts have never been that important to the religious right*.

*not a blanket statement about all religious people nor all conservatives.

That's kind of the problem, I think. Someone that wrong on facts shouldn't be capable of being taken seriously.

And yet, he is. This is the key to understanding Americans. Or at least, about 30% of them...

I've just started reading Gordon S. Wood's history of the early republic, and the one thing that's clear within the first few chapters is that you can't generalize anything about the founders as a group. The more I read, the less trust I have for anyone who says, "The founders wanted to make this a Christian nation" or 'the founders believed X.' The leaders of the early republic had substantial disagreements over policy and the direction of the country, just like we do now. It was a collection of individuals with different goals reaching consensus, not a monolithic group with a single plan for the country.

Exactly, Funken. The whole push and pull with the Federalists, the Whigs and others didn't even resolve for nearly 50 years. Heck, when I was kid, the message was "Wow, look at how different the Founders were, and yet they all worked together". Now it's "Historians are mistaken; the Founders were _____ and that's all there is to it", where _____ is a distinctly modern political theory that the Founders would not even recognize.

Robear wrote:

Exactly, Funken. The whole push and pull with the Federalists, the Whigs and others didn't even resolve for nearly 50 years. Heck, when I was kid, the message was "Wow, look at how different the Founders were, and yet they all worked together". Now it's "Historians are mistaken; the Founders were _____ and that's all there is to it", where _____ is a distinctly modern political theory that the Founders would not even recognize.

I like to imagine bringing the founders back so they could challenge the revisionists to duels and shoot them with 250 year old pistols.