Chris Rodda gives away her book on religious revisionist American history

Pages

As much as I am loath to venture here into P&C, I feel that this is an important topic for all Americans who are interested in factual history and the promotion of factual history in education.

After Jon Stewart's interview of evangelical historian David Barton this week (uncensored Part 1 and Part 2 available online), author/blogger/activist Chris Rodda was furious that the pro-religious history fabricator was not taken down by Jon Stewart. "Nobody is going to be able to adequately prove to any audience that Barton's lies are lies in an interview like Jon Stewart did last night, and David Barton is never going to agree to debate anyone that he knows can defeat him," she wrote.

So she's giving away her 2006 book Liars for Jesus, in PDF, from her web site. (The book is also still available on Amazon, for those who want to support her research.)

Despite the provocative title, this is a remarkable book. It's full of research drawn from original sources like the minutes of the Continental Congress, records of court cases, and actual letters written by the founding fathers. It explodes some of the most popular myths and stories propagated by those seeking to inject religion into government, and points out where and how false statements are made up and used, even in sources as unimpeachable as the Library of Congress web site.

You can find out more about the book here: http://liarsforjesus.com/, or again, just download the PDF for yourself and check it out.

I found out about this from the Friendly Athiest web site, referred from http://skepchick.org -- two sites I highly recommend for feminists and skeptical thinkers.

I wish I didn't have to put this in P&C, but, well, religion & politics.

I'm fairly certain if you could produce a video of the founding fathers discussing the dangers of religion and politics and it wouldn't matter. You'd still have zealots on the religious right that would say "yeah but that's not what they meant".

Paging through it presently and am convinced it is one of those books I'll only be able to manage in small pieces. I leafed through Charles Pierce's book Idiot America and had to put it down before the resultant despair made me want to blow my brains out.

It's crap like this that makes me weep for America's future.

Don't know when I will have time for reading this, but it sounds fascinating. Thanks for getting your feet wet across here at the Dark Side, Ken.

Thanks for joining us, BadKen. There's coffee and donuts over here, but be aware that we will judge you based on which kind of donut you select and there are no do-overs.

BadKen wrote:

Despite the provocative title, this is a remarkable book.

And this, in a sentence, is why the book will never gain traction. When your thesis is, "everything you think you know is a manipulative lie," your selling point shouldn't be, "also your Lord and savior is supported by liars." That's not going to get people to pick up the book and read. It's going to get people to call Chris biased and totally shut her out, no matter how good a case she makes.

It's about as tough a sell as you can find. Bear's absolutely correct; there will be people who wouldn't change their mind if God Himself descended from the heavens and told them to knock it off. That's the nature of faith. It's also the nature of a lack of faith, as any atheist will tell you that an amorphous silhouette of light descending from the clouds is not necessarily God, even if it does possess some of the traits of God as proclaimed by fallible humans.

If we're going to get everyone on the same page I think we need to do it gently. That said, the book does look interesting and I may give it a look if only for some ammo.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Thanks for joining us, BadKen. There's coffee and donuts over here, but be aware that we will judge you based on which kind of donut you select and there are no do-overs.

BadKen wrote:

Despite the provocative title, this is a remarkable book.

(snip points about the result of such provocation)

If we're going to get everyone on the same page I think we need to do it gently. That said, the book does look interesting and I may give it a look if only for some ammo.

I usually agree with this sentiment (I'm a gigantic detractor of Michael Moore for this exact reason), but I think this is not a case where the title will just reduce the book to a "preaching to the choir" status. Having poked through this a little already, I've learned a few things that I would have never really known otherwise. While I'm already firmly in the general camp that this book represents, it appears to go into much more detail and information than I (and I'm willing to bet many others in my position) ever knew. In this case, I think it's perfectly rational to make your side of an argument more informed with a book like this, because honestly no matter what the book was titled, it would never gain traction with folks who disagree with it. Unless you named it something like "Read This Book Or The War Against Christmas Wins!" or something.

In the end, if we want to do this more gently, I think the book goes a long way towards letting people such as myself make more coherent and reasonable arguments in a more personal, small scale setting. That's how you change minds, I think.

I skimmed through the book real quickly and I can definitely agree that the author has gone into more detail and research than I would ever care to about this subject. It seems like a pretty interesting read.

I downloaded the book, and will purchase it after my next paycheck to support the author.

I'm confused by these comments. Is she attacking the nut-job revisionism, or is this a more generally anti-religious text?

wordsmythe wrote:

I'm confused by these comments. Is she attacking the nut-job revisionism, or is this a more generally anti-religious text?

From what I've read (only ~5 minutes skimming so take it with a grain of salt) it's more of a rebuttal to the nut-job religious revisionists. The Foreward in the book was written by a Christian pastor.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

I'm confused by these comments. Is she attacking the nut-job revisionism, or is this a more generally anti-religious text?

From what I've read (only ~5 minutes skimming so take it with a grain of salt) it's more of a rebuttal to the nut-job religious revisionists. The Foreward in the book was written by a Christian pastor.

This is my understanding too, and is why I'm interested in her book. David Barton and his ilk piss me off mightily, as do all revisionist "historians".

I'll look into this book as well, although, like Paleocon I'll have to read it a little at a time so the white-hot sun of my righteous rage doesn't cause too much collateral damage.

The extended and un-aired parts 1, 2 and 3 are also available.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

I would love to have been able to sit down and get some thoughts from Jon about the interview the day after.

Nomad wrote:

The extended and un-aired parts 1, 2 and 3 are also available.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

I would love to have been able to sit down and get some thoughts from Jon about the interview the day after.

Probably his usual I'm just a comedian defense (some iteration of it) if you mean "some thoughts" from the same perspective as Chris Rodda, who thinks the guy should have been "taken down". Or if you mean in general "I want to hear what Jon was thinking but didn't want to come across as an unprofessional attack interviewer", I agree, it'd be interesting.

I know the book got an energetic response from the folks on the other side of the argument.

Robear wrote:

I know the book got an energetic response from the folks on the other side of the argument.

You mean the people who know the facts, as opposed to the people who just made stuff up to support their ideology? In order for there to be an argument there must be a difference of opinion. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of historical record. I think the people who support government-sponsored religion are too used to arguing historical matters where the historical record is spotty. This isn't the Roman empire we're talking about here. We have a lot of physical evidence documenting what these guys actually wrote about what they were thinking.

Sorry if I'm overreacting, but you touched a nerve there--it's like news reports that feel they have to present both sides of the homeopathy "debate." There is no debate. There are facts and there are fabrications.

I have nothing against anyone following their own faith or beliefs. Where I have a problem is when they start making things up in order to force others to follow their beliefs.

I actually have this book on my desk; I bought it a few weeks ago based on a recommendation in another P&C thread but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

BadKen wrote:

Sorry if I'm overreacting, but you touched a nerve there--it's like news reports that feel they have to present both sides of the homeopathy "debate." There is no debate. There are facts and there are fabrications.

BadKen hunts down homeopathy practitioners with the few drops of their blood diluted in the entire ocean.

I'm not into guns. But I'll be glad for the 2nd Amendment if the Religious Right changes our Constitution.

Sorry if I'm overreacting, but you touched a nerve there--it's like news reports that feel they have to present both sides of the homeopathy "debate." There is no debate. There are facts and there are fabrications.

Yeesh. I phrased that carefully, so people would know that if they start googling her book, they'll find a lot of yelling, accusations and distortions.

If you believe I am on the side of the Christian Nation folks, you probably haven't read enough of this forum.

Yeah, that really wasn't aimed at you, just at the phrase "side of the argument."

I rage against all the lying liars that lie in the world and get away with it.

Yeah. I can be sad about the poor misguided folks who buy into this stuff. But it's easy to be filled with wrath at the people who knowingly manipulate the truth and feed it to them.

Chris Rodda might get a little more air-time if she was a little less antagonistic and accusatory in her communication. Even if what one is saying is true, if it is said belligerently most likely not many will want to listen.

Nomad wrote:

Chris Rodda might get a little more air-time if she was a little less antagonistic and accusatory in her communication. Even if what one is saying is true, if it is said belligerently most likely not many will want to listen.

While I also typically prickle at people who deliver like she does, those in her company -- Beck, Dawkins, Hagee, O'Reilly, Robertson, Bachmann, Olbermann, etc, enjoy a healthy following. If you are of the idea that fire needs to be fought with fire, she is doing exactly what she needs to.

Nomad wrote:

Chris Rodda might get a little more air-time if she was a little less antagonistic and accusatory in her communication. Even if what one is saying is true, if it is said belligerently most likely not many will want to listen.

There's far too much of this in public discourse. Note, especially, that nobody's ever seeing themselves as attacking, so much as "taking a stand" and "fighting back" against perceived aggression.

I heard a vignette this morning aout when Mayor Daley (II) first took office. He was meeting people and shaking hands. He came up to one man who was a political opponent, and the other huy refused to extend his hand. Daley was truly hurt. Later, he turned to a friend and said that, at least in the culture he's from, no matter how much you disagree with someone's politics, you still shake their hand.

Chris Rodda might get a little more air-time if she was a little less antagonistic and accusatory in her communication. Even if what one is saying is true, if it is said belligerently most likely not many will want to listen.

Well, the Christian Nation folks could use that advice too. Jerry Falwell called people who disagreed with the idea "bigots", and he was one of the more temperate commentators on the subject.

Nomad wrote:

Chris Rodda might get a little more air-time if she was a little less antagonistic and accusatory in her communication. Even if what one is saying is true, if it is said belligerently most likely not many will want to listen.

True for everyone. Like the others have said too, there's too much belligerence and nastiness in a lot of public discourse.

LobsterMobster wrote:

If we're going to get everyone on the same page I think we need to do it gently. That said, the book does look interesting and I may give it a look if only for some ammo.

Who said we'd ever be able to get everyone on the same page? There's what, some 30,000+ denominations of Christianity out there. Christians aren't even on the same page with each other.

wordsmythe wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Chris Rodda might get a little more air-time if she was a little less antagonistic and accusatory in her communication. Even if what one is saying is true, if it is said belligerently most likely not many will want to listen.

There's far too much of this in public discourse. Note, especially, that nobody's ever seeing themselves as attacking, so much as "taking a stand" and "fighting back" against perceived aggression.

Nomad, there's a huge chunk of the population that won't listen to her at all because what she's saying goes against their personal beliefs. Not to necessarily pick on you, but you still believe the world is only 6,000 years old even those there's a tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary that's written in the entirely dispassionate and clinical voice of scientific articles. Therefore it's not the tone of the message, it's the message itself.

When you couple those deep personal beliefs with a knowledge of history that is hazy at best, you get people claiming things like America is a Christian country because we have "In God We Trust" on our money.

And for wordsmythe, I'm not sure we can collectively get past this issue with simple public discourse anymore. For more than 30 years the Religious Right has been indoctrinating people that there's a war against Christianity being waged. You really can't talk to people who feel that their beliefs have been under constant siege for an entire generation. They now have a bunker mentality and everyone outside their bunker is considered the enemy. Of course while they paint themselves as the powerless besieged, they are they are actually an incredibly powerful and influential political power that is aggressively (and, sadly, successfully) legislating their belief system.

+1, OG.. +1..

OG_slinger wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

If we're going to get everyone on the same page I think we need to do it gently. That said, the book does look interesting and I may give it a look if only for some ammo.

Who said we'd ever be able to get everyone on the same page? There's what, some 30,000+ denominations of Christianity out there. Christians aren't even on the same page with each other.

wordsmythe wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Chris Rodda might get a little more air-time if she was a little less antagonistic and accusatory in her communication. Even if what one is saying is true, if it is said belligerently most likely not many will want to listen.

There's far too much of this in public discourse. Note, especially, that nobody's ever seeing themselves as attacking, so much as "taking a stand" and "fighting back" against perceived aggression.

Nomad, there's a huge chunk of the population that won't listen to her at all because what she's saying goes against their personal beliefs. Not to necessarily pick on you, but you still believe the world is only 6,000 years old even those there's a tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary that's written in the entirely dispassionate and clinical voice of scientific articles. Therefore it's not the tone of the message, it's the message itself.

When you couple those deep personal beliefs with a knowledge of history that is hazy at best, you get people claiming things like America is a Christian country because we have "In God We Trust" on our money.

And for wordsmythe, I'm not sure we can collectively get past this issue with simple public discourse anymore. For more than 30 years the Religious Right has been indoctrinating people that there's a war against Christianity being waged. You really can't talk to people who feel that their beliefs have been under constant siege for an entire generation. They now have a bunker mentality and everyone outside their bunker is considered the enemy. Of course while they paint themselves as the powerless besieged, they are they are actually an incredibly powerful and influential political power that is aggressively (and, sadly, successfully) legislating their belief system.

Help me understand your points. Can I sum them up like this?

1. Nomad, you don't agree with her message so her tone and communication style are irrelevant.

If this is what you are saying I completely disagree. If someone is well spoken and polite I am much more inclined to discussion and listening to what they have to say. Point in case, I can look to the bookshelf on my left and see the book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry A Coyne, which I have read, not because I agreed with the concept or premise, but because of polite and rational discussion (most of the time ) on these forums.

2. Wordsmythe, polite, gracious and respectful discourse is useless. The positions and actions of the people I don't agree with force me to bypass simple public discourse and resort to the disrespectful and belligerent things illustrated in your(Wordsmythe's) post.

Again I totally disagree. How does a person acting like a jerk ever help to bring understanding and resolution to a situation?

I feel like I stepped onto the set of The Insider. We are talking about a person with truth on their side, being a bully to bald faced liars. I have trouble feeling sympathy for liars when harsh truth slams them in the face.

Pages