Chris Rodda gives away her book on religious revisionist American history

Seriously? Have you ever read any of the crap coming from the Christian Revisionist "historians"? Being diplomatic to their brand of "scholarship" is like demanding that the fire brigade be nicer to the fire.

Historical scholarship isn't done that way. If someone is nucking futs like these revisionists are, historians vigorously refute it with facts. That's what historians do. If a revisionist historian claimed that Joan of Arc escaped execution and founded the nation of Israel, historians would eviscerate the "scholarship" with far greater tenacity than Rodda has this crap. Anyone who thinks any differently has obviously never witnessed a dissertation defense.

BadKen wrote:
Mytch wrote:

My regard for a person is tied pretty closely to how respectful they can be of people with differing views, how willing they are to try to understand where the other person is coming from before they start throwing rocks.

I agree, when it concerns matters of opinion or faith. When it concerns matters of facts and data, I have no respect for anyone who subverts the truth, nor anyone tries to spread lies, especially if they're doing it for their own gain (and why else would they, I suppose).

It may be, then, that the real thing we differ on is how we treat those who oppose us. My admittedly unusual policy is to try to treat everyone respectfully, no matter what they've done or are doing.

Gotta go, class is starting.

My problem with the book's title and the way it presents itself initially is that it doesn't pass the WWACD test. "What Would Anne Coulter Do?"

Anne Coulter would absolutely title a book in this manner and has done so in the past. Yes, the difference is that the content of Rodda's book is presented far better and is based in actual research. But the initial "sniff test" still stinks.

Oso wrote:

What I'd like to see is a discussion of who has a duty and a responsibility to separate the fringe lunatics from the mainstream church. Should people like Rodda and Taibbi take more care to include the local Catholic and Mainstream Protestant beliefs and contrast those with the snake-handlers & speakers-in-tongues that are their targets? Or do normal, mainstream, ethical Christian individuals and their leaders have a responsibility to separate their beliefs from the anti-intellectual, mysogynist, and homophobic rantings of the fringe Christian cultists?

I think it's a bit of everyone's responsibility. Like, for example, you should probably not lump the fringe of the charismatic movement (the snake-handlers and speakers-in-tongues) with the political fundamentalists. The first group weirds me out (but may still be pretty progressive in a number of other ways), the latter actually makes me fear.

Rezzy wrote:

And I use the term "Liar" in the factual sense, not in the derogatory.

There's been plenty of talk about this, and I think the book does a good job (beyond the title) of coming across on the rhetorical high ground, but I have a problem with Rezzy's statement. There's a difference between someone who speaks something untrue and a liar, though the difference may be subtle. Saying that someone's claims aren't true is one thing, but calling that person a liar implies malicious intent. I, for one, and perfectly willing to believe that many of these fundie nationalists are less malicious so much as they are ignorant or misinformed. Some of that misunderstanding may be willful, but I don't doubt that it's also partly due to things like confirmation bias.

And, honestly, I think that the combative tradition of strong theses plays a part in this. Many people have come to believe that a proper argument takes a strong stance and selectively incorporates and presents details favorably while leaving it to the opponent to bring up objections via arguments and evidence that disagrees. On one hand, that method doesn't shackle speakers to impossible ideals of impartiality. On the other hand, it may be hurting America.

Mytch wrote:
BadKen wrote:
Mytch wrote:

My regard for a person is tied pretty closely to how respectful they can be of people with differing views, how willing they are to try to understand where the other person is coming from before they start throwing rocks.

I agree, when it concerns matters of opinion or faith. When it concerns matters of facts and data, I have no respect for anyone who subverts the truth, nor anyone tries to spread lies, especially if they're doing it for their own gain (and why else would they, I suppose).

It may be, then, that the real thing we differ on is how we treat those who oppose us. My admittedly unusual policy is to try to treat everyone respectfully, no matter what they've done or are doing.

I believe that's the case. I mean, have you seen how Paleo responds to parking scofflaws?

Anne Coulter would absolutely title a book in this manner and has done so in the past. Yes, the difference is that the content of Rodda's book is presented far better and is based in actual research. But the initial "sniff test" still stinks.

Is it then wrong, or impolite, to label people who lie for a cause as "liars for the cause"? How much respect do we have to show to people who lie to us?

Additionally, it's hard to argue that someone is ignorant of the lie when they write a book using the lie to support a thesis. When someone selectively edits primary sources and uses those to support a conclusion, that person no longer has the excuse that they "didn't look far enough into it" or the like and somehow missed the actual point.

At some point, we have to point out this sort of thing in bald terms, or we'll lose the confrontation before it starts. It's possible to be *too* conciliatory. Respect requires and is predicated upon honesty between people. When someone lies to you, they are also telling you they don't respect you. Surely it's not wrong to point that out.

wordsmythe wrote:

I, for one, and perfectly willing to believe that many of these fundie nationalists are less malicious so much as they are ignorant or misinformed.

But the title of the book isn't "Fundies Lie" or even "Christians Lie." The title addresses the examples in the book: People that demonstrably lied, presumably to further the Christian cause in American politics.

wordsmythe wrote:

... but I have a problem with Rezzy's statement. There's a difference between someone who speaks something untrue and a liar, though the difference may be subtle. Saying that someone's claims aren't true is one thing, but calling that person a liar implies malicious intent.

But these people lied and in many of the cases I've seen so far did so consciously. Either that or they were lying about the sources they used for their research. A catch-22.
The 'malicious lie' test doesn't really apply since furthering the cause of Jesus obviously can't be malicious. Anything that furthers the glory of Christ in this world is good and acceptable. Anything.... unless you don't believe that this is the case. Which is why the title is Liars for Jesus and not just Liars. Their special context is taken into account but their methods aren't excused.

Robear wrote:

At some point, we have to point out this sort of thing

I think the "this sort of thing" we should focus on is the untrue or mischaracterized statements, not the "lying liars."

wordsmythe wrote:
Robear wrote:

At some point, we have to point out this sort of thing

I think the "this sort of thing" we should focus on is the untrue or mischaracterized statements, not the "lying liars."

Sorry, but when the "lying liars" can spread their lies in television interviews and newspapers they become legitimate targets. At a certain point they have to take responsibility for what they actually say and not pull a Jon "not intended to be a factual statement" Kly. What they are doing is lying. Period.

Yeah... when you have someone with as big of a bullhorn as the Glenn Beck show, it's important to get people to realize that not only are they repeating falsehoods, but that they wrote those falsehoods in the first place, repeat those falsehoods at every speaking engagement and from the pulpits of churches, have made websites to promote those falsehoods, and are going on a popular national cable show so that even more people will hear those falsehoods.

At some point it has to become about the person, because it's not just what they are saying is wrong, but what they are doing is wrong.

BadKen wrote:

Yeah... when you have someone with as big of a bullhorn as the Glenn Beck show, it's important to get people to realize that not only are they repeating falsehoods, but that they wrote those falsehoods in the first place, repeat those falsehoods at every speaking engagement and from the pulpits of churches, have made websites to promote those falsehoods, and are going on a popular national cable show so that even more people will hear those falsehoods.

At some point it has to become about the person, because it's not just what they are saying is wrong, but what they are doing is wrong.

But they can be absolutely and completely wrong while still entirely believing their own falsehoods.

wordsmythe wrote:
BadKen wrote:

Yeah... when you have someone with as big of a bullhorn as the Glenn Beck show, it's important to get people to realize that not only are they repeating falsehoods, but that they wrote those falsehoods in the first place, repeat those falsehoods at every speaking engagement and from the pulpits of churches, have made websites to promote those falsehoods, and are going on a popular national cable show so that even more people will hear those falsehoods.

At some point it has to become about the person, because it's not just what they are saying is wrong, but what they are doing is wrong.

But they can be absolutely and completely wrong while still entirely believing their own falsehoods.

Interesting and relevant to this discussion:
Chris Mooney - Accommodationism and the Psychology of Belief

I think I tend to come down on the more pro-confrontation side of the argument, but it's an interesting back and forth regarding the value of confrontation when science and faith collide.

I'm so used to being able to 2x time podcasts that I find regular speed intolerably slow now. Still, I'm doing my best to listen.

Robear wrote:

At some point, we have to point out this sort of thing

I think the "this sort of thing" we should focus on is the untrue or mischaracterized statements, not the "lying liars."

Okay, so are you upset with the use of the term "Liars"? Fars' "sniff test" seemed to focus on that. Now you've shifted to the arguments themselves, but my response was that we should not fear to label liars as liars. At some point, the line must be drawn, or we'll be giving them respect and arguing against respecting them, while they have no such handicap and will vilify us regardless of our stance.

I'm not in the business of judging motive. I focus on words and argumentation. The claims made by fundie nationalists are often untrue or lacking a proper context. That ought to be addressed, and I believe this book does a good job of that. However, moving from there to talking about "lies" makes it an ad hominem attack, and I'm uncomfortable with that.

Robear wrote:
Robear wrote:

At some point, we have to point out this sort of thing

I think the "this sort of thing" we should focus on is the untrue or mischaracterized statements, not the "lying liars."

Okay, so are you upset with the use of the term "Liars"? Fars' "sniff test" seemed to focus on that. Now you've shifted to the arguments themselves, but my response was that we should not fear to label liars as liars. At some point, the line must be drawn, or we'll be giving them respect and arguing against respecting them, while they have no such handicap and will vilify us regardless of our stance.

If the title of your Christian-authored book is, let's say, "Sociopaths for Mohammed", the Muslims you're trying to reach (those who are ripe for indoctrination by extremist group, or whom have already been indoctrinated and you're trying to convince them to be reasonable) are going to see that title and not be willing to give it any credence past that. Doesn't matter just how fantastic the book itself is. The title is inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory, even if it's technically accurate (it's about people indoctrinated to behave in a sociopathic manner to promote religious extremism, after all!).

Likewise, my point is that by using a Coulter-esque title, the only people Rodda is going to reach is people that pretty much already agree with her. Sure, it may be technically accurate (she's only referring to those who craft and promote lies to forward their religious views), but it's needlessly inflammatory and going to repel the moderate Christians that she needs to get working against the liars.

It's pretty well-known that reasoned arguments will not reach most people who are convinced of their beliefs, because they usually don't have the beliefs because of reasoned arguments in the first place. But anyway, I'm puzzled at the resistance to calling a lie a lie. The title is demonstrably true, and does not explicitly call out anyone. How is it ad hominem when it's true?

Robear wrote:

It's pretty well-known that reasoned arguments will not reach most people who are convinced of their beliefs, because they usually don't have the beliefs because of reasoned arguments in the first place. But anyway, I'm puzzled at the resistance to calling a lie a lie. The title is demonstrably true, and does not explicitly call out anyone. How is it ad hominem when it's true?

It's not demonstrably true that there is intentional deception. What is demonstrably true is that there are untrue things being communicated.

wordsmythe wrote:
Robear wrote:

It's pretty well-known that reasoned arguments will not reach most people who are convinced of their beliefs, because they usually don't have the beliefs because of reasoned arguments in the first place. But anyway, I'm puzzled at the resistance to calling a lie a lie. The title is demonstrably true, and does not explicitly call out anyone. How is it ad hominem when it's true?

It's not demonstrably true that there is intentional deception. What is demonstrably true is that there are untrue things being communicated.

David Barton cherry picks from his sources, and in some cases actually changes the wording in order to completely change the apparent meaning of what is being said in those sources. He has been called out on this, but has no explanation for it (and, if his interview on The Daily Show was any indication, actually tries to deny having done so). Doesn't that go pretty far in demonstrating his intent to deceive?

absurddoctor wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Robear wrote:

It's pretty well-known that reasoned arguments will not reach most people who are convinced of their beliefs, because they usually don't have the beliefs because of reasoned arguments in the first place. But anyway, I'm puzzled at the resistance to calling a lie a lie. The title is demonstrably true, and does not explicitly call out anyone. How is it ad hominem when it's true?

It's not demonstrably true that there is intentional deception. What is demonstrably true is that there are untrue things being communicated.

David Barton cherry picks from his sources, and in some cases actually changes the wording in order to completely change the apparent meaning of what is being said in those sources. He has been called out on this, but has no explanation for it (and, if his interview on The Daily Show was any indication, actually tries to deny having done so). Doesn't that go pretty far in demonstrating his intent to deceive?

I'm no Barton fan, but the whole "cherry picking" deal is a red herring. Is there any other way that anyone debates a subject other than pulling sources that support their view? Even in the Daily Show interview, Jon had picked certain points and sources (on his blue note-cards) that he thought were going to be strong ones to disprove Barton's views. For the most part Barton had the ENTIRE source posted and available online, but many of his points were reduced (or cherry picked )to bullets in a press release.

Nomad wrote:

I'm no Barton fan, but the whole "cherry picking" deal is a red herring. Is there any other way that anyone debates a subject other than pulling sources that support their view?

Except that History isn't a debate. If the only way he can support his version of the past is to purposely ignore every piece of conflicting evidence then he isn't presenting a real History. He is presenting a Fantasy purposefully constructed to support the belief he wants to win out. As a lawyer that means he is winning. As a historian that means he is failing.

Messiah College historian John Fea wrote:

Barton "lets the Founders speak for themselves in accordance with the legal rules of evidence." The difference between how a lawyer uses the past and how the historian interprets the past is huge. The lawyer cares about the past only to the degree that he or she can use a legal decision in the past to win a case in the present. A lawyer does not reconstruct the past in all its complexity, but rather cherry-picks from the past in order to obtain a positive result for his or her client. Context, change over time, causality, contingency, and complexity are not as important as letting the "Founders speak for themselves," even if such speaking violates every rule of historical inquiry. The historian, however, does not encounter the past in this way.

Is there any other way that anyone debates a subject other than pulling sources that support their view?

Yes, most definitely yes. And that is to take into account all the available evidence, with context, and considering what we know of intent and circumstances and the like. The term "pulling sources that support their own view" implies *not* presenting information that could speak against that view; that is, presenting an *incomplete* picture in an attempt to sway. One should present as complete a picture as possible, warts and all, to avoid deception (or worse, demonstrating ignorance.)

Rodda works hard to add context and information to discussions, and while it makes the discussions more complicated and perhaps open to some debate, that's a more honest practice than the folks she's criticizing have used. And that's an important distinction.

I find the idea that everyone who debates a subject will disregard contrary evidence when presenting their conclusions to be very disturbing (although I see it a lot). If a point is not strong, or is easily refuted, then it should not be used, or the refutation should be pointed out and countered somehow. But taking just some small part of a larger discussion that does not reflect the whole accurately is a very deceptive technique, and it is not used by people who are arguing in good faith.

This is in fact one reason that Barton is not to be trusted; he presents himself as an expert in history, but he's not trained in the field, and he does indeed cherry-pick and deceive in support of his desired conclusions. This can be verified by looking at what mainstream historians say on the topics, as well as looking at original sources, and comparing it to the subset of sources and quotes that poeple like Barton use, and Rodda does this kind of thing in her book.

There's a difference between amateur scholarship conducted according the usual rules of investigation, and pseudo-scholarship designed to assemble and present only those sources which support one's conclusions. In the first, the investigator weighs the available evidence and draws the conclusions from that; in the latter, the conclusion precedes the evidence, and only that which fits it is selected for presentation. Both use original sources and claim that they are based on research, but the latter is deception. Amateurs can be good sources of information, but only when they make good faith efforts to encompass more than just the information that supports their initial view, and are willing to accept the conclusion to which the data leads them.

Nomad wrote:
absurddoctor wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

It's not demonstrably true that there is intentional deception. What is demonstrably true is that there are untrue things being communicated.

David Barton cherry picks from his sources, and in some cases actually changes the wording in order to completely change the apparent meaning of what is being said in those sources. He has been called out on this, but has no explanation for it (and, if his interview on The Daily Show was any indication, actually tries to deny having done so). Doesn't that go pretty far in demonstrating his intent to deceive?

I'm no Barton fan, but the whole "cherry picking" deal is a red herring. Is there any other way that anyone debates a subject other than pulling sources that support their view? Even in the Daily Show interview, Jon had picked certain points and sources (on his blue note-cards) that he thought were going to be strong ones to disprove Barton's views. For the most part Barton had the ENTIRE source posted and available online, but many of his points were reduced (or cherry picked )to bullets in a press release.

EDIT: Robear said what I wanted to much better above

When a person decides they want to spread a particular message, then yes, using information that supports your message and ignoring anything that doesn't is par for the course. The problem here is that Barton is all about spreading his message, but has fooled many into believing he is actually doing the work of an historian.

Though, what I meant by "cherry-picking" in this case was the act of taking phrases out of documents so far out of context that he manages to claim that the author meant the complete opposite of what the meaning obviously is if you read the entire context. He does like to go on about his many footnotes and original sources, but relies heavily on his audience not actually being willing to read the sources for themselves.

wordsmythe wrote:

It's not demonstrably true that there is intentional deception. What is demonstrably true is that there are untrue things being communicated.

It *is* demonstrably true that there is intentional deception. That is one of the points of this book, and the reason it is called "Liars for Jesus" and not "Lies for Jesus". Rodda shows how the historical texts are butchered to support a completely different viewpoint than that expressed by them in the first place. There are several cases in the book of evangelical historians using elided quotes to completely reverse the meaning of a sentence. If that isn't done to intentionally decieve, what purpose does it serve?

Here's one example, and it's one that Barton hammers on repeatedly in speeches and on television:

He says that the Continental Congress said of the Aitken bible "they recommend this edition of the Bible" as a "a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools." The only problem is that the Continental Congress never wrote the second quote. Aitken wrote it in a letter to congress. Aitken also wanted his bible to be "published under the authority of Congress" and that he himself "be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of the Sacred Scriptures." and that Congress should buy some of his bibles and distribute them to the states. Congress didn't do any of those things.

Barton consistently puts these quotes together, one part taken out of context from a resolution of the continental congress and one part taken from a letter from the printer of the Bible who wanted it to be an official Congressionally sanctioned bible. Barton uses the combined quote to make the point that the Continental Congress wanted bibles in schools.

Intentional deception.

Though, what I meant by "cherry-picking" in this case was the act of taking phrases out of documents so far out of context that he manages to claim that the author meant the complete opposite of what the meaning obviously is if you read the entire context. He does like to go on about his many footnotes and original sources, but relies heavily on his audience not actually being willing to read the sources for themselves.

Can you show me some of these?

Here's an example for you, already neatly prepared. Barton states that the *only* purpose of the religion clause in the First Amendment is to prevent the establishment of a national church. In reality, it's also intended to allow freedom of religion. In consequence, the government cannot allow itself to be influenced by religion, and it cannot influence religion. Barton asserts also that Jefferson's wall of separation is a one-way wall, that it is not intended to prevent religion to influence government. (Of course, since he's a Dominionist and wants to see Biblical Law as the basis of American laws.) He offers as support a famous quote from Thomas Jefferson that does not actually contain the assertion he claims. So this is an example of Barton using evidence selectively to make a point that is not supported by the evidence he cites.

This is Barton's position in more detail, if you wish to research it more thoroughly. As noted before, it's plausible in it's use of original sources and footnotes, but it's deceptive in that it's overall conclusion (that the religion clause was not intended to build a wall of separation and indeed meant the opposite of the way we take it now) is actually incorrect.

Robear wrote:

Here's an example for you, already neatly prepared. Barton states that the *only* purpose of the religion clause in the First Amendment is to prevent the establishment of a national church. In reality, it's also intended to allow freedom of religion. In consequence, the government cannot allow itself to be influenced by religion, and it cannot influence religion. Barton asserts also that Jefferson's wall of separation is a one-way wall, that it is not intended to prevent religion to influence government. (Of course, since he's a Dominionist and wants to see Biblical Law as the basis of American laws.) He offers as support a famous quote from Thomas Jefferson that does not actually contain the assertion he claims. So this is an example of Barton using evidence selectively to make a point that is not supported by the evidence he cites.

This is Barton's position in more detail, if you wish to research it more thoroughly. As noted before, it's plausible in it's use of original sources and footnotes, but it's deceptive in that it's overall conclusion (that the religion clause was not intended to build a wall of separation and indeed meant the opposite of the way we take it now) is actually incorrect.

Wasn't this one of the very examples Barton used of people misquoting him in his extended discussion with Jon Stewart that I linked earlier in the thread?

Can you explain how this is a misquote?

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. [8]

That's taken directly from one of Barton's essays, and it's incorrect. There is no such assertion in the quote he gives. It refers only to one half of the religion clause, but not the other. It's a strange example that does not actually support the assertion claimed.

Here's another. He claims in the first video Nomad posted, about a minute in, that the only use of the Jefferson letter about the wall of separation before 1947 was to keep religion *in* the public sphere. However, in 1878, the US Supreme Court used that logic to prevent the use of religious belief as a defense against prosecution for violation of the law. In that case, a Mormon bigamist argued that he could not be prosecuted because his religious beliefs caused him to commit actions which broke the law - keeping multiple wives. The court cited Jefferson's distinction between beliefs and actions, thus *removing* a claimed area of exemption for religion under the law.

He actually stated (1:30) that prior to 1947, the interpretation was that the government "could not stop the exercise of religion". Clearly, for Mormons, multiple marriages are an *exercise* of religion. So he's using that to blur the distinction between belief and action that Jefferson had described, in addition to making the inaccurate claim. Then he argues that in 1947, everything changed. He then makes the statement that what we had for 150 years was different from what we have had for the last 50 years - a huge assertion, and an incorrect one.

Then he starts on about "In God We Trust" on currency, pointing out that Lincoln started that in 1863 on coins, and he then says "We didn't have currency-" before shifting off that error. We started issuing those in 1862, and they didn't have "In God We Trust" on them. So it's hard to argue that we put that phrase on money because we're a Christian country. Note also that that phrase was not on all coins, and it was not *required* on all coins until 1938. It actually had to be permitted by a court case in 1873, which did not require it. So this point loses the implication Barton makes, that we had that slogan on all coins because we are (or were) a Christian nation, and now we've left that behind.

This is the kind of slight shading that he uses over and over again to turn small changes into large ones through accumulation. It's deceptive. And it's a pain in the butt checking all his statements, too.

Nomad wrote:
Though, what I meant by "cherry-picking" in this case was the act of taking phrases out of documents so far out of context that he manages to claim that the author meant the complete opposite of what the meaning obviously is if you read the entire context. He does like to go on about his many footnotes and original sources, but relies heavily on his audience not actually being willing to read the sources for themselves.

Can you show me some of these?

This came up on the daily show interview as well, but Barton was quite talented at shutting Stewart down without really saying anything.

He likes to quote from a John Adams letter:

John Adams wrote:

"The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered, but by the Holy Ghost, who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the bishop upon the heads of candidates for the ministry. [...] There is no authority, civil or religious; there can be no legitimate government, but what is administered by the Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it; all without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words, damnation."

... but he ignores the words that come directly after this

John Adams wrote:

Although this is all artifice and cunning in the secret original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lie down their lives under the ax or the fiery fagots for it. Alas, the poor weak ignorant dupe human nature. There is so much king craft, priest craft, gentlemen’s craft, people’s craft, doctors craft, lawyers craft, merchants craft, tradesmen’s craft, laborers craft and Devil’s craft in the world that it seems a desperate and impractical project to undeceive it.

Adams is quite clearly mocking those who believe what he said above ... and Barton continues to try to play it off as the exact opposite.