Chris Rodda gives away her book on religious revisionist American history

absurddoctor wrote:
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.

Isn't that exactly what Barton says in the interview? He says Adams is being sarcastic. Didn't he in fact post the letter in it's entirety online?

Robear, I agree with you about your "slight shading" point.

Nomad wrote:

Isn't that exactly what Barton says in the interview? He says Adams is being sarcastic. Didn't he in fact post the letter in it's entirety online?

Robear, I agree with you about your "slight shading" point.

No, Stewart said Adams was being sarcastic, Barton appears to disagree.

Transcript wrote:

Stewart: Do you think people would be more comfortable with you if they felt like you were consistently looking to extend historical context and — because there are a lot of critics out there who say you cherry-pick your religious facts, take them out of context — your historical facts — to use them to bolster your argument.

Barton: They've never proven that. They've claimed that. Show me some documentation where it's taken out of context. They've never provided that. They complain about it.

Stewart: Didn't they say the John Adams quote, where you talk about, he says, "We were inspired by Divinity."

Barton: No, I don't recall him saying that. Have you got the quote?

Stewart: Yeah, let me see if I can find it. [consults notes] Okay, here it is. Here is what you wrote in your book about what Adams said, endorsing the Church being involved in the State: "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." That's the quote that you used in your book.

Barton: Now, I have the original John Adams letter with me off the set. I brought the original. See, I posted that online; how can I misquote it when I put the whole thing up there. That's the only John Adams letter in the world that he wrote on that day to that person, and that's what's in it. I posted that where everybody can see it, and that's what we do with our documents.

Stewart: But you have then the sentence after the one, which is: "Although this is all artifice and cunning —"

Barton: Oh, the entire letter is posted. The entire letter is posted.

Stewart: But you can see that the next sentence shows that he's being sarcastic in that passage.

Barton: Not in — no, not at all. You read the entire letter, Jon — now, see, they've given you their critique of it.

Stewart: But how could he say the Holy Ghost — I mean, this man was a Unitarian; why would he claim the Holy Ghost sincerely?

Barton: You know what a Unitarian was then?

Stewart: Yeah, someone who didn't believe in the Trinity.

Barton: No, no. Not until 1839, long after his death. It did not become —

Stewart: So John Adams believed in the Holy Ghost?

Barton: He believed in the Trinity, and that's where Unitarian —

As another example of his ability to 'shade' things, the interview goes on:

Interview wrote:

Stewart: Did he believe we were a Christian nation? Because he signed the Treaty of Tripoli, and said we weren't, explicitly.

Barton: No, time out. Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 is what you're talking about, it's 82 words long; everybody always puts a period after 17 words. There's not a period there. It says "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion," right? That's what it says, where everybody puts a period. Now, remember: it's a negotiation he's made with a Moslem nation. He says, "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion as having an inherent hostility towards Muslims. Hey, we're not the Europeans you guys fought in the Crusades. We don't hate you guys because you're Muslims." He didn't say we're not a Christian nation; we're not a European Christian nation that hates you and fights you because of your religion. And by the way, the State Department says there is no Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli. The original, it's not there. Everybody loves to quote the Treaty of Tripoli.

I was curious as to what he was he was talking about when he refers to that article not being there ... he does a fine job of implying that it was a bit of revisionist history itself. It turns out, that in the 30's the US government hired someone to perform an analysis of US treaties and according to that report, Article 11 doesn't appear to have been in the Arabic version of the treaty. However, it was the English version, including Article 11, that was read to and ratified by the Senate. So, one might be able to make a case that there was a legal issue with the treaty itself ... but it is really only Article 11 that matters in the context, and in spite of Barton's rather 'sneaky' attempt to bring its existence into question, was indeed ratified unanimously.

absurddoctor wrote:

As another example of his ability to 'shade' things, the interview goes on:

Interview wrote:

Stewart: Did he believe we were a Christian nation? Because he signed the Treaty of Tripoli, and said we weren't, explicitly.

Barton: No, time out. Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 is what you're talking about, it's 82 words long; everybody always puts a period after 17 words. There's not a period there. It says "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion," right? That's what it says, where everybody puts a period. Now, remember: it's a negotiation he's made with a Moslem nation. He says, "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion as having an inherent hostility towards Muslims. Hey, we're not the Europeans you guys fought in the Crusades. We don't hate you guys because you're Muslims." He didn't say we're not a Christian nation; we're not a European Christian nation that hates you and fights you because of your religion. And by the way, the State Department says there is no Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli. The original, it's not there. Everybody loves to quote the Treaty of Tripoli.

I was curious as to what he was he was talking about when he refers to that article not being there ... he does a fine job of implying that it was a bit of revisionist history itself. It turns out, that in the 30's the US government hired someone to perform an analysis of US treaties and according to that report, Article 11 doesn't appear to have been in the Arabic version of the treaty. However, it was the English version, including Article 11, that was read to and ratified by the Senate. So, one might be able to make a case that there was a legal issue with the treaty itself ... but it is really only Article 11 that matters in the context, and in spite of Barton's rather 'sneaky' attempt to bring its existence into question, was indeed ratified unanimously.

Even that exchange shows that Barton is a twisty twister. Sure, there is no period in Article 11 at that point, but there is a big fat em dash:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The two clauses after the em dashes are intended to have parallel emphasis to the first phrase in the sentence, not to change the meaning of the first phrase:

AS the government of the USA is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,
—AS it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility, of Mussulmen,
—AND AS the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation,
IT IS DECLARED by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions etc. etc.

The second clause is clearly not meant to run together "Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity" as claimed by Barton.

Intentional deception.

So... we're arguing over Barton is a liar or an illiterate dumbass? Occam would offer deliberate deception as the most likely answer.

Robear, I agree with you about your "slight shading" point.

I had faith that you would.

I was struck by his definition of the US as a Christian nation. He states that we are Christian because we are influenced by the Christian religion and culture. But that's a very wide definition - much wider than he intends, I believe. Consider that our legal system, far from being directly descended from biblical law, is firmly established upon English Common Law. (This is the system of case law and precedent, which exists in parallel to legislated laws. It first appears in the twelfth century in England. The original cases were resolved ad hoc, using what the judges believed to be customary at the time.) At the time of its' establishment, and for centuries more, there *was* no statutory law (that is, Parliament could not pass laws). There were in fact two sources of law in medieval England - the common law, which was completely established by the courts, and canon law, which was established by the Church and administered by it as well.

Guess which one is based on biblical principles? And guess which one lost the ensuing fight for dominance? That's right - the Church law saw it's decline begin with the death of Archbishop Thomas Beckett (although the Church did win for a time the right to exclude Church officials from secular law).

It's also interesting that "legislating from the bench" is the basic mode of operation of the English Common Law, and that principle carried over into the US. Judges do make law, and that's a part of our legal tradition, as much as people like to deny it today.

So what were the customs of law in the 12th century? Obviously there were influences of local legal systems - Danelaw, Mercian law, etc. left over from earlier practices. There was some influence of Roman law as well, but that was more popular in the 18th and 19th centuries than in the 12th in England. And of course the other local systems played a role.

Also wrapped into the English Common law at various times were the system of equity, based on the idea of appeal to the King if one felt that the common law judge had failed to properly adjudicate, became it's own parallel system of dispute resolution and eventually turned into the US system of civil lawsuits in the 1930's; the use of ancient legal maxims in determining decisions (now not used, but a strong influence for centuries, and not biblical but rather usually Roman in origin); and common law uses an adversarial system, where competing lawyers make their arguments against each other, rather than the judge asking questions of the plaintiff and defendant, neither of which are really biblical.

In the US, in NY, California and Louisiana, Dutch, Spanish and Napoleonic codes were used for centuries in place of English Common Law, as the latter allows non-infidel legal systems that were in place prior to entry into the country to remain. Louisiana apparently still uses their French codes at times.

What's the upshot? The US legal system is emphatically not based on biblical or canon law. That was separate from the English Common Law. Barton and others would have us believe that we should accept the Bible as the source of the US legal system, but that's about as far from the truth as one can get. We've never had that system, or anything like it; indeed, Church law was roundly rejected as the basis of the English legal system in the twelfth century, which is far, far longer than entire history of the colonies, much less the US. While elements of law coincidental with biblical law can be found, the most we can say is that they reflect accepted practices in medieval England or later, and probably were influenced by Christianity as a cultural influence. But that's a far cry from claiming that the US is a nation based on biblical principles. It's playing with words in a dangerous way, and it's a thoroughly modern revision.

Christian Dominionism is itself revisionist, and David Barton is one of it's guiding lights. For that reason alone, his opinions must be checked and vetted. Think how much damage the revisionist views of the Confederacy have cost us - the crushing of civil rights for a hundred years can be laid to deliberate lies and shadings of truth by people who didn't want their social systems to change, even after the war. Now consider how much more widespread the effects of Dominionism would be. It would not be pretty - and not least for the myriad of Christian sects which don't buy into it. They would be persecuted even more strongly than atheists, I suspect, in such a system. Letting the Evangelical and Fundamentalist and other Dominionist radicals (not to include the non-radicals in those sects) put religion into government systems would be huge and harmful mistake. That is why books like Rodda's are important, to let people know when they are being led by the nose rather than by the heart or mind.

Robear wrote:

The US legal system is emphatically not based on biblical or canon law.

Insightful post, thanks. I would add that the biblical interpretations since the dawn of Christianity themselves didn't appear out of thin air. They're also heavily influenced by Greek-Roman culture and philosophy.

And even earlier cultures, Babylonian and Egyptian principles show up in Jewish law.

Rodda's book is very interesting, although respectful to the point of being dry. There are claims she debunks that I probably would have accepted as reasonable. It's an impressive piece of work.

The first chapter deals with the idea that Congress imported bibles into the US to alleviate a shortage caused by the war (they didn't). The second deals with the Northwest Ordinance, which was the template for the admission of states for about 50 years, and which is claimed by Barton and others to have a provision *requiring* the state to set aside land and fund churches and religious schools. It doesn't. And of course, for both of these assertions, the claims are mostly directly opposed to what actually happened.

I'm probably the biggest proponent of the idea that the social conservatives have advanced their agenda through deliberate propaganda, but I'm surprised to find how thorough and specific and wide-ranging the assertions are. I can see that if these claims reinforced someone's beliefs, they would not blink an eye at accepting them.

Mytch wrote:

My point, as well as some others', is that you cheat your work out of a lot of its impact with a title like that...whether the title is "true" or not.

I disagree.

I've tried to come up with any arrangement of words that have a better Accuracy + Concise - Offense at the Implication that anyone for Jesus could lie ratio and I'm coming up empty.

Rezzy wrote:
Mytch wrote:

My point, as well as some others', is that you cheat your work out of a lot of its impact with a title like that...whether the title is "true" or not.

I disagree.

I've tried to come up with any arrangement of words that have a better Accuracy + Concise - Offense at the Implication that anyone for Jesus could lie ratio and I'm coming up empty.

No sweat, by this point I think it's just one of those things that we feel differently about, and that's fine. If it helps, though, the problem isn't that I don't think anyone for Jesus could lie.

Paleocon wrote:

So... we're arguing over Barton is a liar or an illiterate dumbass?

Some people are. My point, as well as some others', is that you cheat your work out of a lot of its impact with a title like that...whether the title is "true" or not.

At the risk of getting off on a tangent, can someone with more powerful Google-Fu than mine help me out here? What is the "Fable of Dorcas" Adams refers to in the letter referenced earlier? I agree that the passage quoted by Barton does appear to be sarcasm, but it's unclear to me what it is in response to. In the preceding paragraph, he praises Rush's "genius and inspiration," and I guess that would be in reference to the letter describing the dream he had of Adams' reconciliation with Jefferson (which, you have to admit, came true with unusual attention to detail). Was the sarcasm directed at this prediction?

I imagine the "Fable of Dorcas" is just some tale Rush had previously spun which Adams liked and mentioned in support of his praise, and probably wouldn't do any more to clarify what prompted that rant, but then again, it might.

Edit: I did find that Rush's wife's name was Dorcas, so it probably has something to do with her. I also found something about a Dorcas in Fable III, but Rush seems like more of a PC gamer.

I believe that the "Fable of Dorcas" element refers to the resurrection of a relationship between the two men, as Dorcas (Tabitha), named as a disciple of Jesus, was brought back from the dead by Peter. Adams notes Rush's religious fervor, and commends his dream as a good appendix to Jonathan Swift's "A Tale of a Tub", which was a satire on religious excess. He then indulges in some satire himself, targeting the credulity of human nature as leading it to accept the divine right of kings, the supremacy of religion and so forth. So Adams is *rejecting* the idea that the Holy Ghost controls government and everything else, not endorsing it as various people propose.

This is part of the reason that these originals can be easily used to deceive. We don't have the cultural references that these men held in common, not without research, and so what seems plain to them is cryptic to us. We look for an *actual* "fable of Dorcas", when in fact it's metaphorical, and we're unused to seeing book titles uncapitalized as if they were metaphors instead of proper names. And so Adams letter looks like a rant in support of religion in government, when in fact he's rejecting his friend's endorsement of religion (although good-naturedly and with humor and panache.)

Paleocon wrote:

So... we're arguing over Barton is a liar or an illiterate dumbass? Occam would offer deliberate deception as the most likely answer.

But Hanlon would offer that the assumption of malice is never appropriate.

I believe at least two things that may be at the heart of this debate. I think that:
1) History is a debate, and that anyone saying otherwise either is trying to use that claim to rhetorically bolster their own historical claims or believes such rhetoric in spite of the way academic discussions of history are built around academic argument and counter-argument.
2) Human reasoning is incredibly fallible. We cherry-pick information that fits our beliefs all the time, as part of things like confirmation bias. While I draw drastically different conclusions than fundamentalists on almost everything, I very rarely doubt that they truly believe what they say, and I understand that when it comes to textual or historical analysis, we all tend to find what we seek.

Robear wrote:

I believe that the "Fable of Dorcas" element refers to the resurrection of a relationship between the two men, as Dorcas (Tabitha), named as a disciple of Jesus, was brought back from the dead by Peter. Adams notes Rush's religious fervor, and commends his dream as a good appendix to Jonathan Swift's "A Tale of a Tub", which was a satire on religious excess. He then indulges in some satire himself, targeting the credulity of human nature as leading it to accept the divine right of kings, the supremacy of religion and so forth.

The problem here being that Adams was one of the more conservative founders, and himself had difficulty accepting the extents to which many Americans spurned the British and the Crown. I tend to believe that Stewart's got the more accurate interpretation, but I can see that there's room for disagreement.

Mytch wrote:

If it helps, though, the problem isn't that I don't think anyone for Jesus could lie.

It does.

wordsmythe wrote:

1) History is a debate, and that anyone saying otherwise either is trying to use that claim to rhetorically bolster their own historical claims or believes such rhetoric in spite of the way academic discussions of history are built around academic argument and counter-argument.

I fully agree, but if you have players that don't use academic arguments but rather their own idealism and actively work to suppress facts then it is no longer a honest debate.
EDIT: So I suppose my stance is that History can be LIKE a debate, but by necessity has its own rules.

The problem here being that Adams was one of the more conservative founders, and himself had difficulty accepting the extents to which many Americans spurned the British and the Crown. I tend to believe that Stewart's got the more accurate interpretation, but I can see that there's room for disagreement.

I just find it hard to believe that he *really* thought that the divine right of kings was conferred from God via a phial of oil which descended from heaven in the claws of a dove, you know what I mean? To me, that's satire.

I believe at least two things that may be at the heart of this debate. I think that:
1) History is a debate, and that anyone saying otherwise either is trying to use that claim to rhetorically bolster their own historical claims or believes such rhetoric in spite of the way academic discussions of history are built around academic argument and counter-argument.
2) Human reasoning is incredibly fallible. We cherry-pick information that fits our beliefs all the time, as part of things like confirmation bias. While I draw drastically different conclusions than fundamentalists on almost everything, I very rarely doubt that they truly believe what they say, and I understand that when it comes to textual or historical analysis, we all tend to find what we seek.

At a very simplistic level, if we can show that someone has manipulated a particular text, that can give us a good reason to believe that that person is no longer trying to inform us with an unbiased view. At worst, it means they are trying to convince us of an unsupportable claim.

Just because we *can* be mistaken does not mean that everything we investigate is unknowable. History is *not* textual analysis in the same sense as a novel, because behind all the accounts and perspectives there lie real events, and we can triangulate in on them if there is ambiguity.

For me, the heart of this debate lies in the desire to interpret past events through a current cultural filter, and also the situation where someone doing that *creates* their own narrative in a way that's plausible to the modern reader, but is actually based on an actively deceptive account of events. If you want to see how egregious it can be - well beyond honest mistakes - read the book. As I relate above, it's quite surprising how far these folks go to, charitably, re-interpret events. When an account *depends* upon leaving out facts and creating new facts, it's not a mistake - it's a lie. I have no problem labeling them that way.

I would be curious though as to when you think it would be acceptable to label an account of an historical event a lie. What's the breakpoint for you? Is it impossible to lie about history? Or does it just make you uncomfortable to call out lies?

Robear wrote:

reason to believe that that person is no longer trying to inform us with an unbiased view

I may just be hopelessly postmodern, but I don't think that claims of objectivity are worth anyone's time. I'd much rather skip past the part where everyone claims that there's some objective truth that they can touch but that the other guy is pointing away from.

Robear wrote:

I would be curious though as to when you think it would be acceptable to label an account of an historical event a lie. What's the breakpoint for you?

Intent. It's the same problem I keep having in playing Phoenix Wright, where every homicide is "murder," regardless of whether it was intentional, self-defense or anything else. Not all homicides are murders, and not all untruths are lies.

Nevermind.

wordsmythe wrote:
Robear wrote:

I would be curious though as to when you think it would be acceptable to label an account of an historical event a lie. What's the breakpoint for you?

Intent. It's the same problem I keep having in playing Phoenix Wright, where every homicide is "murder," regardless of whether it was intentional, self-defense or anything else. Not all homicides are murders, and not all untruths are lies.

Right. But Rodda presents compelling evidence in many of these cases that there's clear intent to deceive at work. Let's look at the case of the "Jefferson dated presidential papers 'In the Year of Our Lord Christ'" idea, and the implication from this "fact" that Jefferson was in fact significantly more religious-minded than we are led to believe by the more commonly accepted historical evidence. Barton says explicitly "[Jefferson] went further than what the other founders did. The other founders dated documents [...] in the year of our Lord. [...] Jefferson signed his documents [...] 'in the Year of Our Lord Christ'. That's the way Jefferson signed his documents."

So he's clearly making a general claim here that Jefferson regularly chose to date documents he signed as President "in the Year of Our Lord Christ".

In order to attempt to establish this, Barton provides an example of a "Presidential document" with a date written on it in that form, signed by Jefferson. The first problem with the document is that it is in fact a pre-filled form—not any sort of special declaration or document of serious import, but simply part of the day-to-day business of the executive. In fact, this document is a set of ship's papers, which were signed in bulk and shipped off to ports to be filled in and dated when needed. In short: Presenting them as "Presidential documents" is rather overstating the case. And Barton must have known that, knowing what the papers were. (There is in fact evidence that Barton didn't have such a document in his possession when he first started making this claim, as there was some delay when he was asked before he could produce the document, and when he did produce an actual document, the date on it was different from the date he mentioned when he first made the claim.)

So making the generalization from this one document that Jefferson regularly chose this language for his own documents is rather a stretch.

The second problem is that he didn't choose this language in the first place. The obvious way to see that is that, yes, this is a form that was printed in bulk and then signed and dated as needed. "But!", someone might argue, "As President, could he not have requested that the form be changed? In fact, Barton said that earlier Presidents didn't use this language, so he must have chosen to make that change, right?" Well... in fact, no. First: that language did in fact appear in ship's papers during earlier administrations. In fact, that choice was made in 1793 by the instruction of Hamilton.

Why? Because the war in Europe was heating up, and it was more important to follow the letter of the law with regards to ship's papers: these documents were used to prove nationality of a neutral ship to the warships of belligerent powers in Europe. And specifically, the law involved was a 1782 treaty with the Netherlands which was made shortly after the end of the Revolution. At that time, the US was in no position to dictate language to established European powers—America was working very hard to get recognized at all. Anyway, the specific language of the English version of these papers was dictated by the "High and Mighty Lords of the States General of the United Netherlands", and the Netherlands were at the time of the treaty a religious state. At the time of Jefferson, they were one of the belligerent powers... so in order to avoid any "misunderstandings", it was important to make sure the form of the papers were quite right.

Okay. So, not only did Jefferson not regularly use this form of dating for his Presidential documents, and not only did he not choose the language himself, but the specific language used was chosen by the agents of a foreign (religious) power.

Now, it's easy to imagine that Barton wouldn't go through the work of finding out exactly why ship's papers were dated this way, as Rodda has done. But it's hard to imagine that Barton wouldn't be able to see that: a) These were unimportant forms filled in by the President (and Secretary of State) in bulk, and the President was unlikely to have chosen the exact wording himself, b) The form of date used in these forms was not typical of dates used on other documents signed by Jefferson, and c) The form of date used on these forms both pre-dates and post-dates Jefferson's administration by quite a long time.

Hence, Rodda's assertion (and my agreement) that Barton is definitely lying knowingly and willfully. The amount of obvious and easily available information that must be hidden about this document in order to make Barton's argument sound is tremendous. It would be one thing to not be paying attention and to interpret things incorrectly. But it's quite another to not mention things that one would ordinarily mention (like what kind of document you're referring to) in a way that makes the argument appear stronger.

(Take a look at Rodda's article regarding this claim for more details.)

(Also see Rodda's video about the Danbury baptists, which shows an example of a *really* appalling distortion of the historical record.)

---

Now, the majority of claims that Barton (and other people following the same tactics) present are just like this—a tiny feature of something unimportant, with most of the easily known information about it hidden (or shown out of context), used as the foundation for an extremely broad generalization. So this pattern is repeated over and over again, and each time it is repeated is suggests more strongly that it's intentional. In the case above, it's unlikely that the deception is unintentional—but it's possible. But you do that same thing ten times, and now it's looking pretty much impossible that there's no deceit involved.

And then you combine that with the whole over-arching framework that ties everything together, and you see that it also supports the thesis that Barton is being intentionally deceptive. The history he tells isn't a history—it doesn't tell a story of how ideas developed over time, and the people and events involved. It picks out specific moments that can be twisted just right to make them look like they're saying one thing when they're actually saying another.

You can tell me Barton's wrong as many times and ways as you want and I'll likely concede your point every time. But that still doesn't make all false statements lies.

wordsmythe wrote:

You can tell me Barton's wrong as many times and ways as you want and I'll likely concede your point every time. But that still doesn't make all false statements lies.

So how many false statements can a person make before you think it's acceptable to call them a liar?

By definition a false statement is considered a lie, as are statements made with the deliberate intent to deceive or to convey a false impression. Barton's argument that America is a Christian nation meets all the definitions of a lie making him a liar.

OG_slinger wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

You can tell me Barton's wrong as many times and ways as you want and I'll likely concede your point every time. But that still doesn't make all false statements lies.

So how many false statements can a person make before you think it's acceptable to call them a liar?

By definition a false statement is considered a lie, as are statements made with the deliberate intent to deceive or to convey a false impression. Barton's argument that America is a Christian nation meets all the definitions of a lie making him a liar.

Continually issuing the same false statements after you've been corrected is no longer speaking from ignorance, but a lie.

How about negligently or intentionally ignorant and false wordsmythe? Intent is not a requisite to lie but you seem to prefer malice in your liars.

KingGorilla wrote:

How about negligently or intentionally ignorant and false wordsmythe? Intent is not a requisite to lie but you seem to prefer malice in your liars.

Negligence certainly isn't enough for me. I need willful intent to deceive.

Tanglebones wrote:

Continually issuing the same false statements after you've been corrected is no longer speaking from ignorance, but a lie.

Unless you don't believe the corrections are accurate.

Am I the only one who's really willing to believe that Barton is truly deluded?

wordsmythe wrote:

Am I the only one who's really willing to believe that Barton is truly deluded?

Until it can be proven that he has a split personality, an independent second persona that takes over and cherry picks passages, leaving them behind for the oblivious primary persona to find, I'd say Likely.

To Barton, the truth that we were founded as a Christian nation is obvious based on his religious conviction, regardless that the facts show otherwise. After all, if we are God's one true country, then how could we not be founded on Christianity?

wordsmythe wrote:

Am I the only one who's really willing to believe that Barton is truly deluded?

Are you saying that deluded people are incapable of lying? If a deluded person is lying can't I point at him and say "He's lying?" I can totally understand giving someone the benefit of doubt, but in this case we are talking about a person that has led a campaign of systematic misdirection and deliberate fabrications to convince his audience that this country was founded by people who believed exactly what they believe. Namely that Jesus should be President.
The evidence against this is staggering. The mere fact that ANY evidence that the US was founded as a Christian Nation has to be pulled from finely shredded quotes and presented without a single piece of context or presented in wildly inaccurate contexts means that we aren't dealing with a deluded person.
We are dealing with someone that has spent a lot of time working out which pieces you can quickly show, which you can hint at, and which you should flaunt up and down without making the lie obvious.
A car salesman that has stuck gum in the radiator, poured some octane boost in the tank, and wired the muffler. A sweet looking ride as long as you don't interrupt his spiel with questions about mileage or provenance.

EDIT to clear up some confusing clauses... and I will probably revisit some of the clunkier sections...

wordsmythe wrote:

You can tell me Barton's wrong as many times and ways as you want and I'll likely concede your point every time. But that still doesn't make all false statements lies.

Uh. When did someone claim that? All I'm claiming is that Barton is in fact a liar. Sorry if the argument had moved into other not-thread-relevant realms.

If you were replying to my post directly above yours: I was not telling you that Barton was wrong. I was presenting evidence that Barton was deceitful—that in choosing the materials and arguments that he does, he is clearly acting knowingly to deceive his audience.

What he's doing would be no less deceitful if he were correct.

wordsmythe wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

How about negligently or intentionally ignorant and false wordsmythe? Intent is not a requisite to lie but you seem to prefer malice in your liars.

Negligence certainly isn't enough for me. I need willful intent to deceive.

Tanglebones wrote:

Continually issuing the same false statements after you've been corrected is no longer speaking from ignorance, but a lie.

Unless you don't believe the corrections are accurate.

Am I the only one who's really willing to believe that Barton is truly deluded?

Oh. Okay. So we *are* talking about the same thing.

I think that yes, perhaps you are. If I had no evidence I would be willing to consider the possibility that Barton is deluded (that is: I will presume innocence in the absence of evidence of guilt.) But I cannot believe that in the face of the actual overwhelming evidence that he is acting with willful deceit. In short: his methods are pure sophistry, whether or not he believes in the truth of his thesis.

Barton's followers, on the other hand, are almost certainly mostly deluded. They are not acting deceitfully, even when they pass the information on, because they have not examined the evidence themselves, only accepted the evidence that Barton provides.

(And Barton cannot claim the same protection, since he is purporting to be an expert and to be directly examining historical materials. If it's somebody else who's lying to Barton and Barton is just passing the claims on, then Barton would still be acting with deceit in presenting himself as an authority on the subject.)

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

To Barton, the truth that we were founded as a Christian nation is obvious based on his religious conviction, regardless that the facts show otherwise. After all, if we are God's one true country, then how could we not be founded on Christianity?

I think this may really be his stance. Given that and what we're coming to learn about how we consistently, subconsciously delude ourselves, I think Barton could spend years studying every aspect of these things and still come out believing as he does now.

What about a lie of omission?

Lying by omission

One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Also known as a continuing misrepresentation. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service. /?/Propaganda is an example of lying by omission./?/