Chris Rodda gives away her book on religious revisionist American history

wordsmythe wrote:

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

Sorry, but Barton is getting paid to spout this crap. That moves him from a deluded fool to a shrewd businessman.

He has WallBuilders, which pulls in millions every year selling books, CDs, DVDs, and more. He's listed on several speaker's bureaus. He's a "lecturer" for Glenn Beck's Beck University. He's worked for the Republican National Committee as a "consultant" where he gave hundreds of luncheon talks to evangelical pastors about his alternative take on history and to let them know that it's AOK for them to endorse political candidates from their pulpits. And he's on countless boards of conservative nonprofits who conveniently don't have to publicly disclose compensation numbers.

If he was just out there fighting the good fight--speaking for free, giving away all his materials, etc.--I might give him the benefit of the doubt. But he's made lying his business model.

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.

I see part of the problem here. I never made that claim.

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.

This is the problem with the post-modern argument you referred to above. There really are no lies, in that model of the world. It's all completely context-sensitive. You can't even argue that a deliberately lie is a lie, because the person might believe they were doing it for a good cause, and thus it had no malicious intent.

When you throw out objectivity, the fact that things happened and the ability to determine to some hopefully useful approximation what those things were, you also throw out things like truth, falsehood, reasonable certainty, and of course the entire concept of facts. That bothers me, for some reason.

Put another way, confirmation bias can be resisted by use of things like the scientific method, peer review, editing, fact-checking and the like. One could argue that Rodda's book is exactly that process, and Barton's writings were found to be flawed. Why is it then so important to argue that, well, we can't *know* why Barton did it, or even *that* he did it? There's a preponderance of evidence, there's motive, and there's past history. How sure do we have to be before we can say "Yeah, he's a liar"? And why is it so bad to say that?

I'm even puzzled as to how you can be sure enough in your position to adhere to it, since you too might be deluded. Seriously. Don't you have to take that into account?

And finally, in your system, how would you determine when someone is intentionally deceptive? I don't think you can, especially given the evidence that Rodda has placed against Barton. If that's not enough, it's hard to imagine what would be.

Robear:

I think that even wordsmythe would be willing to say that an actual, literal con scheme involves honest-to-goodness, can't-be-anything-else lying.

Also, I think there's an excessive amount of weight given to painting Barton as a villain and not enough weight given to other possibilities, such as what wordsmythe is saying, and the opposition he's getting seems to be to ironically reflect the same thing he's attributing to Barton: confirmation bias. If you're looking to paint Barton a villain, you'll find the brush and the paint to do it.

I mean, given his stance and his overtly stated beliefs (and other instances) it seems to me to be all too likely that he just "researched" to find what he wanted to find, not necessarily just to set up an elaborate lie he didn't really believe in order to get admitted to Beck University and other gigs. That's way too much trouble for a con man.

This thread is making me tear my hair out.

Wordy, LarryC, we are not talking in hypotheticals here. Are you telling me that none of the several examples given in this thread of David Barton making stuff up to support his ideas are sufficient? That it's all confirmation bias?

Frankly, I find that more insulting than being called a liar.

LarryC wrote:

That's way too much trouble for a con man.

How much would you lie if you could make a couple million a year?

OG_Slinger:

You could make that much doing a pyramid scheme.

LarryC wrote:

OG_Slinger:

You could make that much doing a pyramid scheme.

And you'd be lying just the same.

Precisely. Why make an elaborate lie when a simple one will do? The basic rule of lying is to keep it simple.

LarryC wrote:

Precisely. Why make an elaborate lie when a simple one will do? The basic rule of lying is to keep it simple.

So you're not familiar with religion?
A simple lie works for simple objectives, but if your stated purpose is to subvert the freedom of religion in a country founded on that principle you may need to roll out something a bit heftier than a simple fib.
The thing that gets me, the founding fathers were prolific authors and well documented speakers. Their actions were scrutinized and recorded in great detail... Why didn't one of them say "oh, and we're a Christian nation, so deal with it you other heathens. " Why is all the smoking gun evidence between the lines in documents authored by foreign nations and recorded in letters sent to Congress by ministers?

Ps I don't like writing on the iPad.
Pps feel free to replace religion with mythology in the first sentence if it makes you more comfortable. The Romans and Greeks had some interesting lies they told themselves about their world. I definitely wouldn't call them simple. But they certainly proved effective and persistent.

Rezzy:

That doesn't work. The basis of bringing up Barton's gains in propagating his statements is that he gains money by them, so that's the motive for intentional deceit. If he has another primary motive, then that supposition is no longer the primary one, by necessity.

If he's propagating his views based on the supposition that he actually believes them, then he's not a liar, but a deluded individual. I mean, why else would you subvert freedom of religion, other than if you think that that was a good thing, and for that to be a good thing, you'd have to believe that what you're talking about is "The Truth," for some reason or another.

LarryC wrote:

Precisely. Why make an elaborate lie when a simple one will do? The basic rule of lying is to keep it simple.

Saying America is a Christian country is a simple lie. The reality of it is what is complex.

OG_Slinger:

Sorry, that just makes no sense to me. Pursuing a stance where you make a case where American is a Christian country seems to me to be far more complex and difficult compared to just making up a pyramid scheme.

What does the complexity of "reality" have to do with comparing the complexity of a push to revise history nationwide, and a pyramid scheme?

LarryC wrote:

OG_Slinger:

Sorry, that just makes no sense to me. Pursuing a stance where you make a case where American is a Christian country seems to me to be far more complex and difficult compared to just making up a pyramid scheme.

Not in America, Larry. As with the evolution/creationism threads, this is just another case where you have to live here to believe it. We have a frightening amount of religious crazies here and there's absolutely no reasoning with them.

LarryC wrote:

Rezzy:

That doesn't work. The basis of bringing up Barton's gains in propagating his statements is that he gains money by them, so that's the motive for intentional deceit. If he has another primary motive, then that supposition is no longer the primary one, by necessity.

If he's propagating his views based on the supposition that he actually believes them, then he's not a liar, but a deluded individual. I mean, why else would you subvert freedom of religion, other than if you think that that was a good thing, and for that to be a good thing, you'd have to believe that what you're talking about is "The Truth," for some reason or another.

Your logic is flawed. Belief in the concept, lying about the details, and making a profit by them are by no means mutually exclusive.

Youch. I've been trying to read more of the threads concerning those, so I'm a little more aware. In the past, I actually would never have opened this thread at all. It just seems to me to be yet another bunch of crazy fringe guys screaming jihad, or whatever the heck they do in the boondocks.

Still, I'm not getting the impression that Barton's just doing it for the money. To me, it seems a lot like he's one of the crazies - meaning that he really believes what he's saying.

Rezzy:

Sure, but that's not really relevant. Given that Barton isn't in it for the money, there's no compelling suggestion that he's being intentionally deceptive about the details of a core concept he honestly believes. I mean, is it really that far-fetched that he's just that crazy, and is making some money on it on the side?

LarryC wrote:

Rezzy:

Sure, but that's not really relevant. Given that Barton isn't in it for the money, there's no compelling suggestion that he's being intentionally deceptive about the details of a core concept he honestly believes. I mean, is it really that far-fetched that he's just that crazy, and is making some money on it on the side?

And on what are you basing your statement that there is no compelling suggestion that he's being intentionally deceptive? That is exactly what we are saying. Unless "honest belief" destroys your ability to read, parse sentences, evaluate the difference between an action taken and an action suggested, determine who wrote what, or even basic timelines... Especially while in possession of an extensive collection of original sources and a self professed passion for examining them in depth... Unless ALL of these things are true he is an unabashed liar. Bearing false witness. And profiting from those who encourage these lies for their own benefit. Reprehensible, no matter your faith. God is strong enough to stand on his own merits. The day he needs these charlatans to succeed will be a sad day indeed.

Rezzy:

I am saying that "honest belief," is, in fact, strong enough to introduce a confirmation bias so strong that it flies in the face of facts that might be obvious to other people. I would not have believed it possible, but I've seen it demonstrated before my very eyes, that with a strong enough bias, a gorilla could walk in front of your face and you won't notice it.

If perception bias is that strong, and confirmation bias is strong enough to generate all manner of ridiculous urban myths, then I have no trouble supposing that Barton could, in fact, really believe his own spiel.

You're waving your hands and flapping your fingers, but nothing is coming out. Perception bias and the invisible gorilla have nothing to do with anything here.

There are concrete examples of what we are talking about in this thread. Examples of carefully constructed lies that could not be accidental, or caused by oversight. Please refute them. It's only four pages. They're not hard to find.

I don't know that the concrete examples cited here can't be explained by confirmation bias. Isn't that strong enough of an objection? A refutation isn't a counter-argument. It's just pointing out what's wrong with the proposed argument.

Is it confirmation bias to weld two quotes from two different sources to produce a fictional quote that supports your story?

Is it confirmation bias to claim Jefferson believed the first amendment only prohibited preferential establishment of religion, when several of Jefferson's writings directly contradict this? When asserting the ridiculously illogical "Jefferson believed the First Amendment prohibited preferential establishment" implies "Jefferson believed the First Amendment prohibited ONLY preferential establishment"?

Is it confirmation bias to claim that we are a Christian nation because our currency says "In God We Trust," despite the fact that when currency was first issued, it did NOT say that, a court case was required to permit it, and it was never required on currency until 1938? (So we weren't a Christian nation until 1938?)

Is it confirmation bias to change the punctuation of the wording of a treaty to make it say the exact opposite of what it actually says?

Forget punctuation, what about slicing and dicing quotes to alter their meaning? Is it confirmation bias to quote John Adams, stopping the quote at exactly the point where he starts saying the exact opposite of what you want him to say?

Is it confirmation bias to post a list of unconfirmed quotations, which you urge people not to use because they are "'unconfirmed' in primary source documents," but then do nothing to stop people actually using those quotes?

That last one is a kicker for me. These are quotes that Barton has admitted are questionable (and which in some cases are actual fabrications), but he makes no effort to clarify that they are fake when someone else utters one right in front of him.

When you know a statement to be false, and someone states it anyway in support of you, and you say nothing... that's not confirmation bias. That's deception.

If he's propagating his views based on the supposition that he actually believes them, then he's not a liar, but a deluded individual. I mean, why else would you subvert freedom of religion, other than if you think that that was a good thing, and for that to be a good thing, you'd have to believe that what you're talking about is "The Truth," for some reason or another.

I want to be clear here. It's my belief that Barton believes this stuff so thoroughly that he's convinced it's true in it's wide strokes, and he's willing to leave out facts and "interpret" others in a way he knows to be (at least) dodgy. Further, based on the behavior of other "true believers" in many fields, I believe he's willing to ignore counter-evidence and make his argument *by any means necessary* because he believes that *not* doing so would be an even greater offense.

That's still lying. Intentionally telling untruths is lying, even if you think that the overall effect is to get "the truth" out. Worrying about *why* is secondary to the act. There's plenty of evidence presented in Rodda's book that it was deliberate, but the important thing is to get the full citations out there, to show that the partial ones are at a minimum shading the truth, and in many cases outright lies. And lies don't have to be malicious to be lies; they can be done for good or even loving reasons.

The odd parts of this discussion are that it's somehow impossible to say someone is lying, and that that use of the label is somehow impolitic or unsavory. Isn't *lying* impolitic and unsavory?

LarryC wrote:

Rezzy:

I am saying that "honest belief," is, in fact, strong enough to introduce a confirmation bias so strong that it flies in the face of facts that might be obvious to other people. I would not have believed it possible, but I've seen it demonstrated before my very eyes, that with a strong enough bias, a gorilla could walk in front of your face and you won't notice it.

If perception bias is that strong, and confirmation bias is strong enough to generate all manner of ridiculous urban myths, then I have no trouble supposing that Barton could, in fact, really believe his own spiel.

It really is scary how much contrary evidence people can dismiss (or fail to even fully process).

I apologize for using "malicious" upthread. I intended it as the legal meaning. That is, I intended "malice" as "wrongful intent," not "evil." I think Barton believes what he says is true (perhaps more true than the source texts), and that he's trying to convince people to see things his way, rather than to deliberately mislead people.

I don't believe that any statements thus far in this thread speak directly to his intent. If you believe that Barton knows better, then it's pretty clear that he's lying. It's certainly possible, but I am not yet convinced that he really knows better, despite all his chances to learn and correct his misunderstandings.

I still like the book, but I think the title sets up a contention as to Barton's actual intent, and I think that's an unfortunate red herring.

Not much time to say anything right now, but: While I'm pretty sure we've demonstrated his ill intent, I agree that it's overall better to attack the ideas rather than the people behind them. It's simply too hard to pin someone down on their intentions (an internal feature) rather than their actions (which are directly observable.)

Precisely. Why make an elaborate lie when a simple one will do? The basic rule of lying is to keep it simple.

Ego. You know it almost always is. You start off getting away with some simple lie. But it is never enough. So the lie builds until you have to go on a crusade to find the evidence you are looking for. And then perhaps it gets too out of control so you set up self fullfilling sources. (A quotes B, so B promotes its legitimacy by quoting A's quote of B)

I LOVE that this issue has come down to: either he's lying or he's too stupid to know better. Either way calling someone a Liar is inappropriate unless they are a really bad Liar and left explicit evidence as to their intent.

EDIT: I am basing this comment on Barton. There is video of him on Youtube waving a Letter from his personal collection that he repeatedly quotes. He quotes it in support of his premise and in the pieces he quotes he alters a single word to change the tone and then stops the quote right before the sentence that reveals that the entire quote was written sarcastically. He is holding the thing that proves he is lying. He owns it. He has read it. He misquotes it and waves it in front of the noses of his audience who have no motivation to check up on his lie.

Rezzy wrote:

I LOVE that this issue has come down to: either he's lying or he's too stupid to know better. Either way calling someone a Liar is inappropriate unless they are a really bad Liar and left explicit evidence as to their intent.

How many times must someone be told the truth before their innocent falsehoods become lies? Ignoring and avoiding truth then continuing is lying.

Is part of the problem here that someone like Barton, being Christian, isn't supposed to be 'bearing false witness' so not only does he have to be deceitful to make progress for the cause (because most of the facts aren't on his side) but he also has to convince himself and others that he isn't actively lying. Better to be considered deluded that to leave evidence that you are deliberately trading in falsehoods.

Ironically, the truth is that he is lying.

KingGorilla wrote:
Rezzy wrote:

I LOVE that this issue has come down to: either he's lying or he's too stupid to know better. Either way calling someone a Liar is inappropriate unless they are a really bad Liar and left explicit evidence as to their intent.

How many times must someone be told the truth before their innocent falsehoods become lies? Ignoring and avoiding truth then continuing is lying.

Why are you so invested in calling him a liar? What does it gain you or anyone else to make that accusation?