Chris Rodda gives away her book on religious revisionist American history

BadKen:

Yes, sir. All those can be described as the behavior of a person who will only read or see what he thinks is right. I, myself, have been a frequent victim of confirmation bias on this very forum. People think I am someone or something, and the things I say get interpreted in manners I did not intend.

Robear:

It's interesting that you would say that glossing over perceived minor inaccuracies is unacceptable even if the overall intent and effect is to propagate an overall concept that one thinks is more accurate than false.

Would you have the same behavior if the overall concept is something you believe to be true, and if we were just glossing over things which you think are inaccuracies? I see this kind of behavior all the time, and I try to combat it. I frequently get called pedantic, or supercilious, or nitpicky for my troubles. It appears to me that it's a general behavior trait among people to gloss over things which they don't think is important.

wordsmythe wrote:
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?

Hundred bucks. I call it the new atheist X prize.

I was actually wrong in my previous post. Barton makes MAJOR changes to the quote. I'll highlight the single word that I thought was the main difference.
This is from a letter written by John Adams.

Barton: "The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in His truth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. 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."

Original: "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 Bishops on the heads of Candidates for the Ministry. In the same manner as the Holy Ghost is transmitted from Monarch to Monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a dove and by that other Phyal which I have seen in the Tower of London. There is no authority, civil or religious - there can be no legitimate government - but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or, in more orthodox words, damnation. Although this is all Artifice and Cunning in the secret original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lay down their Lives under the Ax or the fiery Fagot for it. Alas the poor weak ignorant Dupe human Nature."

wordsmythe wrote:

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

I can't speak for KingGorilla, but for me it's twofold. First, the fact that Barton is actively using these lies to influence government. He wants his twisted, revised, and fabricated version of history to form the basis of our future. Barton is merely a cog in all this, but he is a cog that is becoming more visible and his syrupy sweet message of a Christian Nation is deluding more and more people everyday. People that now wistfully think back to those glorious times when the first question any President would ask themselves is: What would Jesus do? Those simpler times when all the courtrooms followed the Ten Commandments and then the constitution. And if only those other religions would stop forcing us to tolerate them all the time America wouldn't be as bad off as we are now and if we only petition our Christian government to assert itself we will be strong again.

And secondly, because he is lying when he should know better. He calls himself a researcher, mocks those that disagree with him, attacks them in his various echo-chambers, smugly asserts that the truth is obvious while running from any accounting and blithely ignoring any contrary evidence. This man has all the qualities of a demon. An agent of Lucifer. And the faithful are flocking to his siren-promise of power, eminence, and status. Embracing lies, half-truths, and doing irreparable damage to those of true faith. Those who believe in the power of true faith and recognize that the power of this nation isn't in its government, but in its people.
What Barton and his ilk want is a Christian King. For who could stand against the true leader chosen by God? That is the only end-game I see to their machinations.

(I wasn't going to post the first part, but LarryC forced my hand. This isn't nitpicking. This is a 'Researcher' and 'Historian' falsifying information. )

wordsmythe wrote:

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

Because it's not an accusation. Barton has repeated lied making him a liar. And what he's lying about could have profound implications for this country if it caught on more than it already has.

Why are you so hesitant to call someone who lies for a living a liar? Politeness? The stakes are high enough for the gloves to come off and people to call a spade a spade.

Rezzy:

Try to read it the way Barton would. You'd see that the word change doesn't really alter the meaning. You can see a profound difference because you're choosing to read and interpret it in the way you prefer (and arguably in the manner that the original author actually meant). We can say that Barton thinks like you but chooses to willfully misinterpret the meaning so as to support an ideal he doesn't really believe, but it's simpler to say that he just reads it another way because that's what he was looking for.

Clarification:

I got no skin in this. I'm not an American, and even if America became a Christian Nation, my nation would probably come off easy. I'm mainly discussing this for amusement.

LarryC wrote:

Rezzy:

Try to read it the way Barton would. You'd see that the word change doesn't really alter the meaning.

No.
See, there are rules for that. If you change the words you call it 'paraphrasing.' Not quoting.
But if you paraphrase you still have to do your best to retain the original intent. There is no way to mistake the original intent of that passage if you read the letter.
No possible way.

Clarification:
I'm not as fired up about this as my posts probably make it seem. I have a pretty direct style that, when I hit a rhythm, comes off a bit adversarial.
I'm interested in this kind of thing so I've done some research now and have actually watched a few of Barton's presentations. He is a skilled manipulator. Which means that he is either suffering from a highly specialized kind of brain-damage, has extreme psychological defects with manifestations of schizophrenia or split personalities, or is really good at lying.
Considering that he hasn't manifested any of the other expected symptoms of the first two possibilities that I know about and the evidence for the last option are stacking up to the rafters I'm perfectly willing to call this spade a spade with no qualms or qualifications.

EDIT: a couple of changes/corrections

OG_slinger wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

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

Because it's not an accusation. Barton has repeated lied making him a liar. And what he's lying about could have profound implications for this country if it caught on more than it already has.

Why are you so hesitant to call someone who lies for a living a liar? Politeness? The stakes are high enough for the gloves to come off and people to call a spade a spade.

It's extremely important to point out that someone is lying when part of the power of their argument is that they are in a position of complete trust for thousands of people. If a vast section of society have complete faith that this person wouldn't lie then the power he has by doing so is enormous. It's a bit like news channels that distort the truth. Many people still trust the television news because it has always been seen as an organisation dedicated to presenting the truth. That trust is why they can get away with outrageous inaccuracies and still have people believe what they are saying.

The best way to combat a person or organisation that is trusted completely by people, and yet is abusing that trust, is to confront them again and again pointing out where they have deliberately constructed a misleading statement or deliberately distorted the truth.

Rezzy:

See, that's the thing. I would have thought that there would be no possible way to misinterpret the things I post here on this forum since I usually mean them in the most literal sense possible. And yet I am. To be honest, I'm a little surprised that no one, as yet, has presumed that I stand for Barton or with Barton. I've been half expecting something like that to come down by the by. It's a little late.

Things and statements which I felt were bulletproof since they were meant totally literally, were misinterpreted by people who were looking at it from a particular perspective. I have no problems seeing Barton misinterpret what he read in the passage. He only sees what he wants to see. That is a very possible way to mistake the intent. If the respectable ladies and gents on this forum could make an interpretation mistake based on perspective or confirmation bias, how much better could Barton really be?

Higgledy:

Arguably, what you should be fighting against is the deplorable mass gullibility of Americans as a people. It boggles my mind that so many people could implicitly put their trust in someone like Barton. I'm more inclined to think that Barton's just feeding them what they wanted to hear.

OG_slinger wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

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

Because it's not an accusation. Barton has repeated lied making him a liar. And what he's lying about could have profound implications for this country if it caught on more than it already has.

Why are you so hesitant to call someone who lies for a living a liar? Politeness? The stakes are high enough for the gloves to come off and people to call a spade a spade.

I can't speak for wordsmythe, but

earlier, I 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.

OG, you and others seem to indicate concern that more and more people are believing Barton. I would imagine that most of these people are Christians, or at least identify themselves as such. If Rodda's intent is to warn people away from Barton, and Christians are the primary group drawn to him, it would seem that a different title might have improved the chances that Christians would pick it up.

If her intent is simply to provide research for others hoping to warn others away from Barton, then I suppose it's fine...but it seems like both purposes could still be served if she chose a different title.

By the way, not having read it yet, is anyone besides Barton targeted in the book?

Mytch:

Putting on my Christian hat for a second, I have a vague sense of unease about the title because it implies that liars could ever be for Jesus, implying that Jesus Himself tolerates lying as a way to spread the Good News. Rather that just being neutral, I rather think that the title pushes away moderate Christians from itself, thereby defeating its purpose.

OG_slinger wrote:

Why are you so hesitant to call someone who lies for a living a liar? Politeness? The stakes are high enough for the gloves to come off and people to call a spade a spade.

Different people have different thresholds that must be met before labelling someone a liar, and that threshold can vary depending on the subject. In your case, you're confident that there's a pattern of deception that is too repetitive for it to be anything other than intentional, especially with money mixed in; however, you're also known for not particularly liking the religious right, and it could be argued that this might color your views a bit and make it easier for you to label one of their spokespeople in a negative way. Some people need more evidence than the aforementioned pattern, and they might also require more evidence if they've known and liked people who genuinely held and actively defended these sorts of beliefs.

Personally, I'm not a fan of book titles that are antagonistic like this, because I feel it markets the book to a specific segment of the market (people who dislike the religious right to begin with, or who feel their leadership is taking advantage of stupid sheep) instead of the general public. The people who most need to read this book are the very people who are most likely to be turned off by the title (though, granted, most of those people likely wouldn't read it or be convinced by its contents anyway).

Higgledy wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

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

Because it's not an accusation. Barton has repeated lied making him a liar. And what he's lying about could have profound implications for this country if it caught on more than it already has.

Why are you so hesitant to call someone who lies for a living a liar? Politeness? The stakes are high enough for the gloves to come off and people to call a spade a spade.

It's extremely important to point out that someone is lying when part of the power of their argument is that they are in a position of complete trust for thousands of people.

Why is it so important to say "lying" instead of just "wrong"?

Let me rephrase some of this and change "lying" to "wrong":

It's important to say that he's wrong because he's often wrong and there may be profound implications for the US.

It's extremely important to point out that someone is wrong when that person is in a position of trust for thousands of people.

I'm getting the feeling that, for some reason, this change will feel repugnant to some of you. Why is that?

wordsmythe wrote:

I'm getting the feeling that, for some reason, this change will feel repugnant to some of you. Why is that?

Heh, probably because the man seems to put tremendous effort into making his statements wrong. It would actually require less effort on his part to be less wrong.

Mytch wrote:

By the way, not having read it yet, is anyone besides Barton targeted in the book?

Yes. Rodda is being exceptionally meticulous and following every source to the original materials. Including the cascading 'errors' that can stem from an awkward wording in a history text. She points out where there could be simple misunderstanding and where someone obviously fabricated their content. "Liars for Jesus" targets any of the popularly referenced materials claiming historical evidence for our Founders to have intended this to be a Christian Nation, and various related fantasies.

wordsmythe wrote:

Why is it so important to say "lying" instead of just "wrong"?

Let me rephrase some of this and change "lying" to "wrong":

It's important to say that he's wrong because he's often wrong and there may be profound implications for the US.

It's extremely important to point out that someone is wrong when that person is in a position of trust for thousands of people.

I'm getting the feeling that, for some reason, this change will feel repugnant to some of you. Why is that?

Because the word "wrong" doesn't encapsulate his intent. Only using "wrong" could be interpreted that he made an honest mistake, which he did not. He has built a career out of spreading deliberate falsehoods.

Why does someone so concerned about grammar and the proper use of the English language baulk at calling someone who fits the definition of a liar to a 'T' a liar?

Crispus wrote:

Different people have different thresholds that must be met before labelling someone a liar, and that threshold can vary depending on the subject. In your case, you're confident that there's a pattern of deception that is too repetitive for it to be anything other than intentional, especially with money mixed in; however, you're also known for not particularly liking the religious right, and it could be argued that this might color your views a bit and make it easier for you to label one of their spokespeople in a negative way. Some people need more evidence than the aforementioned pattern, and they might also require more evidence if they've known and liked people who genuinely held and actively defended these sorts of beliefs.

The word liar has a negative connotation for a reason. Liars are bad for societies. Hell, there's even a Commandment against lying.

I find the preoccupation with the word "liar," to be a interesting thing to observe. Is there such a strong connotation to it for English in general, or is this a uniquely American phenomenon? When a person in an American show (or on the news) is caught making a false statement, regardless of whether he knew it was false or not, he gets called a "liar," as if it were some kind of inherently negative label. I'm supposing that in this case, it's not merely a factual observation, but some kind of a social label as well. Like a personal attack of some sort.

I supposing that's why the book is entitled that way. It's meant to be a personal attack, as opposed to an enlightening compilation of facts.

For my part, I just assume that everybody lies. I haven't met a person who hasn't.

LarryC wrote:

To be honest, I'm a little surprised that no one, as yet, has presumed that I stand for Barton or with Barton. I've been half expecting something like that to come down by the by.

Well that's probably because this discussion is split into two camps main disagreements: 1) The title is unnecessarily confrontational and 2) the subject matter assumes an intent that, through the complexity of the human experience, is undefinable.

So far I don't see anyone claiming that Barton is correct in his assertions, or that anything in the book by Rodda is demonstrably incorrect, aside from her claim that the people in her book are knowingly publishing false things.

EDIT: Logically my two camps sentence is incorrect. The camps metaphor would be more apt if the two viewpoints listed were at odds with each other. I blame not having had lunch yet.

LarryC wrote:

I haven't met a person who hasn't.

Liar. Exaggerations are lies too. Ever met a newborn? Newborns are people that haven't lied yet.

wordsmythe wrote:

Why is it so important to say "lying" instead of just "wrong"?

Let me rephrase some of this and change "lying" to "wrong":

It's important to say that he's wrong because he's often wrong and there may be profound implications for the US.

It's extremely important to point out that someone is wrong when that person is in a position of trust for thousands of people.

I'm getting the feeling that, for some reason, this change will feel repugnant to some of you. Why is that?

This is where individual perspective comes into it. I would ask the same question in reverse. If it's clear that there is calculated deception involved in what he is saying what is so wrong in pointing that out?

Rezzy:

I generally see and sometimes handle newborns, but I don't meet them as persons, since there's rarely a mutual introduction, and there's not much interaction to be had.

On a slightly more serious note, it's not much of an exaggeration. Sure, people who can't speak, have limited senses, and have amorphous thought processes will find it hard to communicate with others, let alone deceive them. I'm quite sure that comatose people can't lie very well, either. I'm obviously not talking about those people.

LarryC wrote:

I find the preoccupation with the word "liar," to be a interesting thing to observe. Is there such a strong connotation to it for English in general, or is this a uniquely American phenomenon? When a person in an American show (or on the news) is caught making a false statement, regardless of whether he knew it was false or not, he gets called a "liar," as if it were some kind of inherently negative label. I'm supposing that in this case, it's not merely a factual observation, but some kind of a social label as well. Like a personal attack of some sort.

I supposing that's why the book is entitled that way. It's meant to be a personal attack, as opposed to an enlightening compilation of facts.

Good question, and one that speaks to the reason we're at six pages and counting, I think.

To my mind, the word does carry a negative connotation, regardless of accuracy. Kind of like the word "bastard."

Higgledy wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Why is it so important to say "lying" instead of just "wrong"?

Let me rephrase some of this and change "lying" to "wrong":

It's important to say that he's wrong because he's often wrong and there may be profound implications for the US.

It's extremely important to point out that someone is wrong when that person is in a position of trust for thousands of people.

I'm getting the feeling that, for some reason, this change will feel repugnant to some of you. Why is that?

This is where individual perspective comes into it. I would ask the same question in reverse. If it's clear that there is calculated deception involved in what he is saying what is so wrong in pointing that out?

Barton's internal thoughts aren't as clear to me as they seem to be to many others here, so I'm not passing judgment on Barton's motives. As with the razor v. razor back on ... page 2? Occam's Razor may indicate that we should presume he's intentionally deceiving people, if that's somehow a "simpler" explanation, but Hanlon's Razor states never to assume bad intent where mere stupidity suffices.

Mytch wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I find the preoccupation with the word "liar," to be a interesting thing to observe. Is there such a strong connotation to it for English in general, or is this a uniquely American phenomenon? When a person in an American show (or on the news) is caught making a false statement, regardless of whether he knew it was false or not, he gets called a "liar," as if it were some kind of inherently negative label. I'm supposing that in this case, it's not merely a factual observation, but some kind of a social label as well. Like a personal attack of some sort.

I supposing that's why the book is entitled that way. It's meant to be a personal attack, as opposed to an enlightening compilation of facts.

Good question, and one that speaks to the reason we're at six pages and counting, I think.

To my mind, the word does carry a negative connotation, regardless of accuracy. Kind of like the word "bastard."

It's this negative connotation that stops me.

OG_slinger wrote:

Because the word "wrong" doesn't encapsulate his intent. Only using "wrong" could be interpreted that he made an honest mistake, which he did not. He has built a career out of spreading deliberate falsehoods.

Why does someone so concerned about grammar and the proper use of the English language baulk at calling someone who fits the definition of a liar to a 'T' a liar?

I feel that I can rightly and correctly pass judgment on Barton's claims, so I'm willing to say that he's wrong. But moving to calling him a liar means moving to judging him as a morally reprehensible person. That's a can of worms that I don't need to open.

In fact, I think opening that can causes more harm than good. The fundie nationalist debate is one that we can fairly easily win when the battlefield is one of historical accuracy and primary sources. Why change the battle to a contest of moral superiority?

If I can offer a possibility, I think that a number of people here harbor hostility toward fundamentalists for other reasons, and that hostility is tainting views here. I know that fundamentalists are frustrating and socially dangerous at best, so I completely understand why people can find themselves (especially if they've been victimized by "Christian" fundamentalists) actively hating them as a group. But I prefer not to take things that far. (It helps that I've mostly made my peace with fundies who have hurt me.)

Would you have the same behavior if the overall concept is something you believe to be true, and if we were just glossing over things which you think are inaccuracies? I see this kind of behavior all the time, and I try to combat it. I frequently get called pedantic, or supercilious, or nitpicky for my troubles. It appears to me that it's a general behavior trait among people to gloss over things which they don't think is important.

I routinely point out weak points in my arguments, and I try not to gloss over inconsistencies. But then that's how I was taught to discuss topics.

By the way, not having read it yet, is anyone besides Barton targeted in the book?

Yes, a number of different authors are cited.

Rezzy wrote:

I can't speak for KingGorilla, but for me it's twofold. First, the fact that Barton is actively using these lies to influence government. He wants his twisted, revised, and fabricated version of history to form the basis of our future. Barton is merely a cog in all this, but he is a cog that is becoming more visible and his syrupy sweet message of a Christian Nation is deluding more and more people everyday. People that now wistfully think back to those glorious times when the first question any President would ask themselves is: What would Jesus do? Those simpler times when all the courtrooms followed the Ten Commandments and then the constitution. And if only those other religions would stop forcing us to tolerate them all the time America wouldn't be as bad off as we are now and if we only petition our Christian government to assert itself we will be strong again.

And secondly, because he is lying when he should know better. He calls himself a researcher, mocks those that disagree with him, attacks them in his various echo-chambers, smugly asserts that the truth is obvious while running from any accounting and blithely ignoring any contrary evidence. This man has all the qualities of a demon. An agent of Lucifer. And the faithful are flocking to his siren-promise of power, eminence, and status. Embracing lies, half-truths, and doing irreparable damage to those of true faith. Those who believe in the power of true faith and recognize that the power of this nation isn't in its government, but in its people.
What Barton and his ilk want is a Christian King. For who could stand against the true leader chosen by God? That is the only end-game I see to their machinations.

(I wasn't going to post the first part, but LarryC forced my hand. This isn't nitpicking. This is a 'Researcher' and 'Historian' falsifying information. )

Really? I consider myself a faithful Christian and hadn't even heard of Mr. Barton until this thread.

wordsmythe wrote:

I feel that I can rightly and correctly pass judgment on Barton's claims, so I'm willing to say that he's wrong. But moving to calling him a liar means moving to judging him as a morally reprehensible person. That's a can of worms that I don't need to open.

In fact, I think opening that can causes more harm than good. The fundie nationalist debate is one that we can fairly easily win when the battlefield is one of historical accuracy and primary sources. Why change the battle to a contest of moral superiority?

If I can offer a possibility, I think that a number of people here harbor hostility toward fundamentalists for other reasons, and that hostility is tainting views here. I know that fundamentalists are frustrating and socially dangerous at best, so I completely understand why people can find themselves (especially if they've been victimized by "Christian" fundamentalists) actively hating them as a group. But I prefer not to take things that far. (It helps that I've mostly made my peace with fundies who have hurt me.)

No one's changing it to a battle for moral superiority except for perhaps you. Calling Barton a liar is simply an accurate use of the word. That you've added an entire other definition to 'liar' involving moral judgement is another issue entirely.

And it's really rich to have people saying my views are tainted considering the topic. Barton can claim bat sh*t crazy things a student who's taken more than a basic American history class can refute and he's merely factually incorrect. I point the obvious and my view is tainted (which, ironically, is a word that actually has a negative moral connotation in it's definition).

Barton says those things for a reason. That reason is to re-write history so that his view--that America is first and foremost a Christian nation and that god and government should be put in the same cart--is perceived as reality leading to what would essentially boil down to an American version of the Taliban where Christian Law is forcefully imposed on everyone instead of Sharia Law.

You might be confident that mere factual accuracy will lead to a "win", but I don't share that opinion. As the threads on evolution/creationism and climate change have consistently shown, facts are always trumped by someone's steadfast belief. Heck, psychological studies have shown that even when people are provided with irrefutable evidence that what they believe in is wrong they simply believe in it more rather than accept that they were wrong.

MacBrave wrote:

Really? I consider myself a faithful Christian and hadn't even heard of Mr. Barton until this thread.

That's extremely encouraging. Note however that I didn't say that Christians are flocking to him. Only that the faithful are. I know for a fact that most Christians are smart enough not to buy this horsecrap (or to somehow believe that the title means them). But I also know that most Christians aren't dumb enough to run for Congress. It's the ones that are, and buy this fantasy of a Christian Nation flocking to Barton that worry me.

Also, even if you haven't I'm pretty sure that others in your congregation, most likely including your pastor have at one place or another run into one of Barton's chestnuts and probably had no reason to doubt it.
And that's the power of his lies. (Individually or in small groups) They have the same power as wikipedia and urban legends. They contain just enough reality to be plausible. They involve people we've heard about but don't know enough about to say for certain. And the nuggets will link to an original document or quote taken just far enough out of context to support the lie. Consider Rodda's book the Snopes rebuttal to these chainletters.

EDIT to add qualifier. The lies become more obvious once they start piling on each other.

Rezzy wrote:
MacBrave wrote:

Really? I consider myself a faithful Christian and hadn't even heard of Mr. Barton until this thread.

That's extremely encouraging. Note however that I didn't say that Christians are flocking to him. Only that the faithful are. I know for a fact that most Christians are smart enough not to buy this horsecrap (or to somehow believe that the title means them).

I've heard of him, but only because I go out of my way to try and engage with the fundies.

OG_slinger wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

I feel that I can rightly and correctly pass judgment on Barton's claims, so I'm willing to say that he's wrong. But moving to calling him a liar means moving to judging him as a morally reprehensible person. That's a can of worms that I don't need to open.

In fact, I think opening that can causes more harm than good. The fundie nationalist debate is one that we can fairly easily win when the battlefield is one of historical accuracy and primary sources. Why change the battle to a contest of moral superiority?

If I can offer a possibility, I think that a number of people here harbor hostility toward fundamentalists for other reasons, and that hostility is tainting views here. I know that fundamentalists are frustrating and socially dangerous at best, so I completely understand why people can find themselves (especially if they've been victimized by "Christian" fundamentalists) actively hating them as a group. But I prefer not to take things that far. (It helps that I've mostly made my peace with fundies who have hurt me.)

No one's changing it to a battle for moral superiority except for perhaps you. Calling Barton a liar is simply an accurate use of the word. That you've added an entire other definition to 'liar' involving moral judgement is another issue entirely.

And it's really rich to have people saying my views are tainted considering the topic. Barton can claim bat sh*t crazy things a student who's taken more than a basic American history class can refute and he's merely factually incorrect. I point the obvious and my view is tainted (which, ironically, is a word that actually has a negative moral connotation in it's definition).

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that there's a character judgment associated with the word "liar."

Here's the thing about tainted views: Everyone's views are slanted, even if most people don't realize it. That's sort of the core of things like confirmation bias—it's really, really hard to realize that you're not objective (like, ever).

OG_slinger wrote:

No one's changing it to a battle for moral superiority except for perhaps you. Calling Barton a liar is simply an accurate use of the word. That you've added an entire other definition to 'liar' involving moral judgement is another issue entirely.

It looks like the dictionary says that you're BOTH right, actually. Here's its definition of lying:

5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

Given this definition, I think "lying" could be read as either having OR not having the extra dimension of intentional, knowing deception. I don't know which is the more common understanding of the word - I'd personally always thought that the liar knew they were telling an untruth - but I guess it's hard to criticize people who read it differently, given the above.

OG_slinger wrote:

Barton says those things for a reason. That reason is to re-write history so that his view--that America is first and foremost a Christian nation and that god and government should be put in the same cart--is perceived as reality leading to what would essentially boil down to an American version of the Taliban where Christian Law is forcefully imposed on everyone instead of Sharia Law.

That's your opinion, and some don't feel the evidence thus far offered is sufficient to prove what you're claiming. Certainly, I know people who believe that America is a Christian nation but do NOT believe that everyone here should be required to live as a Christian.

OG_slinger wrote:

You might be confident that mere factual accuracy will lead to a "win", but I don't share that opinion. As the threads on evolution/creationism and climate change have consistently shown, facts are always trumped by someone's steadfast belief. Heck, psychological studies have shown that even when people are provided with irrefutable evidence that what they believe in is wrong they simply believe in it more rather than accept that they were wrong.

And that's why no one has ever changed their mind about anything ever, right?

I think one difficult problem here is that the issue isn't just being wrong. It's being wrong in an extremely consistent manner. The goal here is to be able to say "It is safe to disbelieve anything [person X] tells you about [subject Y]." There are a couple of things that can explain why it is safe. One is "Because [person X] has shown a near perfect record of being incorrect about [subject Y]." Another is "Because [person X] has shown a clear and persistent bias about [subject Y]." You don't really need the second—but it's a fairly obvious follow on from the first, and also provides a reasonable expectation that [person X] isn't suddenly going to start doing good scholarship in the future.

Why is it important to be able to discard stuff from someone like this so broadly? Because there is no other effective way to combat the problem. The pattern is of making many tiny claims, and blowing each one up into a hugely broad overgeneralization. This is a specious argument tactic used to make it hard to argue against not the original claims, but the super-claim that is the outcome of the overgeneralization. You can't argue against the super-claim directly, you have to argue against all of the base claims, and demonstrate that each one is false, or that it is being generalized incorrectly. As long as a single base claim remains intact, it will be held up as being sufficient proof of the super-claim.

And of course, if you tear down every individual base claim, it's easily possible for someone to make a new base claim in the same manner, resurrecting the super-claim from the ashes.

This is pure sophistry. The entire structure appears to be designed to make it difficult to argue against, to make it time consuming to attack the super-claim. The only effective way to take it down is to say "I have taken down hundreds of your pieces of evidence for your thesis, and you keep throwing more out. So far you have yet to produce a single piece of evidence that is actually accurate, truthful, and supports your thesis. Your scholarship is shoddy, and your arguments are without merit. There is no reason for anyone to give credit to a word you say on this subject."

In short: The only effective strategy for arguing against this sort of approach to "scholarship" is to dismantle not just the individual points being argued, but the people making the arguments themselves. The problem is that this is an ad hominem argument—although not a fallacious one. And that makes it a bit distasteful and worrisome because we know fallacious ad hominem arguments are easy. In order to make that argument without it being fallacious, we must show a clear pattern of untrustworthy arguments.

And that's where the matter of calling people liars over this comes from—because you can make a very strong argument on the basis of acts of omission that these folks are acting with intent to deceive. It's also possible, and possibly better, to argue that they're wrong because they're deluded.

But what really matters is that they've shown a clear pattern of being wrong (for whatever reason), and that because of that we should be free to dismiss their claims without spending a lot of effort debunking them. The debunking is important, because it gives us certainty that their claims are wrong, and also shows the pattern of wrongness.

So, instead of saying "Barton's a filthy liar", we might say "Every single one of Barton's past claims about American history has been shown to be completely without merit, and any new claims he makes should be examined with extreme skepticism". The former is, however, a bit more short and to the point.

--

The real problem here is that "many tiny claims, all false, being used to promote one large claim, also false" technique of argument. It's maddening. And it's really hard to imagine anyone using it without realizing that their arguments are actually meritless. That's where our beliefs about intent come from: Why use a technique designed to make it hard to disprove falsehood unless you know that what you're saying is false?