Chris Rodda gives away her book on religious revisionist American history

Strunk & White isn't as good as everyone says.

Rezzy wrote:

Remember that she is facing ... a lying snake that has taken a topic that she loves dearly, the history of this nation, and twisted it into a farce all while claiming to be one of her peers.

In that light, her book isn't intended as a rebuttal. It's intended to be a polarizing counterattack, every bit as antagonistic and divisive as the title implies.

And that's where I take exception, because I would much rather convince these nationalists that they are wrong than shout at them from street corners. We do far too much shouting in politics.

wordsmythe wrote:

Strunk & White isn't as good as everyone says.

Rezzy wrote:

Remember that she is facing ... a lying snake that has taken a topic that she loves dearly, the history of this nation, and twisted it into a farce all while claiming to be one of her peers.

In that light, her book isn't intended as a rebuttal. It's intended to be a polarizing counterattack, every bit as antagonistic and divisive as the title implies.

And that's where I take exception, because I would much rather convince these nationalists that they are wrong than shout at them from street corners. We do far too much shouting in politics.

It's great that you're engaging with fundamentalist Christians. I've heard a few atheist saying that's exactly what they wish would happen.

Robear wrote:

I believe the speculation lies in assuming there is not enough information to say that Barton and others are *not* mistaken, but are rather misusing sources for a cause. I'm not sure how you would determine that in your system, however.

I suppose I'm not sure how I would determine that, either. Luckily, I don't feel the need to determine it.

That was not a taunt. I mean it seriously. If you can't separate mistakes from malicious intent, you'll have some serious problems with conmen, never mind Fundamentalists.

I think it's all well and good to engage with Fundamentalists, but I view this as orthogonal to that kind of discussion. This is more of a book to educate people. Whether you call it "Liars for Jesus" or "Refutations of Religious Revisionism", you won't see Fundamentalists picking it up. That's just the way things are. Might as well call it like she sees it, the Fundies won't believe it either way.

wordsmythe wrote:

In that light, her book isn't intended as a rebuttal. It's intended to be a polarizing counterattack, every bit as antagonistic and divisive as the title implies.

Ah, so now historical accuracy is antagonistic and divisive?

I guess I just find it terribly odd that you can see that Huckabee is pushing a political agenda with his alternative take on history, but you're not willing to admit the same for Barton. It's also odd that you can't see that these two things, along with the recent Texas school book fiasco and other events, are all essentially the same: attempts by ultra-conservatives to retcon history to support their extreme political views.

That's that "intent" thing you thought didn't apply Barton. He wants an America where god and country are the same thing and is willing to say anything (i.e., lie) to make that happen.

wordsmythe wrote:

And that's where I take exception, because I would much rather convince these nationalists that they are wrong than shout at them from street corners.

Anxiously awaiting your book.
And what will you call it?
Fundies are wrong?
And where you would bang your head into the Fundie Wall (Barton's Website is called Wallbuilders.com, coincidence? ), Rodda put together a manual for everyone else that only has to deal with their misguided followers. The ones that aren't really fundie, but could believe in a world where Jefferson was a devout Christian and wanted nothing more than to distribute Bibles in public school. Her book isn't aimed at the perpetrators themselves(though it would be nice if maybe they realized just how shallow their fantasy really is), but at the aftereffects of their lies: the people that KNOW we aren't a Christian Nation and are continually frustrated by the ease with which Barton and his ilk are spreading uncertainty about religious freedom in the US of A. So now we have a book of facts. Researched, footnoted, referenced, and in direct counter to the various lies that are being told by various liars.

wordsmythe wrote:

In that light, her book isn't intended as a rebuttal. It's intended to be a polarizing counterattack, every bit as antagonistic and divisive as the title implies.

It is definitely a counterattack, but I think I'm finally starting to see your position. From your arguments I gather that you would prefer a passive, conciliatory strategy. Complete detachment. Nothing that could be interpreted as having roots in outrage over the violation of our history. What Rodda should have written is a pure history book without ever mentioning that she is doing this work because of the gross misrepresentations made by these Liars. She could have called it: Original Intent (the real version). (joke)

But instead we have a detailed rebuttal to a body of work that slanders our History, with a title that calls out the perpetrators of this slander. If you consider that 'shouting at them from street corners.' Well... I honestly don't know what else could have been done. The fact is the people in question lied.

I'm not saying that your approach is wrong, but it wouldn't work in this case. We're not dealing with a snake where cutting off the head will kill the lies. They are already out there, becoming part of the background noise and psyche of Americans. We are dealing with bedbugs and the sheets need to be burned.

RE: Strunk & White... it was really hard to find an 'emotional' parallel on this issue. Some people really don't think History is relevant... just like grammar. *shrug* I tried.

EDIT: Fixed some structure and grammar... too many things at the same time. I should probably stop posting from work.

EDIT2: And maybe I should just wait for Robear to make my point better and more concise before I meander around trying to pin it to the corkboard.

Robear wrote:

That was not a taunt. I mean it seriously. If you can't separate mistakes from malicious intent, you'll have some serious problems with conmen, never mind Fundamentalists. :-)

There were plenty of well meaning middlemen between the Enron execs and the stockholders. It's not the intent of those middlemen that mattered.

I think it's all well and good to engage with Fundamentalists, but I view this as orthogonal to that kind of discussion. This is more of a book to educate people. Whether you call it "Liars for Jesus" or "Refutations of Religious Revisionism", you won't see Fundamentalists picking it up. That's just the way things are. Might as well call it like she sees it, the Fundies won't believe it either way.

I don't this is going to educate much at all. It's only going to serve to reinforce the views of those who already agree—especially those with a more hostile stance. This is, in effect, pandering to the base. I think that a more detached title could make it more approachable by "moderates" and undecideds, and those are precisely the people who need to read this book.

OG_slinger wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

In that light, her book isn't intended as a rebuttal. It's intended to be a polarizing counterattack, every bit as antagonistic and divisive as the title implies.

Ah, so now historical accuracy is antagonistic and divisive?

I guess I just find it terribly odd that you can see that Huckabee is pushing a political agenda with his alternative take on history, but you're not willing to admit the same for Barton. It's also odd that you can't see that these two things, along with the recent Texas school book fiasco and other events, are all essentially the same: attempts by ultra-conservatives to retcon history to support their extreme political views.

That's that "intent" thing you thought didn't apply Barton. He wants an America where god and country are the same thing and is willing to say anything (i.e., lie) to make that happen.

Historical accuracy doesn't have to be antagonistic. Like a knife, it depends on how you hold it and where you point it.

I don't deny that Barton may be pushing a political agenda, but there's a chance that he isn't—or that it is only partially political. Because of that chance, I'm uncomfortable personally with assuming bad intent. Beyond that, as I mentioned above, I think that a combative stance is less appealing to folks who aren't sure.

Here's the rhetorical strategy. In rhetorical terms, there are three main appeals: ethos (character/credibility of the speaker), pathos (emotional appeal of the message), and logos (reason). Many people will have already made their minds on this issue based on pathos—plenty of people want Barton to be right, and plenty want him to be wrong—but the undecideds currently are going to come or go based on logos. I feel, however, that if we take the spotlight off logos to attack Barton's credibility and character instead of his evidence and reasoning, it's only going to make him more appealing emotionally—it's going to lend fuel to the claims that he is "under attack" by [boogeyman group of the week].

There's a second level to the strategy, too. If Barton is "under attack," that means that he's no longer making the assertions, which means he has less responsibility to carry the burden of truth. He still loses on logos, but I see no reason to make it a closer match.

Unfortunately I think most undecideds don't really take the time to examine the evidence and reasoning. They just sort of passively absorb their information from the loudest and most persistent voices. If the message is emotionally appealing, is repeated often enough and merely sounds reasonable ("I got this all from primary sources! Look at how many footnotes I have!") people will believe it. In that kind of climate, it might be necessary to forcibly call someone out on their BS to get any kind of attention at all.

gewy:

It is gets any kind of attention, it'll get the wrong kind. When Mythbusters go about their business busting myths, they don't go around calling people (especially their viewership!) liars. That's the right way to appeal to logic and reason. They're bombastic, and entertaining, and certainly very charismatic, but you notice that they don't have to go around antagonizing people just to get attention.

In general, I'm really weirded out and a little alarmed every time I see this sort of hostility going up, especially with the term, "Liar!" Everyone lies to some extent or another. People who make it a point to reveal to everyone their exact opinion of everything all the time will have severe social problems. As a factual label, it's kind of pointless.

wordsmythe wrote:

I don't deny that Barton may be pushing a political agenda, but there's a chance that he isn't—or that it is only partially political. Because of that chance, I'm uncomfortable personally with assuming bad intent. Beyond that, as I mentioned above, I think that a combative stance is less appealing to folks who aren't sure.

Really?

Barton was the former Vice Chairman of the Texas Republican Party and a consultant for the Republican National Committee and you're going to claim that he isn't political? I mean it's not like the Republican Party is famous for its tolerance of "partially political" folks. You either drink the Cool-Aid or they drum your ass out.

For those questioning the motives behind the title, you might want to read the introduction. These books are not meant to convince the revisionists that they're wrong, they're meant to be an exhaustive and well-researched source for people to use when debating/arguing with the revisionists.

It is my sincere hope that this book, and the two to follow, will be
useful to those already aware of and fighting the religious right’s revisionism
of American history, and, even more importantly, that it will
inform those who are unaware, as I was three years ago, of the dangerous
extent to which this revisionism has spread.

She's not out to convince Barton he's wrong. Her purpose was to give us a place to point to when we tell others that Barton is wrong.

I still find it hard to accept that we should not call a lie, a lie. That's exactly the kind of thing that gets people taken advantage of.

Steps to a fascist government:

#1: Make it politically incorrect to call out lies
#2: Lie your ass off
#3: ?
#4: Stand trial at the Hague

I must admit, I have thinking about Goebbel's statement about telling a lie big enough and keep repeating it and people will come to believe it.

Oops. I realize later that I've violated Godwin's law... my bad.

Robear wrote:

I still find it hard to accept that we should not call a lie, a lie. That's exactly the kind of thing that gets people taken advantage of.

What gets people taken advantaged of is not calling wrong things wrong, and a fatal lack of critical thinking. Focusing on the lie aspect of a wrong statement is the second best thing a conman would want to happen, because he can then fight the accusation by using character witnesses or similar other irrelevant information.

Focusing on the what makes the wrong statement wrong voids that sort of (all-too-common) tactic.

LarryC wrote:
Robear wrote:

I still find it hard to accept that we should not call a lie, a lie. That's exactly the kind of thing that gets people taken advantage of.

What gets people taken advantaged of is not calling wrong things wrong, and a fatal lack of critical thinking. Focusing on the lie aspect of a wrong statement is the second best thing a conman would want to happen, because he can then fight the accusation by using character witnesses or similar other irrelevant information.

Focusing on the what makes the wrong statement wrong voids that sort of (all-too-common) tactic.

This entire conversation strikes me as the sort of mealymouthed backpedaling you find from folks who routinely use words like gook or n1gger and insist that they aren't racist because you "don't know them".

Paleocon:

When I talk about conmen and crime, I speak from a perspective of having some experience in eluding them, as I've lived in a depressed neighborhood with both gang violence and con artist schemes going around. Proving statements and claims wrong on the grounds of their own merits is usually the easy part. Going against the conman on character grounds is harder, for precisely the reasons I stated.

I don't understand what's so important about attacking other people that it takes precedence over debunking incorrect claims, especially when it's so much easier to just stick to the facts.

LarryC wrote:

Paleocon:

When I talk about conmen and crime, I speak from a perspective of having some experience in eluding them, as I've lived in a depressed neighborhood with both gang violence and con artist schemes going around. Proving statements and claims wrong on the grounds of their own merits is usually the easy part. Going against the conman on character grounds is harder, for precisely the reasons I stated.

I don't understand what's so important about attacking other people that it takes precedence over debunking incorrect claims, especially when it's so much easier to just stick to the facts.

And yet you have no hesitation calling them "conmen". Why should anyone have any issue calling these liars, well, liars?

I rather thought that we'd gone over exactly that over the last few pages. I'm don't particularly have any issues over whether or not Barton is a conman. It doesn't matter. It seems to me that for many folks (perhaps including you, Paleocon), it does. This suggests that there's something there other than debunking an incorrect claim.

LarryC wrote:

This suggests that there's something there other than debunking an incorrect claim.

Here's the mission statement for WallBuilders, the non-profit group Barton founded:

WallBuilders' goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.

He most definitely has an agenda and lying about history is the only way he can achieve his goals since the facts simply don't support him.

LarryC wrote:

I rather thought that we'd gone over exactly that over the last few pages. I'm don't particularly have any issues over whether or not Barton is a conman. It doesn't matter. It seems to me that for many folks (perhaps including you, Paleocon), it does. This suggests that there's something there other than debunking an incorrect claim.

Here's why it matters to me. If someone is merely making incorrect claims, you would expect them to be swayed by better evidence. If someone is systematically lying to achieve an agenda, then whatever evidence you present against them will only be met with further lies and manipulation. In that case, it's necessary to reveal the deceit and the underlying motives so people who don't spend much time researching the subject aren't duped.

gewy:

Not at all. Making a case for Barton's character is entirely separate from making a case against the accuracy of his claims. The way this thread has gone so far about this liar thing only demonstrates this principle all too well.

Falsehoods of whatever nature are best fought with facts, not character assassination. Even if the person in question were to persevere with other falsehoods, one only needs to bring up the facts yet again to foil the person repeatedly. At that point, the very publicity he has sought or achieved will decisively play against him, as his claims are debunked again and again on purely disinterested factual revelation. Proven publicly incorrect enough times, he will eventually be seen as a liar, misguided, moronic, or just plain unreliable, without any additional need to make any specific comment about his character.

Making the debate about his character only makes him more public, and allows him to appeal to even more illogical means to pursue his agenda.

The only way I can make sense of it is that people who are out to assassinate Barton's character over representing a factual rebuttal of his claims themselves have some sort of agenda that as yet isn't obvious to me.

Falsehoods of whatever nature are best fought with facts, not character assassination.

You don't watch American politics do you.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Falsehoods of whatever nature are best fought with facts, not character assassination.

You don't watch American politics do you. ;)

He said "best," not "most commonly."

wordsmythe wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Falsehoods of whatever nature are best fought with facts, not character assassination.

You don't watch American politics do you. ;)

He said "best," not "most commonly."

I don't know, character assassination seems to work on the American public pretty well.

A fascinating piece in Mother Jones today about Barton.

On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn't even published until 1859. Barton declared, "As far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, they'd already had the entire debate over creation and evolution, and you get Thomas Paine, who is the least religious Founding Father, saying you've got to teach Creation science in the classroom. Scientific method demands that!"

Paine died in 1809, the same year Darwin was born.

I knew the likes of Adams, Jefferson and Franklin were good, but, hot damn... they could see scientific theories before they were even developed!

Amazing.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

A fascinating piece in Mother Jones today about Barton.

On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn't even published until 1859. Barton declared, "As far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, they'd already had the entire debate over creation and evolution, and you get Thomas Paine, who is the least religious Founding Father, saying you've got to teach Creation science in the classroom. Scientific method demands that!"

Paine died in 1809, the same year Darwin was born.

I knew the likes of Adams, Jefferson and Franklin were good, but, hot damn... they could see scientific theories before they were even developed!

Amazing.

Well, we know they were omnipotent and benevolent.. stands to reason they'd be omniscient, too

Now now, he may simply be misinformed.

He's clearly misinformed. He thinks Creationism is a scientific concept.

He's taking back "time" from the scientists.