Reaction to the Anti-Barton Crowd
I didn’t go to the ASI speaker Barton the other night though I had a pretty good idea of what was said. While I’m not fond of people being called historians who lack the formal training that such a distinction ought to have, I must say that there is one part of his message that I agree with. I think it is a terrible thing that we are so afraid of politicians who appeal to God in their decision-making.Right here and now I want to dispel the fallacy that being a Christian and a politician means that you support imperialism, that you think its great that large multi-national corporations should oppress local populations, that you hate gays, and that you want Hispanics to be deported in white vans.You can be an evangelical and support efforts to protect the environment. You can be an evangelical and support efforts to keep big business more accountable to society at large. You can be an evangelical and support a socialized medical industry. You can be an evangelical and support equal treatment of homosexuals in society. I’m a bit aggravated by the tendency to always react to public officials who are evangelicals in a negative light. Sure you might disagree with them, but they are perfectly entitled to make their decisions in a religious context.You might find it interesting to note that some of the most prominent socialists in America were also evangelical Christians. Francis Bellamy, the man who wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance of all things, was a baptist minister and a socialist. What a seemingly strange crosscurrent of beliefs that seems to us today! Men with the socialist tendencies of this man would be praised by the very people who oppose religious overtones in political discussion.There is nothing wrong with invoking religious beliefs in political stances. We must resist the temptation to deny an opinion its full consideration solely on the basis of its underlying religious convictions.
Sure. But when you attempt to re-write history and blame the political, social, and educational failures of a nation and its populace on the fact that mandated school prayer was deemed illegal is warranted of all sorts of criticism.
When a man who claims that he was personally contacted by God to spread his message that contradicts what the overwhelming majority of respectable historians assert as the fundamental beliefs of our founding fathers and their establishing intentions is an affront to well-established historical interpretations.
Dr. Elrod summed it up best with this statement:
“What I can’t abide with is that he believes that any view of American history that does not portray the framers as Bible-reading, church-going evangelicals is in error and that the teaching of this error is subverting the true foundations of American liberty.
That is an insult to real, trained historians who know the difference between fact and fantasy. Some of these historians even work at Christian colleges.
Many of our students will leave the auditorium tonight convinced that everything they’ve been taught about America’s political foundations by myself and others who work at Harding is a deliberate lie.
Barton is a liar, a deceiver, and questionably a lunatic. The “anti-Barton crowd” wasn’t loud enough.
S.C. Denney
14 Feb 08 at 6:35 pm
I very much appreciate this post. I strongly dislike the notion that evangelical missionary efforts are somehow imperialistic. Sure, the missionaries of the Victorian age had culture ideals to meet, but it is my hope that modern missionaries work to adapt their message to a culture rather than the opposite.
Ian
14 Feb 08 at 6:55 pm
I have no problem with evangelicals, I’m all for them. And I think mission trips are a good thing.
For an evangelical to suggests his or her beliefs to another is great. For an evangelical politician to base legislation on the idea of forcing his beliefs on constituents is right out frightening.
Barton wants to tear down the separation of Church and state, and that is terrifying. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, and others all have their rights too. That’s what the first amendment says, in my opinion.
It’s a shame that (as Patrick Baird referred to them) the Poster Fuzz tore down all of the fliers posted by students exposing the lies of DB. I understand that there is a policy here at HU that you must have all literature approved before posting/distributing on campus, but the timing of the Poster Fuzz action is almost always instep with ASI.
The Poster Fuzz seemed to have a bigger problem with fliers exposing the lies of David Barton than they did of last semester’s College Republican flier with a lie printed on it.
I would encourage Harding to allow more dissent when they pay these hacks to come on campus and fill the minds of students (many who must go to ASI for extra points in history/political science courses) with outright lies.
The selectivity of the Poster Fuzz is pretty obvious. The flier taken down in their recent student center sweep seemed to include only Anti-Barton fliers and the modest signs announcing this weeks College Democrat meeting.
I think Steve said it best:
“Barton is a liar, a deceiver, and questionably a lunatic. The ‘anti-Barton crowd’ wasn’t loud enough.”
TheChrisBerry
14 Feb 08 at 7:17 pm
The pledge of allegiance, as written by Francis Bellamy, said:
“I Pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.”
The words “under God” were added to the pledge in 1954 at the urging of the Knights of Columbus and various other Christian organizations after much debate and with the stated purpose being to distinguish us from the atheistic socialists that we were locked in a global struggle with.
You can thank a socialist for the pledge itself and fear of socialism for the adoption of the words under God.
Chris, the most prominent socialists in American history were confirmed atheists. Few people know who Francis Bellamy was and those who do likely didn’t know he was a Christian socialist. The 2 most famous socialists in American history, I would say, are Eugene V. Debs and Upton Sinclair. Read any of Sinclair’s books and you quickly will see his negative view of religion.
While being an evangelical Christian does not cause you to be imperialistic, homophobic, and ethnocentric, there is a strong correlation in the public arena. Those who are most likely to spew reactionary regressive ideas are also the ones most likely to cloak themselves in religion.
The fact remains that you can let whatever you want to influence your political views, just don’t shove religion down the throats of others in the public square.
Kyle Johns
14 Feb 08 at 7:46 pm
1. The mistake both sides make regarding our founders is that they make it an either/or scenario. One side makes all the Founders to be religiously motivated. The other side make all the Founders to be a bunch of atheists. The truth is that there were some of both, yet more of the former. Both sides try to claim Thomas Jefferson, yet the founding of our country was bigger than Thomas Jefferson. I would even argue that it was bigger than the Founders.
2. I have read on many blogs the idea that a. the Founders were not religiously motivated and b. even if they were, that does not mean that we should be that way today. I want to use the same logic but spin it my way. Even if the Founders were all completely deists and were completely unreligiously motivated, that does not mean we should be that way today. I think it is just fine for today’s political leaders to state their religious views and uphold the religious convictions that come from them.
3. Regardless of what the original Pledge said, the point remains that Bellamy was religiously inspired by his convictions. I think Bellamy was much more popular at the time the evangelical organizations decided to add “under God.” There are and have been plenty of Christian socialists. There is no way to argue otherwise. The argument that the most prominent ones were not does not address the same question.
4. TheChrisBerry, it is a shame that the law is so selectively applied. I support your efforts to make the policy more consistently applied.
5. There are too many examples of policies that every one here would support that have come from religiously inspired rhetoric. Sure many evils have been done in the name of religion. However, the solution to that is not to get rid of religion, its to get rid of evil.
Chris McNeal
14 Feb 08 at 9:21 pm
When we are talking about potential policy today and how religion should interact, it isn’t a question of rhetoric, it is a question of rationale.
Rhetorically, I am fine with any politician using any words, phrases, or whatever to inspire religious connotations to drum up support for a policy that makes sense for our country.
The problem is when any religion, including mine (Christianity) becomes the rationale for policy. Then you get laws that outlaw gay marriage, teach abstinence-only, and pretend like creationism belongs in science class.
It is clear that religious rhetoric has often been used throughout American history. I think it is equally clear that governmental policy has rarely if ever been supported only because of any particular religion.
Use the rhetoric all you want, Chris McNeal, David Barton, George Bush, and whoever else is out there. Really, go for it. But don’t even try to pass laws based on your narrow interpretation of one religion’s holy scriptures.
David M Manes
14 Feb 08 at 9:50 pm
I couldn’t care less what a persons religious beliefs are. A person can be a Christian and a socialist, but in this country, those are few and far between. When it comes to implementing policy for a nation as diverse and multi-faceted as our is, though, those policies must be primarily secular. Religion and socialism can mix. The early Christian church was utopian socialist. Iran is a theocratic socialist state, as is Yemen. In the discussion about Christian socialism from May 2007, Chris, you came out in opposition of a system that mixes socialism with religion. Are you now advocating such a system?
And honestly, I don’t really give a f@#k what the framers thought, one way or another. I think that religion should be kept out of the public sphere because politics is divisive enough without introducing an issue where compromise is impossible.
“Sure many evils have been done in the name of religion. However, the solution to that is not to get rid of religion, its to get rid of evil.”
The problems with this statement are several. As long as people are promised that conformance with the status quo and support of the establishment will be rewarded “in the next life,” they have little impetus to work for change. Some are also told that if bad things happen, it is because God willed it and to find solace in prayer. Religion ignores the fact that humans are responsible for their own problems and that only humans bear the responsibility of solving those problems. This is called humanism. As long as religion stands in the way of solving the problems of humanity and distracts us from those problems and numbs us to them, it is, as Marx said, an opiate, something that no well person needs and can be destructively addictive.
Kyle Johns
14 Feb 08 at 10:02 pm
I don’t support the taking down of more fliers, I support the taking down of fewer fliers. I believe the HU policy should be amended so that anyone can post fliers, and they will be removed only if they are in direct opposition of HU’s Christian affiliation. This would mean that organizations like College Democrats and the Roosevelt Institution could post fliers without bothering to ask, and they would only be removed if they had tactless taglines (like the one the College Republicans had last semester), or when they are expired (say, on announcing a meeting that has already happened).
The whole ASI is a load of crap and Harding should stop pandering to pundits of the far right. And if they won’t, Harding students should be able to express their distaste by posting fliers, like students at most schools in the United States.
I’m fairly certain that lying is not supported by the University, so why do they pay someone to come and lie about the founders of the United States? Hypocrisy!
Down with the Poster Fuzz!
TheChrisBerry
14 Feb 08 at 10:26 pm
Just as a side comment on this continuing debate over David Barton, there are many figures throughout history (writers, scientists, etc.) who did not have the qualifications that many of you deem to be necessary to share any relevant theories, yet history has deemed to be intellectuals and masters of their fields. Solely referring to the idea that he is irrelevant and unqulaified to speak at Harding based on his lack of elitist created credentials, I say that this is a poor argument and I am surprised that it has landed on this blog. With regard to the other arguments against him, I have no beef with any of them. I am not saying that I agree with all of the arguments against him, but I do feel that those are arguments that have merit.
I believe that we as humans, both Christian and non-Christian, have common goals in this world. These are reflected in many of our laws, such as the prohibition of murder, child pornography, rape, and other crimes of that nature. However, there are many issues that we also share in less serious areas like the treatment of human beings, how we provide for those less fortunate than ourselves, and how we treat our planet. I have no problem, like many of you, with evoking your religious principles when supporting a particular piece of legislation, but I do also understand that it cannot be the only rationale. However, I must say that most issues that are supported by evangelicals also have a common sense element to it and can be argued from a non-religious perspective.
With regard to the founding fathers and the Constitution as a whole, I would like to shed some light on a slippery slope that we can end up on through some people’s line of logic. I am not supporting a complete reversal of all of our policies to reflect the ideals of the founding fathers, but when you say things like not caring about what they believed to be the original intent when framing the Constitution, you also limit the words of the Constitution themselves. In court cases, we look to previous court cases and their rulings when deciding a case of similar facts and issues. This preserves the fluidity and predictability of the law. Courts look to legislative history when attempting to determine the intent of Congress when enacting the legislation at issue. If courts were to disregard the intent of Congress, then judges would even more so be able to “create law.” The good thing about the Constitution is that it is a solid foundation for which we can guarantee a consistent government and rule of law all throughout our history. Now, it has been interpreted differently by judges (not always in a good manner as with slavery), but that doesn’t mean that the intent of the framers is irrelevant. If we dispose of the complete intent of the framers, we risk invalidating the Constitution as a whole.
CJ Rivenbark
15 Feb 08 at 4:56 pm
I think the best way to view the supposed framers’ intent is to identify it, study it, and then improve on it. We don’t have to be forever married to a single meaning, even if we can identify what the framers “intended” by certain phrases.
For instance, when the founding fathers wrote the phrase “…all men are created equal,” they obviously did not believe that equality should be extended to blacks or to whites who didn’t own property. Since that time, we have come to more fully accept the words they wrote and we have improved on what their original intent was while still upholding the fundamental belief.
Additionally, when the framers crafted the first amendment including the protection of free speech, it only took a few years before the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed. Whatever their interpretation of free speech was obviously did not include the right to criticize the government’s foreign policy. I would like to think that we have come a long way since then in our appreciation of the phrase “free speech,” and I don’t want to go back.
If we plant ourselves too firmly in the context of the original letter from Jefferson that mentions the “wall of separation” between church and state, we lose out on all of the important advances that we have made in the past 200 years. We have taken that good idea and made it even better in many ways. Now is not the time to start regressing back to the way political life was in the 18th century with regard to social norms, laws, or church-state relations.
David M Manes
15 Feb 08 at 9:33 pm
I do not want to give you the impression that I don’t think Mr. Barton is entitled to take a position because he doesn’t have a Ph.d. I absolutely think he should argue what he believes with all he has. I can see how you got that impression from what I said. My only objection was calling him a “historian.” That term generally has the connotation of having a doctorate and using that term otherwise gives a wrong impression in my opinion.
Chris McNeal
15 Feb 08 at 11:24 pm
“My only objection was calling him a “historian.” That term generally has the connotation of having a doctorate and using that term otherwise gives a wrong impression in my opinion.”
Yeah, that was my whole point from the beginning as well. When you present yourself as a “historian” you better be able to defend that assertion to an extent. I will concede, not all renowned writers have PhDs, but they have public acclaim and respected works to back up their claims. Barton posses none of these traits — not even a PhD. Sure, Barton’s written some books, but there’re by no means critically acclaim, there not even endorsed by a publisher. Yet he continues to call himself a historian.
Ok, I’ve given Barton more time than he deserves. I’m done talking about him, promise.
S.C. Denney
16 Feb 08 at 12:41 am
I understand your argument, but there are so many great intellectuals that have been deemed to be great thinkers of their time post-humously. Far too many people are only appreciated after their time on this world has passed. I am not saying that David Barton is going to be one of these people, but his criticism should not be that his ideas are not accepted in the historical community and that he is not published by any reknowned company. Just explicating my beef with this argument.
CJ Rivenbark
17 Feb 08 at 4:48 am
“Right here and now I want to dispel the fallacy that being a Christian and a politician means that you support imperialism, that you think its great that large multi-national corporations should oppress local populations, that you hate gays, and that you want Hispanics to be deported in white vans.
You can be an evangelical and support efforts to protect the environment. You can be an evangelical and support efforts to keep big business more accountable to society at large. You can be an evangelical and support a socialized medical industry. You can be an evangelical and support equal treatment of homosexuals in society.”
I agree with you…up until this last statement and also for a blaring omission. I don’t know how a Christian could support any candidate who calls for equal treatment of homosexuals when equal treatment means legally recognizing their marriages and giving those marriages the same standing as heterosexual marriages. I also cannot understand how a Christian could support any candidate who would say that a person has the right to murder her/his unborn child. Being a Christian and being accepting of these things are totally contradictory.
neitherleftnorright
26 Feb 08 at 2:46 pm
Sure you can be a Christian and believe that homosexuals should have the right to marry and adopt. David, a Christian, makes that claim everyday. Personally, I don’t think he is right. But I’m not going to say that because you believe that you can’t be a Christian. That’s absurd.
Chris McNeal
26 Feb 08 at 6:13 pm