If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WBUR Boston)   According to David Barton, everything you know about American history is wrong. Especially the whole "separation of church and state" stuff. Guess which political party he consults with?   (wbur.org) divider line 63
    More: Scary, Americans, texas gop, Oral Roberts University, WallBuilders, Trinity, secularists, expert witnesses, U S Capitol  
•       •       •

2341 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Aug 2012 at 1:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-09 11:06:22 AM
5 votes:
Article 11. 'nuff said.

Article 11 reads:

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

book it/done.
2012-08-09 12:48:14 PM
4 votes:

impaler: vernonFL: TFA:

We looked up every citation Barton said was from the Bible, but not one of them checked out.

You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim.

Deuteronomy 17:15
New International Version (NIV)
be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite.

Wait, the constitution says we have to have an Israeli king?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 330x282]


We also don't "appoint" a "king." We buy Presidents.
2012-08-09 11:27:00 AM
4 votes:
My mother and I recently had a shouting match (well, she did all the shouting) when she started talking about the 10 commandments being removed from a courthouse. She was infuriated. I told her it made sense because of the 1st amendment. The courthouse is a government building, and it is inappropriate to be promoting any religion in a government building. And having a copy of the 10 commandments can absolutely be seen as promoting one particular religion. Then I quoted the 1st amendment to her, which pissed her off. And then she was stuck on the part where it says "CONGRESS shall make no law..."

Then she actually said to me, "What the hell does Congress have to do with a courthouse? Congress doesn't have anything to do with that courthouse!"

I tried to explain to her how the different branches of government work and handle different things while still being part of the same whole (making laws, vs interpreting laws etc) but she just kept yelling that this country used to have God's blessing and we've squandered it and we are/will be incurring His wrath.

After a while, I just stared at her and stopped talking. I simply could not reason with her. I don't even know why I tried.
2012-08-09 01:45:57 PM
3 votes:
David Barton is a traitor to this country and to its Constitution.

I say keelhaul the son of a b*tch.

The USS Missouri won't mind a nice energetic belly tickle.
2012-08-09 01:38:26 PM
3 votes:
Someone send him this

Highlights:
"the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) "

"Consider this: IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing Christians, would there ever have been a revolution at all?

"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23

This passage refers to humans rebelling against god, a statement that establishes the precedence of unconditional subservience which is further illustrated, very explicitly, by the following two passages:

1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."

Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." "


And of course what Weaver already posted.
2012-08-09 01:38:18 PM
3 votes:

TV's Vinnie: So.....this means that EVERYONE must go to CHRISTIAN church and worship Republican Jesus or be shot on sight.


Believe it or not, I was raised religious. Deep Texas religious, too. And one of the 'biggest' things that they believe in is the imminent 'Christian Tribulation'. The time when real Christians will be persecuted and hated and hunted like dogs by the government and the Anti-Christ, who will be charming and adored and loved around the world.

I've since grown up and become an adult and laughed it off and found my own spiritual way in the world, but I'd find it amazingly ironic if their own idiotic attempts at forming a Theocracy doesn't backfire on them and end up with the fundamentalists actually getting their own little self-inflicted Tribulation.
2012-08-09 11:26:20 AM
3 votes:
No serious historian on the right or left (including Evangelicals like Mark Noll) takes David Barton seriously. He is not a historian and has no training in history or historical methodology.
2012-08-09 11:16:29 AM
3 votes:
He says they prove that the Founding Fathers were deeply religious men
Some were, some weren't.

who built America on Christian ideas
Arguably, if you ignore those ideas aren't exclusive to Christianity.

"You look at Article 3, Section 1, the treason clause," he told James Robison on Trinity Broadcast Network. "Direct quote out of the Bible. You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim.
I was unaware those parts of the Constitution were written in Hebrew... What about the 5th amendment's: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property", which comes from John Locke? What does Locke have to say on Religion?

"Locke, writing his Letters Concerning Toleration (1689-92) in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance. Three arguments are central: (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity."

he claims that Congress not only published the first American Bible in 1782, but it also intended the Bible to be used in public schools.
I'm sure some members of Congress did. However, James Madison earlier wrote a essay against using pubic funds to teach religious opinions. Link

But historians say Barton is flat-out wrong in his facts and conclusion. Congress never published or paid a dime for the 1782 Bible.
Oh, well there you go. Lying for Jesus.

"And we're going to be told they don't want any kind of religion in education, they don't want voluntary prayer?" Barton asks his audience rhetorically?
Who has ever said they didn't want voluntary prayer? Yeah, that's just a strawman. Lying for Jesus again.

I guess it sucks that the founders never explicitly stated whether or not the government was founded on Christianity, so we are all left to speculate... Oh wait. They did. In the "Treaty of Tripoli."

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
2012-08-09 01:53:36 PM
2 votes:
Who cares what political party he consults, it's the consulting school boards and education policy that's worrisome.
2012-08-09 01:43:41 PM
2 votes:

qorkfiend: Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?

Huckabee? As in, Mike Huckabee?


Huck's a hardcore Dominionist. He wants to rewrite the Constitution to reflect the Bible(well, his Bible)

The Dominionists ride along as regular Christians don't speak up loudly enough to be heard above all the FUD people like Huckabee spread.

Sad thing is, if a Huckabee style Dominionist got his way, Catholics and Mormons would probably not be welcome here.
2012-08-09 01:43:25 PM
2 votes:

Kurmudgeon: Seeing that The Treaty of Tripoli was written between the United States and a country that no longer exists, Ottoman Tripolitania, the Treaty of Tripoli has been null and void since 1911 if not sooner.

Also, treaties do not rule The Constitution null and avoid either.
The Treaty of Tripoli is just a vague historic artifact with no meaning or power in today's US government.

Some more info if you'd like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Tripolitania


Yes, yes, so because the USSR no longer exists, then the treaties regarding nuclear arms reductions are no longer valid?

That's adorable.

Okay, so. No one's saying that this treaty 'binds' the US into being a secular nation. What we 'are' saying is that this Treaty demonstrates the mindset of the Founding Fathers. That it shows in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that the US was not founded to be a Christian nation. That the Founding Fathers had NO problems with people who weren't Christian and that they were secular in their thinking and their design of the government.

It effectively and completely destroys the drool-cup idea that America was designed to be a Christian nation and that the Founding Fathers meant it that way.
2012-08-09 01:40:41 PM
2 votes:
Old (2009), but still a good read: The Idiocy of Texas and the Threat of David Barton includes special guest star Michele Bachmann. I am seriously glad neither she nor Rick Perry got anywhere near the White House, and I say that as a Christian. The more I read about this guy, though, the more I find him absolutely terrifying.
2012-08-09 11:51:09 AM
2 votes:

Via Infinito: Then she actually said to me, "What the hell does Congress have to do with a courthouse? Congress doesn't have anything to do with that courthouse!"


Technically, it's also the 14th, incorporating the restriction to the states as well.

Via Infinito: I simply could not reason with her. I don't even know why I tried.


Because she's your mother; and if you won't, why should anyone else make any effort beyond waiting for her to kick the bucket.
2012-08-09 11:47:49 AM
2 votes:
2012-08-09 11:46:33 AM
2 votes:
www.publicartinla.com

One of the Founding Fathers was Jewish.
2012-08-09 11:44:50 AM
2 votes:
TFA:

We looked up every citation Barton said was from the Bible, but not one of them checked out.
2012-08-09 11:25:11 AM
2 votes:
When I think David Barton, I think of the gym where all the insanely buff homosexuals go.

I don't care how you want to spin the founding fathers. Theocracy is a baaaaaaaaad idea.
2012-08-10 11:04:45 AM
1 votes:

Kurmudgeon: Only if you're willing to believe that John Adams is the only Founding Father.


You seemed to have missed the words "and Congress"; William Blount, John Langdon, and George Read were signatories to the Constitutional and members of the senate who also voted for ratification.

impaler: It was signed unanimously by congress, dipshat.


Technically, a unanimous vote of the 23 senators present.

Kurmudgeon: By the way, the Arabic version of the Treaty does NOT contain the words in Article 11.


True. However, the English version was what was ratified by the Senate.

impaler: Sure he can. He's an Authoritarian.


Particular evidence he is? The most damning thing I've found is a img.fark.neting inability to understand how sample-based polling works.

heavymetal: You are correct.


Part correct; he didn't cross out or tear for that, he used a nice neat razor blade for carving out the diamonds from the dunghill.
2012-08-10 08:22:50 AM
1 votes:

qorkfiend: Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?

Huckabee? As in, Mike Huckabee?


I'll just leave this here.
2012-08-10 04:56:35 AM
1 votes:

Legio Minervia: You cannot dismiss that significance even if it doesn't agree with your viewpoint


Sure he can. He's an Authoritarian.
2012-08-10 04:28:27 AM
1 votes:

Kurmudgeon: Never said the country was for "Christians alone". Just pointing out that this treaty does not have the force that anti-theists attempt to give it. By the way, the Arabic version of the Treaty does NOT contain the words in Article 11. So if their version did not have the text, then they could not ratify that on their side. Yet more reason to not give this treaty any more credence,


Ah ha ha ha ha! I didn't even read this drivel before I posted: " for the longest time I've read how disparities between the Arabic and English versions of that treaty means it wasn't binding"

Jesus fuking Christ. The founders, in no uncertain terms, declared the government wasn't founded on Christiantity, and you want to argue if the text it was in was legally binding? I bet your stupid lying arse quotes Jefferson's use of "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence too, without a single hint of irony.
2012-08-10 04:23:23 AM
1 votes:

Kurmudgeon: "The treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to submit to the Pasha's demands for increased payments"
It is no longer law, melon head.


Wow, so in 1801 Jefferson pulled a Romney and retroactively made our government founded on Christianity in 1789! And who says batshat insane theocrats are bad at critical thinking?

It's funny, for the longest time I've read how disparities between the Arabic and English versions of that treaty means it wasn't binding. Being a non-retard I never conceived how that was relevant. Now I know you fuking idiots think that if the statement signed by every single member of congress, and Thomas Jefferson's administration, isn't legally binding, then you can the US was founded on the religion of Christianity.

The stupidity would be amusing if it wasn't so damaging and evil.
2012-08-10 03:55:14 AM
1 votes:

Kurmudgeon: impaler: It was signed unanimously by congress, dipshat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
"The treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to submit to the Pasha's demands for increased payments"
It is no longer law, melon head.


Others in the thread have pointed out many times that the Treaty of Tripoli, while no longer lawfully binding, is an insight into the thoughts and design by the founding fathers of our nation's foundations. Either you are not bothering to read or you are being purposefully obtuse.

This country isn't for Christians alone; it is for people of all faiths and religions, including those with no religion at all. The constitution and the laws based on it protect this fundamental right. Deal with it.
2012-08-10 03:32:52 AM
1 votes:

impaler: was the foundatio


wasn't the foundation.

Damn it.

But that was obvious from context.
2012-08-09 11:19:55 PM
1 votes:
In another 60 years "historians" will be revealing that Lincoln was a vampire and that they found the evidence in an old movie.

About as relevant as what Barton has done.....
2012-08-09 11:17:57 PM
1 votes:
One last thing, the Treaty of Tripoli ended the war between the US and Tripoli.
That was it's purpose and only function.
Copy/paste and scroll down to 1796.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties
2012-08-09 08:57:01 PM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?


No, no, our country would be better for it. We would have a mass revolution and completely wipe out 'those assholes telling US WHAT TO DO!!11!'. It wouldn't exactly be pleasant, but we'd have a while before the next try at this by the next religion.
2012-08-09 08:37:06 PM
1 votes:
According to reality, everything David Barton knows about American history is wrong.
2012-08-09 06:53:11 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: It's stupid to argue that Judeo-Christian Ethics and ideas do not pervade the Founding Documents. It is stupid to argue that the Founding Fathers were not largely men who believed in God. It's stupid to argue that none of the Founding Fathers were Christian or that Christianity had no part whatsoever in the founding of the Country.

It's stupid to argue that the Founding Documents were based on the teachings of Christianity. It is stupid to argue that the Founding Fathers were mostly devout Christians. It's stupid to argue that Christinaity and the scriptures were the most important aspect of the founding of the country.

Both 'sides' are wrong when they try to make it balck and white. It's orange. But it's pointless to have this debate all over again.

Here's my question:
David Barton is not a historian. He has a bachelor's degree in Christian education from Oral Roberts University.

He's clearly unqualified AS A HISTORIAN, and he's an evangelist. While he's entitled to his opinions and entitled to espouse whatever he likes, and write whatever he likes, why would it be treated any differently than the Latest Dan Brown garbage?


the really bad part about barton and his schtick, is not only is he NOT a historian but a theologian in historian's clothing. a historian looks at primary sources and evidence and formulates a conclusion based on those facts. a theologian already has the conclusions and cherry picks the evidence to support his hypothesis. barton is a SUPERDOUCHE because he buys as many original documents as he can, locks them away in his private collection and then butchers what they say to fit his message and suppresses the rest. introduce people like glenn beck and the EchoChamber tm and you now you have the perfect murder.

the truth never stood a chance
2012-08-09 04:28:54 PM
1 votes:

Dr Dreidel: If you've never heard of David Barton, you must be new here. You'll remember him from the last "most influential evangelical you've never heard of" piece posted here, or the one before that. Or any of the Texas textbook derp.

What amazes me is how brazenly they can lie, and either ignore how wrong they are (comparing two sentences shouldn't be hard) or defend the lie as coming from a place of wanting everyone to find Jesus - from the same people that want "Thou shalt not bear false witness" engraved in stone in every courthouse in the land.

Barton seems to think Deuteronomy wants us to submit to Christian "kings" (rulers). I counter that since Deuteronomy was written by Jews for Jews, we need a Jewish "king". There's also the sticky wicket of a verse from Ezra (7:26) that exhorts people to follow the laws of their host countries. And, for the New Testament types, the "render unto Caesar" thing.

How is this different from taqqiyah? (Where Muslims can lie to non-Muslims for the purposes of obscuring details of the faith - I think that's what it's called, though I may be confusing terms.) How are these yahoos any different from the Taliban again?


Right term, wrong usage. Muslims aren't allowed to "obscure the faith" willy-nilly. Their life must be threatened, or be in some other danger. If someone pointed a gun at their head and told them they were going to shoot them unless they renounced Muhammad and accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, THEN they get to lie about their faith, by 'renouncing' Muhammad and 'accepting' Jesus Chirst as their 'Lord and Savior'. IIRC, they have to say a prayer about it later or something, too. But they aren't allowed to capriciously lie about Islam to make it look good. It's why you almost never (to my knowledge) hear muslims say "Muhammad never said that" or "X said this about Muhammad/Islam", when it's demonstrable that that statement is a lie.
2012-08-09 04:20:33 PM
1 votes:

BSABSVR: Warren


Well, it appears that Barton's publisher has pulled the book from publication, due to "historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported". In other words, due to fabrications.

Link.
2012-08-09 04:04:52 PM
1 votes:
This thread seems surprisingly derp free, but if there are any lurkers out there who are thinking "Man, that David Barton is a genius and all you Farkers are just ignorant", please please please read Warren Throckmorton. He's an actual historian who knows what he's talking about and skewers Barton's crap very well, including the "verbatim" nonsense.
2012-08-09 03:58:57 PM
1 votes:
Some more information for you:

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/12300/rebecca-bellmetereau-jud y -jennings-and-a-brief-history-of-the-texas-state-board-of-education

http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2011/09/21/i-want-david-barton-to-s u e-me/

http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/09/lawsuit-by-gop-activist-a g ainst-democrats-draws-criticism/

And here's a link to her Facebook. PLEASE "like" her and spread the word!

http://www.facebook.com/votejudyjennings
2012-08-09 03:53:12 PM
1 votes:
As many of you know, my mother, Judy Jennings, recently ran for Texas State Board of Education. Fark helped her out with donations and spreading the word, but unfortunately she lost her race :(

During the campaign, she and her fellow Democratic SBoE nominee from another district ran a commercial about David Barton (I can't remember the exact reasoning. Barton was an adviser for both their opponents or something). During this commercial, it was claimed that Barton spoke at a white supremacist rally. Barton is now suing my mother and her fellow candidate, claiming the commercial is slander. His defense is (quite literally) "Yes, I spoke at a white supremacist rally, but I didn't know they were white supremacists at the time."

If you'd like more information, or if you'd like to know how you can help, please look up Judy Jennings on the Facebook. She is running for State Board of Education again in 2012, and we would appreciate any support.
2012-08-09 03:41:15 PM
1 votes:

qorkfiend: Huckabee? As in, Mike Huckabee?


Ding.

BojanglesPaladin: While he's entitled to his opinions and entitled to espouse whatever he likes, and write whatever he likes, why would it be treated any differently than the Latest Dan Brown garbage?


A very good question. One conjecture is that what he's saying is appealing to politically conservative/reactionary types, who take him seriously in a form of confirmation bias reasoning.

However, that's secondary to the detail that conservative politicians (particularly the more conservative members of the Texas State Board of Educatioin) do appear to consider him a serious historian, as opposed to an author of historical-setting fiction like Dan Brown.

tnpir: I see that HE'S the farking guy leading the charge to destroy what's left of the Texas education system.


Debatable. He's definitely the leader among those posing as academics working in the field of history.

buckler: Jefferson and other Deists believed in a God that started the universe, then left it alone to run, not engaging in any sort of personal relationships with human beings, but leaving it up to us to discover His will and thoughts by exploring the intricacies of this universe.


They're better characterized as "providentialists" -- a deity not necessarily having personal relationships with individuals, but willing to tinker here and there, thereby providing hints on the right direction.

HellRaisingHoosier: I'm not 100% on this, but on a trip to Monticello (Jefferson's farm) I feel I remember one of the tour guides talking about how Thomas Jefferson took the Bible and would tear out pages or cross out sections he thought were false or dumb.


Wouldn't surprise me too much, but I think he was neater about it than that; he used two copies and a sharp razor for making the Jefferson Bible.
2012-08-09 03:29:28 PM
1 votes:
He says that he consults for the federal government and state school boards, that he testifies in court as an expert witness, that he gives a breathtaking 400 speeches a year.

That's 7.69 per week, that's more than once a day if he NEVER took a day off, EVER, yet he also supposedly is an "expert" witness and consults for various school boards?

Did he steal the farking TARDIS or something? The Doctor will NOT be amused.
2012-08-09 03:14:18 PM
1 votes:
I fully support combining church and state and enacting religious doctrine into law. That's why we need to immediately implement the doctrines of my church. The one with the gay pastor. Who supports abortion rights.

Oh, you meant YOUR church? Well, we may have a problem here.
2012-08-09 03:04:12 PM
1 votes:

heavymetal: FTFA: "Jefferson, unlike the other presidents, closes his documents: 'In the year of our Lord Christ,' " Barton said, not mentioning that this was a pre-printed form that was required by law.

"But we're always told he was such a secularist and didn't believe in religion," Huckabee protested.

No Mike, people with a knowledge of history know Jefferson was a "Deist". Jefferson had a common sense view of his faith you evangellicals will never understand. That is one reason you have to project your own religious views on Jefferson.

Truth is, if you evangellicals were so strong in your faith as you claim you wouldn't need all this reinforcement to make you feel you are correct. If your faith is true the it really doesn't matter if the U.S. is a "Christian Nation" or who the Founding Fathers chose to worship. if it bothers you really bad then you need to re-evaluate yoru faith.


That's the thing that always gets me with these people. Jefferson and other Deists believed in a God that started the universe, then left it alone to run, not engaging in any sort of personal relationships with human beings, but leaving it up to us to discover His will and thoughts by exploring the intricacies of this universe. As a product of the Enlightenment, it was a faith that was very conducive to the practice of science.
2012-08-09 02:48:40 PM
1 votes:
www.christian-myspace-layouts.com

VERBATIM
2012-08-09 02:34:55 PM
1 votes:

eraser8: I've heard of that slimy c*ck hole: David Barton's The Jefferson Lies Voted the Least Credible History Book in Print


David Barton's "myths" about Jefferson, Howard Zinn's People's History, 1421, DiLorenzo's Libertarian revisionist take on Lincoln, and Bill O'Reilly's mishandling of Lincoln. That's their top five.

I'm honestly surprised about Zinn being so high. But then again, they all are guilty of stretching the truth to satisfy an agenda.
2012-08-09 02:28:31 PM
1 votes:

Citrate1007: Fascism requires that the Church and State become one to maintain control of the people.


Fascism does not require religion. It CAN incorporate it, and has, but religion is not a componant of Fascism.

Moreover, Fascism must sublimate religion to the higher ideal of "the state", which is inherently secular. Meaning that religion in a fascist state can only exist by minimizing it's emphasis on a higher law than the law of the state.

Fascism by its nature requires the state as the absolute authority.

Totalitarianism, on the other hand can seamlessly derive authority directly from religion, and we have countless examples both historic and contemprary of Totalitarian theocracies.
2012-08-09 02:22:22 PM
1 votes:

Dr Dreidel: If you've never heard of David Barton, you must be new here. You'll remember him from the last "most influential evangelical you've never heard of" piece posted here, or the one before that. Or any of the Texas textbook derp.

What amazes me is how brazenly they can lie, and either ignore how wrong they are (comparing two sentences shouldn't be hard) or defend the lie as coming from a place of wanting everyone to find Jesus - from the same people that want "Thou shalt not bear false witness" engraved in stone in every courthouse in the land.

Barton seems to think Deuteronomy wants us to submit to Christian "kings" (rulers). I counter that since Deuteronomy was written by Jews for Jews, we need a Jewish "king". There's also the sticky wicket of a verse from Ezra (7:26) that exhorts people to follow the laws of their host countries. And, for the New Testament types, the "render unto Caesar" thing.

How is this different from taqqiyah? (Where Muslims can lie to non-Muslims for the purposes of obscuring details of the faith - I think that's what it's called, though I may be confusing terms.) How are these yahoos any different from the Taliban again?


On average, they're lighter.
2012-08-09 02:15:13 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: He's clearly unqualified AS A HISTORIAN, and he's an evangelist. While he's entitled to his opinions and entitled to espouse whatever he likes, and write whatever he likes, why would it be treated any differently than the Latest Dan Brown garbage?


Because Dan Brown's work appears in the "fiction" section, whereas Barton's should appear in the "dumpster"?
2012-08-09 02:08:36 PM
1 votes:

xanadian: Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?

wait, WHAT?

I gotta find this quote. All of it.



Link
2012-08-09 02:03:03 PM
1 votes:

Erix: xanadian: Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?

wait, WHAT?

I gotta find this quote. All of it.

I'm not defending the quote, since it's ridiculous, but I did hear the audio of it on NPR yesterday and it's obvious that he was joking when he said that. At least, he and his audience were laughing.


It's always laughing and joking at first. It's never serious at first.

I'm pretty sure that most revolutions start off like that. "...and if they don't like what we're doing to save this country, well, we'll just shoot them all!" *laughter and applause*
2012-08-09 02:02:36 PM
1 votes:
Oh good God. There's even a Youtube video of it.

*superfacepalm*
2012-08-09 02:02:04 PM
1 votes:
Uh.

Anyone who hasn't heard of David Barton just hasn't been paying attention. He's like a Frank Luntz for religion.
2012-08-09 02:01:32 PM
1 votes:
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
2012-08-09 01:58:41 PM
1 votes:

Zik-Zak: Infernalist: The time when real Christians will be persecuted and hated and hunted like dogs by the government and the Anti-Christ, who will be charming and adored and loved around the world.

And this is why Real Christians (is this TM'ed like Real AmericansTM?) have the persecution complex. They want to be persecuted (or at least feel like it) to re-affirm their faith.

/Catholic
//I've been told by Baptists that I'm going to hell
///Is this something endemic to the United States?


Kinda sorta? Okay yeah, it's pretty much a Pentecostal thing that's almost confined to the southern states. Comes from our origins as a colony where they SENT ALL THE RELIGIOUS NUTBALLS THAT ENGLAND DIDN'T WANT AROUND.
2012-08-09 01:57:00 PM
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: Lord_Baull: VERBATIM!!!

טו שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ: מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ, תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ--לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אָחִיךָ הוּא.

All right, that's modern-ish Hebrew (rather than the original script), and written backwards, and I'm taking the word of the internet that it's the correct passage since I don't read the language. But closer, yeah?


For the non-Hebrew speakers, this is as close to the text as I can get:

"Surely*, you shall put on you a king, chosen by god. [Chosen] from within your midst, you shall install a king - you may not put on yourselves a foreign** man who is not your brother."

* שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים usess a flowery construction where a verb is repeated to emphasize it. Literally, it translates to "Put, you put".
** נָכְרִי translates roughly to "follower of another faith".
2012-08-09 01:55:41 PM
1 votes:

Infernalist: The time when real Christians will be persecuted and hated and hunted like dogs by the government and the Anti-Christ, who will be charming and adored and loved around the world.


And this is why Real Christians (is this TM'ed like Real AmericansTM?) have the persecution complex. They want to be persecuted (or at least feel like it) to re-affirm their faith.

/Catholic
//I've been told by Baptists that I'm going to hell
///Is this something endemic to the United States?
2012-08-09 01:54:44 PM
1 votes:
FTFA: "Jefferson, unlike the other presidents, closes his documents: 'In the year of our Lord Christ,' " Barton said, not mentioning that this was a pre-printed form that was required by law.

"But we're always told he was such a secularist and didn't believe in religion," Huckabee protested.


No Mike, people with a knowledge of history know Jefferson was a "Deist". Jefferson had a common sense view of his faith you evangellicals will never understand. That is one reason you have to project your own religious views on Jefferson.

Truth is, if you evangellicals were so strong in your faith as you claim you wouldn't need all this reinforcement to make you feel you are correct. If your faith is true the it really doesn't matter if the U.S. is a "Christian Nation" or who the Founding Fathers chose to worship. if it bothers you really bad then you need to re-evaluate yoru faith.
2012-08-09 01:53:57 PM
1 votes:

Dr Dreidel: How are these yahoos any different from the Taliban again?


They're Christians.

Also, they murder people on a much grander scale than the Taliban could ever dream.
2012-08-09 01:52:24 PM
1 votes:

meat0918: Sad thing is, if a Huckabee style Dominionist got his way, Catholics and Mormons would probably not be welcome here.


That's what amazes me about the religious shiatbags in this country. Let's assume for a second that they manage to legislate away and outlaw homosexuality, dancing, drugs, evolution, global warming, Islam, abortion, etc....every single goddamn thing that they are motivated to hate.

Where do they go next? They prey upon each other. I'll give their church leaders credit--keeping a long list of enemies and an ignorant core of worshipers means you don't have a lot of people running around that remember the 30 Years War. That don't remember what REAL religious persecution feels like. That assume that when the time comes for this country to choose, it will be their version of Christ that takes the throne of this country.

One of the many reasons why they are contemptible
2012-08-09 01:51:14 PM
1 votes:
If you've never heard of David Barton, you must be new here. You'll remember him from the last "most influential evangelical you've never heard of" piece posted here, or the one before that. Or any of the Texas textbook derp.

What amazes me is how brazenly they can lie, and either ignore how wrong they are (comparing two sentences shouldn't be hard) or defend the lie as coming from a place of wanting everyone to find Jesus - from the same people that want "Thou shalt not bear false witness" engraved in stone in every courthouse in the land.

Barton seems to think Deuteronomy wants us to submit to Christian "kings" (rulers). I counter that since Deuteronomy was written by Jews for Jews, we need a Jewish "king". There's also the sticky wicket of a verse from Ezra (7:26) that exhorts people to follow the laws of their host countries. And, for the New Testament types, the "render unto Caesar" thing.

How is this different from taqqiyah? (Where Muslims can lie to non-Muslims for the purposes of obscuring details of the faith - I think that's what it's called, though I may be confusing terms.) How are these yahoos any different from the Taliban again?
2012-08-09 01:47:52 PM
1 votes:

Kurmudgeon: Seeing that The Treaty of Tripoli was written between the United States and a country that no longer exists, Ottoman Tripolitania, the Treaty of Tripoli has been null and void since 1911 if not sooner.


Nice strawman you got there, the point of the Treaty of Tripoli apparently went over your head. The point is not whether it has the force of law, but rather it clearly demonstrates how the founding fathers (in this case John Adams and congress) thought about this country and religion.

You could also glean the same information from reading the Federalist Papers by the way, in which the reasoning and advocacy for the US constitution is made. In an explanation spanning a couple hundred pages, not once is there a reference to Christianity.
2012-08-09 01:44:31 PM
1 votes:
How's it go again? If you lie loud enough and long enough, people will believe you?
2012-08-09 01:42:07 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: The only book you need for American History

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x295]


That book is grossly overated, very myopic and only important for people who have never taken a critical look at us history.

So a good choice for Mr. Barton.
2012-08-09 01:40:24 PM
1 votes:
Inspired by Christian ideals does not equate to "Christian nation".
2012-08-09 01:38:46 PM
1 votes:
The only book you need for American History

upload.wikimedia.org
2012-08-09 01:36:34 PM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?


Huckabee? As in, Mike Huckabee?
2012-08-09 01:34:20 PM
1 votes:
So.....this means that EVERYONE must go to CHRISTIAN church and worship Republican Jesus or be shot on sight.
2012-08-09 01:34:16 PM
1 votes:
"I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?
 
Displayed 63 of 63 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report