<i>Liars for Jesus</i> available online

Listened to the extended John Stewart interview with David Barton. Wow is Barton one annoying person!

I downloaded the PDF of Chris's book... next stop Kindle.

Thanks for posting the links Matt.

-DU-

Barton appears to be using exactly the same tactics that the ID/creationists started using back in the 1970s. And we now have a pretty extensive record of the misrepresentations of scientific concepts and evidence they have perpetrated in those 40+ years.

It appears that Barton intends to flood the overall historical record with old stuff that was hammered out centuries ago and make it appear that the writers of the Constitution, by not explicitly excluding sectarian interpretations of religion, really intended that these specific doctrines become the central thread of our society.

Jon Stewart had Barton weaseling on a lot of specifics; but the one that interested me was Barton’s constant sensitivity to the “hostility” toward Christians. It’s that lame old persecution complex that constantly gets hammered on from fundamentalist pulpits.

These sectarians never seem to understand that their constant meddling in the affairs of others is what gets them the cold treatment they earn from their activities. They still don’t get it that 40+ years of lying about science has earned them a really ugly reputation. These politically active sectarians deserve any skepticism that others throw at them.

The argument that “Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion.” is another indication of their mindset. They think it is permitted for them to constantly mess around with other people’s lives and educations and inject their dogma hidden under the guise of “science.” Now they want to rewrite history and undo all the arguments that led to the Constitution as it was finally written.

If they aren’t entertaining the notion that this country should be a theocracy under their particular sectarian beliefs, why do they engage in highly organized political stealth, mischaracterize scientific concepts and evidence, and why do they engage in the constant dissembling?

Nobody wants the entire country to become another Salem. MA.

The argument that “Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion.” is another indication of their mindset. They think it is permitted for them to constantly mess around with other people’s lives and educations and inject their dogma hidden under the guise of “science.” Now they want to rewrite history and undo all the arguments that led to the Constitution as it was finally written. If they aren’t entertaining the notion that this country should be a theocracy under their particular sectarian beliefs, why do they engage in highly organized political stealth, mischaracterize scientific concepts and evidence, and why do they engage in the constant dissembling?

You're arguing that our "Christian tradition" deserves the protection of law and should be the basis of our legislation. But in order to do that, you must first repeal the 1st Amendment. Feel free to try it, and then we'll pick up the debate about (issue favorable to right-wing Christianity).

Stealing that, Patrick.

One of the patterns I see emerging as a result of Chris Rodda’s detailed Liars for Jesus book is that the Religious Wrong will continue to engage in the endless and detailed mud-wrestling that they do with science, especially with biological concepts and evidence.

It’s that old “stay-in-the-game” shtick in order to gain themselves credibility, but in this case, by riding on the backs of legitimate historians just as they do with legitimate scientists.

Like it or not, legitimate historians are going to be dragged into this war. But I hope we in the sciences can give them some advice on the tactics these fundamentalists use so that historians don’t lend their coattails to these hucksters.

There will be quote-mining, misrepresentations of concepts and historical events, Gish galloping, taunting, and setups for court battles to rule on “Historical Creationism” and “Intelligent History.”

If ever there was a true embodiment of a “Church of the Great Deceiver,” the Religious “Right” would be it.

Unfortunately, this is the view of a major front-runner for president in 2012...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mwGYr0OWzw

It's available as a Kindle version, which I have purchased. I think that if something is worthwhile, then it's worth paying for.

I think it illustrates the curse of the Internet. Anyone can find anything on the Internet to support their daffy opinions, whether AGW denialism, creationism, anti-immunization ... History revisionism is just another in a long list.

Why does anyone listen to David Barton? Where does he get his authority? Is it just that he's adept at multi-purpose Gish galloping?

James F said: Why does anyone listen to David Barton?

Whew. I'm about a quarter of the way through the pdf, and the intro said this was only the first of three books. What strikes me is that some really minor and obscure footnotes of American history have been mined so extensively. And of course, that the techniques are exactly what we've all seen - quotes taken out of context, direct historical refutations simply ignored, copious statements contrary to historical fact (many of these made by Rehnquist, interestingly enough). No effort to make the lies self-consistent, since the purpose isn't to present a coherent history, but to fabricate the false impression that the US government systematically supported, endorsed, funded, and otherwise encouraged Protestant (NOT Catholic!) faith.

According to D. James Kennedy, in his book What if America were a Christian Nation Again?: Jefferson “wanted to bring the entire faculty of Calvin’s theological seminary over from Geneva, Switzerland, and establish them at the University of Virginia.” There are two things wrong with Kennedy’s claim. The first is the time frame. Jefferson did consider a proposal to move the Geneva Academy to the United States, but this was in 1794 and 1795, thirty years before the University of Virginia opened. The second is that,although the Geneva Academy was originally founded by John Calvinin 1559 as theological seminary, by the late 1700s it had been transformedinto an academy of science. The plan considered by Jeffersonwas not to import a religious school. It was to import a group of Europe’s top science professors.

Wheels said: They may not even recognize themselves how starkly at odds this is with the 1st Amendment's religious freedoms protections, and definitely not how much they'd hate it if it was some other religion trying to do exactly what they are doing to work sectarian ideals into the law of the land.

The Curmudgeon said:

Wheels said: They may not even recognize themselves how starkly at odds this is with the 1st Amendment's religious freedoms protections, and definitely not how much they'd hate it if it was some other religion trying to do exactly what they are doing to work sectarian ideals into the law of the land.

There's also Article 6: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Strange Constitution to have been written by theocratic-minded men.

I put in a request for our local public library to buy it.

Unfortunately, they are having a budget crisis like just about any local jurisdictions in the USA.

So I'm not hopeful. They didn't have Chris Rodda's book but they didn't have Barton's either.

The war on christmas, easter, anti-christian policies, all nonsense. Perhaps equally scary is the recent voting by conservative legislatures/governors to enact religiously motivated legislation, including anti-abortion, anti-healthcare, anti-public schools and expanding voucher programs for private & parochial schools, etc. Wisconsin is apparently stepping up the pace to enact such legislation before any possible recall of the republicans that would thwart their goals.

The war on christmas, easter, anti-christian policies, all nonsense.

raven said:

The war on christmas, easter, anti-christian policies, all nonsense.

I just looked at the National Council of Churches "progress" report for 2010. Over 1 million people dropped off the church roles last year. US xianity is declining slowly. There was an even sharper drop in the money they collect. Way things are going, it is a race between whether US xianity shakes itself apart before they manage to destroy us. Theocracies got their bad reputation centuries ago for good reasons. They don't work. They end up hells on earth. The current leading ones are Iran, Afghanistan, and Somalia. The last notable European one was the era known as...The Dark Ages.

I strongly suspect that much of the reason is due to the Ken Hams, the Kent Hovinds, the David Bartons, the Westboro Baptists, and the politically aggressive Evangelicals pushing revisionist history and science.

NCC: Total church membership reported in the 2011 Yearbook is 145,838,339 members, down 1.05 percent over 2010.

At my prior church, a friend put up an article that claimed that Benjamin Franklin was a Christian. I explained to him that his article was incorrect. Being a good and decent guy, he removed it. So I think that for quite a few, it might just be a matter of educating them. (For the lunatic fringe types, there is, of course, no hope.)

Karen S. said: At my prior church, a friend put up an article that claimed that Benjamin Franklin was a Christian. I explained to him that his article was incorrect. Being a good and decent guy, he removed it. So I think that for quite a few, it might just be a matter of educating them. (For the lunatic fringe types, there is, of course, no hope.)

Mike Elzinga said: I the 40+ years I have watched the shenanigans of ID/creationists and the evangelicals...

raven said: I was a xian for nearly 5 decades and the MD assassins and creationists drove me out.

Okay. Which one of you boys wanna tell me again that PandasThumb is about science and not religion?

FL :)

Pandas promotes science. Liars for Jesus fight against science. So Panda's occasionally discusses Liars for Jesus.

Really, its not complicated.

FL said: Okay. Which one of you boys wanna tell me again that PandasThumb is about science and not religion? FL :)

The whole point of David Barton's exercise is to argue that it's OK for the government to endorse Christianity (e.g., school prayer, teaching creationism and the Bible in public schools and skipping over anything that disagrees with them) because that's what the Founding Fathers really wanted.

Thanks... I've downloaded it. What I'd like to see is a way to compensate Chris. Perhaps I missed something?

What I’d like to see is a way to compensate Chris.

FL said: Okay. Which one of you boys wanna tell me again that PandasThumb is about science and not religion? FL :)

FL said: Okay. Which one of you boys wanna tell me again that PandasThumb is about science and not religion? FL :)

I don't think anybody has said that this blog is about science and not religion, unlike cdesign proponentsists.

I just purchased Rodda's bppl last month on Amazon along with a much shorter book - "Fighting Words - A Toolkit for Combating the Religious Right" by Robin Morgan. It is small enough to carry so you can have it available to hit some idiot right between the eyes with facts.

BTW, I'm a long time lurker with no science background, unless you count the "Biology for Non-majors without Lab" that I took 37 years ago. I make a point to check this site and NCSE site everyday. And, of course, support NCSE financially.

FL said: Okay. Which one of you boys wanna tell me again that PandasThumb is about science and not religion? FL :)

And, FL, what are you doing on May 21? Are all those "End-Timers" actually Christian nutcases, or are they onto something, and you're planning to go with them?

I continue to chew through the pdf file, which is quite lengthy.

And the pattern is depressingly familiar. The Liars for Jesus have combed through every document in American history, just like they've combed through everything written by evolutionary biologists, finding anything they can possibly take out of context, recombine without saying so, embellish with outright fabrications, and so on.

And, much like the anti-evolutionists, most of these lies are not direct flat falsehoods. Instead, they are sometimes subtle misrepresentations, manufactured not by altering the quotes so much as by creating a completely nonexistent contextual history within which the quotes would be logical and make since - IF such a history had ever come to pass. Although the creative use of ellipses is a workhorse technique.

The target audience is, of course, one as ignorant of the details of that history, as the target audience of the anti-evolutionists are ignorant of the relevant science. What's depressing is the repeated willingness of Supreme Court justices to accept it. Not that they'd be expected to know such minor historical details or to have spent the time learning them all, but rather that they did their research at the historical equivalent of AnswersInGenesis. They searched for what they WISHED were true, at places known to satisfy those wishes. This is most especially true of Justice Thomas.

The various Liars For Jesus who lie and demand that students be taught Christian-inspired propaganda and Christian-inspired pseudoscience are the same Liars For Jesus who insist on rewriting American History into fundamentalist Christian-friendly propaganda.

In fact, one of the last things a certain, conniving dentist in Texas did was to approve of an American History curriculum that had all mention and references to Thomas Jefferson deliberately excised because the former president and founding father was deemed too UnAmerican liberal to be worth mentioning to children.

One interesting theme of this book is that during and immediately after Jefferson's lifetime, this dentist's views were fairly widespread. Jefferson worked to keep religion from permeating his political administration and his university, and was viewed as anti-Christian. Much of what he wrote very clearly kept religion at arm's length or further, sometimes rejecting it outright.

But the new religious right historians have now repositioned Jefferson as a champion of religion, working to get Protestant faiths inserted into everything he touched! The idea is, Jefferson was so broadly influential in writing the constitution and getting the new nation started, that it's not plausible to claim the US is a "Christian country founded by Christians on Christian principles" UNLESS Jefferson becomes a religious fanatic posthumously. So POOF, Jefferson was born again!

Maybe McLeroy just didn't get the memo yet.

I notice this book promises a lot of interesting things in Volume 2, which doesn't exist. And volume 3 is promised as well. And yet this volume was published 5 years ago. Chris Rodda's web site doesn't even mention any more volumes. This is kind of a shame.

Flint said: ... And the pattern is depressingly familiar. ...

Stanton said: The various Liars For Jesus who lie and demand that students be taught Christian-inspired propaganda and Christian-inspired pseudoscience are the same Liars For Jesus who insist on rewriting American History into fundamentalist Christian-friendly propaganda....

Ray Martinez said:

Stanton said: The various Liars For Jesus who lie and demand that students be taught Christian-inspired propaganda and Christian-inspired pseudoscience are the same Liars For Jesus who insist on rewriting American History into fundamentalist Christian-friendly propaganda....

Let us not forget that these Liars accept the main claims of Darwinism (natural selection/species mutability). Ray Martinez, insane idiot.

Ray Martinez said: Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creatorist, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist.

Please do not feed the Martinez troll.

Do we ever hear from a historian not emotionally invested in the teachings of Jesus examine the nation and preach the USA must start with the bible for all domestic and foreign policy?

If this isn't biased (insert all world cultures) would be nodding their heads along with Mr. Barton

Thanks for the freebie.

I couldn't find any reference in the index to the 1892 Trinity decision. Did I overlook it?