August 10, 2012

Attacks on David Barton Same as Tactics of Saul Alinsky

Print Friendly and PDF

Question:  What do elitist professors have in common with Adolf Hitler & Saul Alinsky?

Answer:  They masterfully use the powerful art of innuendo to falsely defame those with which they disagree.

Definition of Innuendo:  A derogatory hint or reference to a person or thing.

The internet is abuzz today with leftwing bloggers, elitist professors, and downright jealous peers licking their chops and rubbing their hands in excitement as they repeat the juicy quotes about David Barton books being full of “embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims.”

Yet not a single article can point to a single factual error, quote out of context, or misleading claim.

How ‘bout that.

These articles are all celebrating the fact that Thomas Nelson is pulling “The Jefferson Lies” because “…there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported.”

Does “not adequately supported” mean the same as “not supported?”

Of course not!

It means that those who disagree with Barton have pressured the publisher to side with their slanted views regarding how much support is needed for this claim or that claim.

Let’s see if I get this right. Barton has about 100,000 original documents and backs up everything he says with original sources, yet some critics claim the stack of evidence is not quite enough, so that makes it “not adequately supported?”

How about simply letting free speech occur, let people read Barton’s book and the support therein (756 footnotes), and then compare to the critics?

But do you follow the innuendos and the power of destruction they have? These people have not pointed out even one inaccuracy or false statement. Yet through innuendo they have painted a picture that universally gives the reader the feeling that Barton is just making stuff up out of thin air, has nothing at all to back up what he is saying, and is clearly not a “historian.”

None of this, of course, is even close to being true.

But the innuendo is so, so powerful. No one is bothering to ask for evidence of such claims. No one seems to care about the details and the truth because the headline is just too juicy.

Hitler and Alinsky were both masters of this tool. Having just read Eric Metaxes’ great book about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Hitler’s tactics are on my mind and he said:  “All propaganda has to … accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”

These elitist professors and reporters attacking David Barton know that most people will not actually go read the supporting material behind David’s books…certainly not the bloggers and reporters who have so quickly jumped on the attack wagon. They are exactly the “least intelligent” Hitler was able to fool, Alinksy taught radicals to fool, and now even Christian “leaders” are joining.

Barton’s Jefferson book has 756 footnotes.  These critics could not possibly be reading the supporting material because their claims of inaccuracy just do not match up.

In fact, most of the book is simply quoting and allowing Jefferson to tell his own story, rather than some boring professor’s “interpretation” of Jefferson’s words.

And that’s exactly where the rub is with Barton. These elitists do not enjoy seeing themselves replaced.

They believe they are the high priests of history and the law.

They do not want you to read the actual writings of the Founders because that negates the need for their position of being the keeper of the keys to history.

I was debating an elitist professor at Baylor once over the issue of “separation of church and state” and our freedom of religion. He got so frustrated when I kept quoting the founding fathers that he finally said “well, these concepts are very complicated, but we professors and the judges on the Supreme Court are trained and equipped to deal with them and work out the details for you.”  I looked at the crowd and said “what he just told you is that you are too stupid to understand this very basic concept of freedom, but that’s okay because he and his elitist friends will take care of all that complicated stuff for you.”

The exact same thing is happening here with David Barton’s scholarly works. The elitist professors like Kidd, Throckmorton, Coulter, & Jenkinson write boring books that very few people read and they give boring lectures that are only attended by students forced to do so in order to get a grade. 

When these guys see Barton telling history in a way that is BOTH accurate and fun and they see millions of people are captivated and want to learn more, then perhaps it could be just a little jealousy could be causing them to lash out at Barton with innuendoes backed by no actual merit. But the bigger issue is that they do not want to lose the power of being the keepers of the keys to history. They want their “interpretation” of historical figures to control how generations view history, rather than letting historical events and historical figures speak for themselves.

If you want the real skinny on these empty innuendoes about The Jefferson Lies, then read David Barton’s well-documented response to their unfounded attacks. (click here)

And by the way, if you’re wondering why Thomas Nelson would pull the book, perhaps you should know that HarperCollins (secular publisher) recently purchased Thomas Nelson (Christian publisher). I wouldn’t have expected Deepak Chopra (New Age Atheist) and David Barton to remain under the same publisher for long.

In the meantime, I’m still waiting for someone to show me a specific inaccuracy or false claim by Barton. Every author, including these elitists, makes mistakes and we could do several more blogs about the hilarious publishing mistakes by some of the most respected authors in history. (quick read here for some famous ones)  That’s not what I’m talking about and that’s not what these critics are claiming. They are claiming that Barton is purposefully presenting a false picture of history and using inaccuracies and distortions to do so. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is these critics who are using inaccuracies, innuendo, and distortions to attack Barton in the first place.

If you can show me specifics that back up the image created by the critics innuendo, I’ll post it right here for the world to see.

Waiting, waiting.

Bueller, Bueller? Yes, Ben Stein’s character in that movie is EXACTLY what I picture with most of these critics!!!!



*Update* Yes, I deleted Hitler from the title because too many people were hung up on that, rather than focusing on the actual tactic of innuendo being used!

Also, let’s be clear that all the people being quoted by the press are not equally guilty of innuendo, some area probably being misquoted and taken out of context.

Print Friendly and PDF
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Aziz

    Here here!

  • Kaitlyn Creason

    Thank you David Barton and Wallbuilders for showing us the truth in our history, inspite of all the people who dispute it! Keep up the good work!

  • Elisa

    I have read David Barton’s books for years. He always has a huge number of footnotes to original documents. His work is backed up with scholarly references. Much more than I can say for most of our school history books which are loaded with opinion.

  • http://facebook? Tracy Funk

    The lawsuit that should go forward from this debate might just be what debunks the liberals once and for all. I am a middle-aged junior in college. Having a different perspective than most co-eds by having been educated when Jefferson and Washington were still heroes of our country my eyes and ears were wide open to liberal ideologies in my US History classes. The saddest part of my experience is that my history prof. is a great guy who believes he’s looking at things from a conservative point of view.

  • Karen

    Interesting timing for the hit piece on David Barton. The lefties have to conjure up something to try and cover for their comrade and plagarist, Fareed Zakaria, who was exposed in the media just yesterday. Sounds like Thomas Nelson publishing might be a good option for Fareed!.

  • Kirk W. Fraser

    Professors are more easy to expose in Computer Science – if the programs they sell with their books don’t work, you can run them and quickly find out – see the book’s reviewer’s praise quotes they received from other professors represent not scholarship but an old boys club of liars.

    Unfortunately not all people have access to David Barton’s original source material to check the facts for themselves. Perhaps Wallbuilders ought to put the 100,000 original sources online and link to the appropriate spots from the footnotes on the book’s website so anyone can see who is correct.

  • Michael Miles

    With all due respect, I am a bit puzzled by the criticisms leveled in this post. This may be an emotional development, but from the viewpoint of historiography the outcome is banal.

    First I must protest the ad hominem attacks against academics that criticize Barton. They do nothing to advance either sides argument and much to demonstrate the political nature of the situation. We need to set them aside.

    Second, a genuine criticism of Barton’s work — or many other historians — does not have to question historical events. Therefore, demanding that historians refute his “facts” or citing the number of footnotes does nothing to substantiate his thesis. We may all agree on the existence of a historical event and write different histories. If that is so, then what accounts for the differences? The historian has many tools and techniques at her disposal: editing, framing, and voice, among others. Like two photographers with the same subject, historians looking at the same event will invariably produce different views of it.

    Good histories are subjected to criticism by peers. Consequently, a historian needs to be prepared to defend his work. Even if someone is challenging the prevailing narrative, the defense must answer why the revision is valid. This, I believe, is where Barton is weak. He has essentially written a post-modern revisionist history of the Founding Fathers, and should have expected an exhaustive examination of his thesis. Attacking academic élite is hardly adequate.

    Incidentally, I have defended Barton’s lack of a history degree in other conversations. Anyone can write a valid history, but a rigorous process is essential. For those who are genuinely interested in that process, I would highly recommend Richard Evans’ book about the David Irving trial in Great Britain. It is a wonderful account about a famous historian accused of historical inaccuracies regarding the Holocaust, and describes the process of rigorous historical research in great detail.

    There is a gulf between politics and epistemology in this country, and it needs to be bridged. Instead of demonizing the other side, we need to spend more time understanding the processes that we rely upon.

    • Rick

      Michael, all good points, but please factor in that this was a blog written in 15 minutes not a thesis are detailed response, which is why I gave you the link to Barton’s detailed response to the critics. We are certainly not afraid of scholarly review or criticisms…we welcome them!!! My blog is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of these critics who are not giving scholarly specific criticism, but rather generalizations and innuendo.

  • Mari Beth Wheeler

    Count it all joy, when people come against you! Keep on keeping on! My little homeschool family appreciates the truth when learning our History!

  • Kirk W. Fraser

    Not all people have access to David Barton’s original source material to check the facts for themselves. Perhaps Wallbuilders ought to put the 100,000 original sources online and link to the appropriate spots from the footnotes on the book’s website so anyone can see who is correct.

  • Robert

    Why did you delete Chris Rodda’s post?

  • Robert

    Disregard. I see now her comment is still “awaiting moderation.” I hope you do post it.

  • Jason Valentine

    Hi there..your challenge has been noted by many of us liberals. Also noted is that Chris Rodda has accepted. We do have a screen cap of her submitting a post here.

    Also noted is the filter of moderated comment. Whereas most of the liberal sites only censor when there is profanity, most of these Christian sites censor out any factual presentation that oppose their stance. Abuse of course should not be tolerated and unfortunately, there are uncivilized folk on both sides of this debate. It is highly unlikely that the majority of those that listen to you will disagree with you, however…it would be refreshing if you would permit posts that courteously invite debate.
    We are watching this blog to see if you do post anything about the challenge being accepted. Of course, it is difficult to have a debate when the moderator has duct taped the challengers mouth shut.
    Thank you so much for reading. I’m not asking you to post mine.

    Sincerely Jason Valentine…long time reader.

    • Rick


      You mistake a request for facts as request for a debate. While I love debates, I save them for serious opponents that don’t just slander. Chris Rodda does not fit the first category. As stated in my blog just posted, I’m simply asking for someone to point out a single premise in David’s book that is false and to back it up with evidence. Chris Rodda trying to sell her book on my website hardly qualifies, but I still posted a link to her book. Folks are more than welcome to buy it, read it, compare sources and logic in her book and David’s. No one is duct taped or abused. This is not a debate blog, it’s an information blog. If you don’t like the information, then switch from being a long time reader to a former reader. Courteously inviting debate is not the M.O. of Chris Rodda.

  • John

    Barton writes fiction and you swallow it like the bible.

  • Michael Heath

    Chris Rodda is one of many people who have convincingly exposed David Barton’s serial dishonesty. I assert serial given I’ve never once encountered Mr. Barton’s writing or speaking engagements where he didn’t repeatedly lie and misinform his audience.

    Ms. Rodda’s now taken up the challenge offered by Mr. Green by posting a comment here at 1:50 p.m., Aug. 11th. As of 5:46 p.m. Ms. Rodda’s offer remains unpublished.

  • Chris

    If you’re a true Christian and any sort of a man, you’ll allow the critical comments to come through. There are people lined up around the block to show you specific examples of Barton’s falsehoods. SPECIFIC. Lest you wait another second, let these critical comments through. If Barton is the champion of truth that you make him out to be, it will only strengthen your arguments.

    • Rick

      Chris, I am gladly posting any specific comments. But I am totally confused by how being a “true Christian and any sort of a man” has anything to do with my decision to only post actual critical comments with facts and not the same tired generalizations and innuendo and slander that I was blogging against in the first place?

  • Craig Clarke

    I know that Chris Rodda, who published a book debunking Barton’s claims with thorough documentation has responded to your challenge and also included a link to a PDF of her book and also a link to copies of the original source documents as evidence.

    At the moment Chris’ acceptance of your challenge, with her links to her book and the supporting evidence is still in comment moderation awaiting your allowing it to appear here. Any idea when you’ll decide to let that response appear?

    Waiting, waiting.

    Bueller, Bueller?

  • http://N/A Ron Walter

    You have got to be kidding. As one that actually has an interest in something called our real American history, that of the founding of this country, I can’t say that Barton couldn’t find it with both hands, because I believe he has, and distorts it purposely. He is not a historian, in any sense of the word, he is a culture warrior for the
    Christian right. Anyone that has ever read the writings of Jefferson, even a third of them, knows how ridiculous the claims of Jefferson being a Christian are. I guess maybe he had already lied about all the other founders, and was left with only him, at this point. Anyone that accepts Barton’s “:history” as anything close to history, needs to read Chris Rodda’s excellently detailed and footnoted book, Liars for Jesus.

  • Boo

    No one has pointed out an innacurate or false statement? What planet are you living on? To give just one example, Barton claimed that it would have been illegal for Jefferson to have freed his slaves while he was alive, yet Warren Throckmorton, hardly a liberal, put up documentation on his website of one of Jefferson’s contemporaries doing just that. And there are tons more. Barton’s critics are pointing out actual flaws in the content of his work, and all you can do is scream about liberals. Who’s fooling who?

    • Rick


      Throckmorton’s point is that David left out one portion of one law, and the wording of that portion said that slaveowners could emancipate slaves not only at their death but also during their life. However, his complaint fails to address the very next point that David makes in the book, which is that there were other Virginia laws that applied to that law and provision, and they required that in order for an owner to emancipate a slave during his life, the owner had to provide an economic security bond for the slave to cover his living, education, or whatever, so that he would not be a drain on the state. Jefferson’s economics were so poor that he had to sell his own cherished library to Congress in order to raise much needed economic funds. He simply did not have the funds necessary to bond 260 emancipated slaves. Furthermore, as Jefferson himself declares (and as David also points out), it was not just one law restricting him, but many laws. Allow me to quote three short paragraphs from the book:

      It was under these laws that Jefferson was required to operate. In 1814, he lamented to an abolitionist minister friend in Illinois that in Virginia, “the laws do not permit us to turn them loose.” [i] And even had Jefferson done so, he certainly did not have the finances required by law to provide a livelihood and support for each of his freed slaves. Jefferson had received the bulk of his slaves – 187 of them – through inheritance, [ii] and had done so at a very young age. As he acknowledged: “[A]t fourteen years of age, the whole care and direction of myself was thrown on myself entirely without a relation or friend qualified to advise or guide me.” [iii] He did not have the economic means to conform to that oppressive state law. (Recall that his own personal economic affiliation had caused him to approach Congress about buying his cherished library from him in order to generate much-needed operating cash. [iv])
      Part of Jefferson’s cash shortage was caused by a major devaluation of money. After placing large amounts of money in the loan office during the American Revolution, those funds were returned “back again at a depreciation out to him of one for forty” [v] – that is, the amount he received back was worth only 2.5 percent of what it had been worth when he placed it into the government.
      Jefferson’s economic hardship was also exacerbated by his practice, unlike other slave owners, of paying his slaves for the vegetables they raised, meat obtained while hunting and fishing, and for extra tasks performed outside normal working hours. He even offered a revolutionary profit-sharing plan for the products that his enslaved artisans produced in their shops. [vi]

      So, the bottom line is that, as Jefferson noted, the “laws (not singular, but plural) do not allow us to turn them loose.” There were many more laws than just the 1782 and 1806 laws mentioned by Throckmorton, not to mention the scores of court decisions that interpreted those laws, etc. Throckmorton could just as easily say that the original text of McCain-Feingold says everything there is to know about campaign finance reform. But as we know, there are dozens of other laws that interact with McCain-Feingold; and every year, from 2-6 court cases strike down or interpret or revise the McCain-Feingold law. The wording of that single law means nothing unless it is examined along with all the other campaign-finance laws as well as all the other court rulings on the issue.

      Finally, Throckmorton fails to explain why (if his thesis is correct) that so many abolitionist Virginia slave-owners had to move out of the state in order to emancipate their slaves. If Throckmorton is right that the law simply allowed them to do that, then why move out of the state? The answer is that they had to get completely out from under the jurisdiction of Virginia in order to free their slaves, because, as Jefferson affirmed: “the laws (plural, not singular) do not allow us to turn them loose.” By the way, James Armistead — the black hero at the Battle of Yorktown — the first double spy in the American Revolution — is a great example? His owner wanted to free him but was not allowed to do so, despite the law mentioned by Throckmorton. It took an act of the legislature, and the direct intervention of Lafayette (a hero of Virginians), for the legislature to free him. This was another law that Throckmorton failed to acknowledge.

      In short, the fact that David omitted the one section he complains about from that one law changes absolutely nothing because of all the other laws David mentions that were in place at the time.

      Hope this answers your very good, legitimate question.

  • Heather

    I believe your challenge has been accepted by Chris Rodda (

    It seems rather cowardly to issue a challenge and then ignore the people who step up to try and prove their point.

  • Tom C

    Rick, Chris Rodda has accepted your challenge, as he documents here:

    There’s your chance to expose the hypocrites. Please accept the challenge as you said you would.

  • Sam

    Oddly, you don’t link to any prominent critic of Barton. I wonder why that is?

    Maybe you should start with Chris Rodda — I don’t think she has a history degree, so maybe Barton would find her worthwhile. She has, however, written a book of criticism of Barton’s work.

  • Randy

    I do hope, Mr. Green, that you will soon release from moderation Chris Rodda’s acceptance of your challenge. I am eager to read your response to the case presented by Rodda, built on abundant and strong evidence and citation of original sources, that Mr. Barton’s command of history is very weak and very inaccurate.

    • Rick

      Yes, Randy, just posted the link to Rodda’s book. But when you talk about abundant and strong evidence, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  • A. Cooper

    Whose tactics include completely unjustified ad hominem attacks? Of the four professors you mention by name, whose lectures you say are “boring”, how many have you seen lecture in person? How many of their “boring” books have you read?

    Is the elitism charge based on anything other than their criticism of Barton’s work? Or do you just think that anyone who disagrees with you or your friends is “elitist”. While you have your dictionary handy, perhaps you should look up what *that* word means.

  • Joe

    Where’s Rodda’s post? Can’t handle it? Sad, just plain sad…

  • Andy Kasehagen

    It’s quite charming that you aspire to the intellectual level of a Ben Stein character. However, your unwillingness to post the “scholarly specific criticism” you say you want and that many of us know you have received is anything but charming. Some would categorize it as intellectually dishonest if not outright gutless. I’ll simply call it what it is…typical and expected.

    You have obviously chosen to extend your personal version of Christian Apologetics from what is actually contained in the Bible to a version of reality Barton is selling. P.T. Barnum realized years ago you would probably have a lot of success with this approach.

  • MarkLL

    “Historian” Chris Rodda says she has “evidence”! I can’t wait for Barton to debunk her falsehoods about the Founding Fathers! Everything they spew is innuendos and God-basing lies.

  • Michele

    I believe Chris Rodda has accepted your challenge but her response is still awaiting modertator approval. If the challenge is truly a challenge, please allow her voice to accompany yours by approving her post for publication. Thank you.

  • Nahan
  • Tracy

    I haven’t noticed Chris Rodda’s response to your challenge here and I was wondering if you could please post it? You asked for proof and it’s only right to post everyone’s submissions, even if you don’t agree with it. You will only look like you are scared of the truth if you don’t post it. Thank-you very much for your attention to this request.

    Tracy Stefanov

    • Rick

      Tracy, just posted her links and my response. Thanks for your polite post.

  • Bob Beecher

    Where is Chris Rodda’s comment? He wrote to you earlier today and submitted absolute proof in his 2006 book, “Liars for Jesus.”

    Here’s a link to check it out for yourself:

    If you do not fear the truth, then let’s see his posting.

  • peicurmudgeon

    @Michael Miles – Your comparison of the historical accuracy of David Barton and David Irving are or so true. Perhaps a review of Chris Rodda’s work would be in order.

  • Kirk W. Fraser

    Michael Miles like other faux liberals issues his one-way opinions on his website without opportunity to respond, while the right or correct way is as Mr. Rick Green has provided, an easy means of two-way discussion.

    Miles in his blog on Mr. David Barton makes comments that are self-contradictory:

    “he appears to have engaged in selective editing and framing in order to support a priori conclusions. That is something that a historian is not permitted, regardless of their worldview. Intellectual rigor does not maintain a mythical interpretation of historical events, but presents evidence to support a thesis and attempts to counter those who disagree.” Notice the contradiction? Presenting evidence to support an a priori conclusion exactly equals presenting evidence to support a thesis and attempting to counter those who disagree.

    “After a century and a half of battle to determine the history narrative, we still can not agree on the rules of engagement.” Of course, how can those who seek to expunge God from public discourse agree with the children of light on anything?

  • Eidolon

    I note that you have been taken up by Chris Rodda with respect to your challenge. Why have you not posted her reply? It would seem that here is the perfect chance for you to show just how wrong the liberals are.

    You have no need to wait, your reply has been here for rather a while now. What are you waiting for?

  • Michael C

    Mr. Barton’s claims were addressed long ago. It is not news among historians that Mr. Barton’s claims about Jefferson are, at best, misrepresentations and sadly some cannot be described otherwise as lies.

    Chris Rodda published a book some time ago addressing many of the claims Barton makes. Rodda has also accepted your challenge.

    Will you do the honest thing and accept it?

    BTW, Rodda’s book is available for free on the web as are the thousands of original documents used to substantiate her debunking of Barton (some of those documents are the same ones that Barton uses, suggesting, again, the quality of his research).

  • Pingback: One of the foremost Barton debunkers accepts challenge to prove the fallacies in "The Jefferson Lies" | God Discussion()

  • Matt

    Chris Rodda’s comment is awaiting moderation. Post it.

  • B-Lar

    I dont think you want to see a rebuttal at all. Your post is more than just dishonest. It is an affront to Truth.

  • Helen

    Seriously, Mr. Fraser? I know of several comments that were posted here in order to have that two-way discussion, but they don’t seem to be able to get out of moderation.

  • Michael Mancuso

    Hey, how about you posting Chris Rodda’s comment? The only posts that you accept on your site seem to be the ones that support your position. Afraid?

  • MarkLL

    Is it not happening?

  • Raven

    So, is there a reason you’ve ignored Chris Rodda’s comments on this post?

    She has literally written a full book, available as a free PDF, with extensive footnotes, debunking Barton’s lies.

  • John

    “Not all people have access to David Barton’s original source material to check the facts for themselves. Perhaps Wallbuilders ought to put the 100,000 original sources online and link to the appropriate spots from the footnotes on the book’s website so anyone can see who is correct.”
    He won’t do that because it will be too easy for us to prove his hypocrisy and out right revision of history.

  • Is this BS?

    I would like to see you take up Chris Rodda’s comments that have not been placed on here yet.

  • Another Rick

    Any particular reason you are refusing to post comments from people like Chris Rodda who have answered your challenge?

    Could it be that you want to pretend that it hasn’t been answered? Could it be that you weren’t exactly honest when you said “I’ll post it right here for the world to see.”?

    Do you have the guts to let people see this comment, or are you going to hide it as well and prove that you were doing nothing more than blowing smoke?

  • John

    Chris Rodda has accepted your request.

    Why are you ignoring her? You have been online since her challenge, are you afraid of being proven wrong? Why are all of our comments still in “Moderation”? Are you afraid of people seeing that you are being challenged? All these comments are being screen snapped and passed around the bloggers sites. You are just looking like a coward. Make the original documents available!!!!

    You state:
    “No one is bothering to ask for evidence of such claims. No one seems to care about the details and the truth because the headline is just too juicy.”

    Chris has made the challenge! Man up or shut up!

    This will probably stay in “Moderation” for eternity……

  • Jack Adkins

    From Greg Forster’s blog

    Barton: “One of Locke’s earliest writings was his 1660 ‘First Tract of Government’ followed by his 1662 ‘Second Tract of Government.’ Neither was published at that time, but they later appeared in 1689 as his famous Two Treatises of Government.”

    The Tracts and the Treatises are different works. Far more embarrassing for Barton, they actually defend opposite positions! In the Tracts, Locke offers a Hobbesian argument that state authority should trump individual claims to liberty, especially in religion. Needless to say, Locke had a total change of heart between the writing of the Tracts and the Treatises. The late 1660s seem to have been a period of rapid change in his thinking.

    • Rick

      Jack, this is a legit question. I’ll have to do some homework on this one because I was focused on Jefferson, not Locke, tonight and I’m out of time for the evening. I scanned Forster’s blog and found several of his critique’s more interpretation and difference of opinion, but a couple of them are basic factual thinks like you list in your question and I’ll do my best to research and get back to you with a post as soon as I can, though I know I’m slammed the next few days. So please understand my delay is time and not “censure” or “running and hiding” like some of our more entertaining critics claim when their question is not answered within 15 minutes. Thanks sir!

  • Shirley Ann Smith-Rhodes

    Thank you for this rebuttal! I appreciate it and had jumped the gun to the wrong conclusion myself! I stand corrected!

  • Lee C Seligman, USNA ’60

    I -along with thousands if not more- who honor truth in history eagerly await your “dare” to post the proof offered by Chris Rodda debunking david barton, the world’s foremost pseudo-historian … well, maybe next to josef gobbels and josef stalin !

  • Chris Rodda

    OK, Mr. Green, I’ll do exactly as you asked, so that there will be no reason for you not to approve my comment. Here is a very specific example.

    Mr. Barton claims on page 42 of his book that Jefferson wanted to move a religious school from Europe to the United States. Here is what he wrote:

    “In 1794, after Jefferson had returned home from serving as secretary of state for President George Washington, he contacted a member of the Virginia legislature about bringing the Geneva Academy from Europe to Virginia. The Geneva Academy was established in 1559 by Reformation theologian John Calvin. In this school, the Bible was an indispensable textbook and students from the school became missionaries all over Europe; and Jefferson wanted to bring this famous religious school to his state.”

    Why is Mr. Barton’s claim that Jefferson wanted to bring this religious school to America a lie? Because by 1794 the Geneva Academy was no longer a theological seminary. It was one of the two leading academies of science in Europe. Jefferson’s plan was to import a group of Europe’s top science professors, not a religious school.

    In a letter to George Washington, who was also anxious to establish a public university in America, Jefferson described the Geneva Academy and its faculty, listing the various sciences taught by the faculty members.

    Here are Jefferson’s own words describing the very Geneva Academy to George Washington:

    “…the revolution which has taken place at Geneva has demolished the college of that place, which was in a great measure supported by the former government. The colleges of Geneva & Edinburgh were considered as the two eyes of Europe in matters of science, insomuch that no other pretended to any rivalship with either. Edinburgh has been the most famous in medicine during the life of Cullen; but Geneva most so in the other branches of science, and much the most resorted to from the continent of Europe because the French language was that which was used. a Mr. D’Ivernois, a Genevan, & man of science, known as the author of a history of that republic, has proposed the transplanting that college in a body to America. he has written to me on the subject, as he has also done to Mr. Adams, as he was formerly known to us both, giving us the details of his views for effecting it. probably these have been communicated to you by Mr. Adams, as D’Ivernois desired should be done; but lest they should not have been communicated I will take the liberty of doing it. his plan I think would go to about ten or twelve professorships. he names to me the following professors as likely if not certain to embrace the plan.

    Monchon, the present President, who wrote the Analytical table for the Encyclopedists, & which sufficiently proves his comprehensive science.
    Pictet, known from his admeasurements of a degree, & other works, professor of Natural philosophy.
    his brother, said by M. D’Ivernois to be also great.
    Senebier, author of commentaries on Spallanzani, & of other works in Natural philosophy & Meteorology; also the translator of the Greek tragedies.
    L’Huillier} both mathematicians, and said to be inferior to nobody in that line except La Grange, who is without an equal.
    Prevost, highly spoken of by D’Ivernois.
    De Saussure & his son, formerly a professor, but who left the college to have more leisure to pursue his geological researches into the Alps, by which work he is very advantageously known.”

    Source: Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, February 23, 1795, The Thomas Jefferson Papers, Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827, Library of Congress Manuscript Division, #16799.

    Obviously, this was not a religious school. What Jefferson wanted to bring to America was very clearly a group of science professors. Yet Mr. Barton claims that Jefferson wanted to bring a “famous religious school” to America. This is a lie.

  • http://N/A Ron Walter

    “You mistake a request for facts as request for a debate. While I love debates, I save them for serious opponents that don’t just slander. Chris Rodda does not fit the first category.”

    If by slander, you mean actually tells the rest of the story that Barton purposely leaves out to give the false impression that this country was founded on Christianity, then yeah.

  • Steve

    Ordered on Amazon (and commented on) after reading this, and the included links. Thanks.

  • Stu

    “Notice the contradiction? Presenting evidence to support an a priori conclusion exactly equals presenting evidence to support a thesis and attempting to counter those who disagree.”

    There is no contradiction there what-so-ever Mr Fraser. You simply lack the understanding to realise that “selective editing and framing in order to support a priori conclusions” means one starts off with a preconceived notion prior to (a priori) looking at any evidence, then picks and chooses from source material in an attempt to support that notion. Conversely, any good thesis is derived only after having researched the source material and it is the responsibility of the creator of that thesis to then use as much of the source material as possible as evidence to support it, particularly when called upon to do so by peer review.
    The two are not at all equal.

  • Stu

    Mr Green,
    In the first of the last spate of responses posted by you, you stated:
    “This is not a debate blog, it’s an information blog.”
    You then, a few posts later, proceeded to engage in a debate (engage in a discussion of opposing view points) with a previous poster named Boo.
    You also stated in the above mentioned post:
    “While I love debates, I save them for serious opponents that don’t just slander. Chris Rodda does not fit the first category.”
    So Ms Rodda, whose credentials and identity can be verified, doesn’t fit your category, but an anonymous poster, who asks you what planet you’re living on and says “who’s fooling who”, does?
    Quite sure I’m not alone in finding your stance on Ms Rodda as being a convenient means of avoiding the discussion (or debate, if you prefer). It also appears that you are masterfully using the powerful art of innuendo to falsely defame those with whom you disagree.

  • lorimakesquilts

    Where is Chris Rodda’s comment? Surely you can rebut all her arguments.

  • Randy

    “Barton claimed that it would have been illegal for Jefferson to have freed his slaves while he was alive…”

    Did Barton actually claim that it was illegal for Jefferson to release his slaves? If so then, Mr Green, you failed in your response to address what I think was Boo’s central point. The laws you cited did not make it illegal to release one’s slaves. They simply set criteria and conditions for doing so. Now if Mr. Barton did in fact state in his book that releasing the slaves would be illegal then this is a factual inaccuracy. Jefferson not releasing his slaves because of his inability to meet the conditions established for doing so is not the equivalent of it being illegal for him to do so. In fact, based the information contained in your response, it would have been perfectly legal for him to do so provided he met the conditions specified in the laws to which you referred.

  • jime

    Attacking Davis Barton is a must do for the Progressive left. Why? First of all he is a Christian, and anything Christian is far game for attack by these godless baffoons.
    Second, attacking Thomas Jefferson has been on the table of the Progressives since they wore diapers. They cannot tolerate the idea that Jefferson was a Christian. They have painted him, Washington and many others as Deists. The defense of their twisted view must be defended or many of their nonsense arguments become little more than wisps if smoke.
    Third, would any of this be in the press if it were not an election year? The left feels obligated Now perhaps more that ever to defend their atheist, anti Christian views. Atheism, and secularism have made huge strides and the left will defend their position no matter who gets destroyed in the process.
    Silence any and all opposing views in their mantra. Evil is as evil does !

  • Graywolf

    I’ll bet Mercury1 will be happy to publish Mr. Barton’s books especially after all the free publicity as this article exposes the hatchet piece designed to discredit history not rewritten by progressives. Any history that doesn’t show how horrible this country was/is,demonstrates how religion,especially Christians, had nothing to do with the formation of our value system, or doesn’t push a sectarian, gay Muslim agenda, or one world government is not to be accepted. GO Wallbuilders.

  • Judge Darrell White (Retired)

    Rick, in seeking a motive for the publisher’s action, I am altogether satisfied with your explanation that “HarperCollins (secular publisher) recently purchased Thomas Nelson (Christian publisher).”

    With a library full of WallBuilders’ materials, I have come to appreciate David Barton’s fastidious attention to detail and scrupulous caution in verifying the accuracy of quotes. Regarding the interpretation of facts, I like Judge Brevard Hand’s observation in criticism of his fellow Alabaman, Hugh Black, the latter of whom bears much responsibility for today’s lawlessness (following the 1947 Everson case). Judge Hand noted, “There are pebbles on the beach of history from which scholars and judges might attempt to support the conclusions that they are wont to reach.” Judge Hand also warned, “The founding fathers were far wiser than we.   ….  If we, who today rule, do not follow the teachings of history then surely the very weight of what we are about will bring down the house upon our head, and the public having rightly lost respect in the integrity of the institution, will ultimately bring about its change or even its demise.”

    It is a sobering thought to consider that Hugo Black, Brevard Hand, and each of us cannot escape THAT DAY when we must stand before The Word (John 1:1) to give account for our own words (Matthew 12:36). Isn’t that why our oaths to support the Constitution are preceded by the adverb “solemnly”?

  • caleb

    Just finished 10 years with the marines, and now I find that the real war in within my own borders. ‘A Republic, Ma’am, if you can keep it.’ The indispensable supports of religion (the real kind) and morality (the objective kind) have been kicked out. Americas real military is blogging and walking around with a book instead of a gun. The pay is worse, and confusion twixt friend and foe is greater than in an insurgency. And the way the military gets hero-worshiped while the truth-tellers get burned, well, it definitely shows you who Americas enemies are really afraid of.

    sorry for the sentimentality, just my personal observations.

  • caleb

    wallbuilders should do a wb hard drive like the puritan hard drive, that would have the originals, possibly cross-referenced, or topically arranged, etc. on a hard drive. the puritan one sells for about 3-400$. i bet they’d even let you guys use their gear. just a thought.

  • Jim

    Sounds like “impossible under the law” would be more pleasing to some than “illegal”. So be it.

  • John B.

    I was first facinated, then about ten years ago I thougt David Barton was exaggerating. Then more recently I knew he was exaggerating, even before “the book”.

    Since it became obvious that he was not being straight forward, I purchased Liars for Jesus to contrast against.

    I consider myself to be very conservative but I cannot use mateial that is not credible, and David Barton has proven himself to not be credible.

    I do believe that Jefferson was a Christian but we must use material that is factual and trustworthy.

    David Barton his become a discredit to himself and our faith.

    Oh, why do we keep shooting ourselves in the foot. Our faith and the facts are solid. Embelishing the facts benefits no one. It only gives ammunition to the enemy.

    God forgive us.

  • Caroline Borduin

    Accept Chris Rodda’s challenge if you trust David Barton’s accuracy. What do you have to fear if all you wrote is true?

  • Tony Lloyd

    Reading your reply to Jason a reasonable reader would be under the impression that Chris Rodda’s reply was largely or solely concerned with publicising her book rather than supplying the facts requested.

    Now either her post on her website with her comment is a lie or the impression you seem to seek to give is utterly dishonest. If the latter then:

    “I’m simply asking for someone to point out a single premise in David’s book that is false and to back it up with evidence.”

    is dishonest.

  • Jovanna Gomez

    You want to see a specific inaccuracy or false claim by Barton? Well, here you go…

  • Reinhold Sommerstedt

    Adolf Hitler?

    Rick Green wrote:
    Attacks on David Barton Same as Tactics of Saul Alinsky

    Question: What do elitist professors have in common with Adolf Hitler & Saul Alinsky?

    Reinhold provides the True Answer: “Nothing”

    Rick Green’s Deceptive Answer: They masterfully use the powerful art of innuendo to falsely defame those with which they disagree.

    Definition of Innuendo: A derogatory hint or reference to a person or thing.

    Here Rick Green presents mere innuendo that German Chancellor Adolf Hitler suppressed the truth by deluding the “least intelligent.”

    The Pavlovian presumption that all things “Nazi” are evil and that Adolf Hitler was evil personified serves well those of the synagogue of Satan. These, our Savior King, Yeshua declared to be “of your father the devil who was a murderer from beginning and the father of lies.”

    Here Rick Green exhibits the same willful intent to obfuscate fact by the use of subtle innuendo that he rightfully attributes to the fallacy raised against the important work of David Barton. Such ineptitude harms the very purpose of publishing truthful history. It is a disservice to all to rely on False Witness to defend the truth! Rick Reese has here exhibits the same conduct that he attributes to:

    “These elitist professors and reporters attacking David Barton know that most people will not actually go read the supporting material behind [David’s books…certainly not the bloggers and reporters who have so quickly jumped on the attack wagon. They are exactly the “least intelligent” Hitler was able to fool, Alinksy taught radicals to fool, and now even Christian “leaders” are joining.

    Those that repeat the anti-Christ lies about Adolf Hitler “bear false witness.” The great harm is manifest. Today foolish people declare that Christianity is founded on Talmudic Judaism! And foolish Americans boast they are the Greatest of Nations for killing all who oppose the anti-Christ Kosher Kabal of the Bogus Bank of Credit Fraud. This is the Powers of Darkness!

    On the occasion of his State of the Nation address in 1934, German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler declared, “The Reich sees in Christianity the unshakable foundation for the ethics and morality of the Volk.”

    This is the central doctrine defined and enacted by the Christian Nationalists of the German Third Reich- the Nazis. These devout Christians removed the destruction of the Talmdudist Jews from their land. They restored their Christian Nation. The so-called “Jews” declared war on Germans everywhere in 1933. The “least intelligent” Americans sent their children to kill and to be killed to help the anti-Christ Jewist Bolshevist Cummunist to murder 100 million to establish the Soviet Union. The same “Jews” continue to rule America and strive to destoy all of Christendom. It was the German Third Reich that defended against this! It was Americans that inflicted the war of attrition that continues to serve the Jewist Military Occupation of Europe , Aisa and these formerly free States of this Union in North America.

    We thank David Barton! We must fight to defend the truth. We shall not succeed by demonizing the German Defenders that we killed and subjugate even today! our Savior King promises: “You shall know the truth and the truth will make you free.” To the extent a people knows not the truth they cannot be free. Americans cannot repent because Americans will not confess.

  • Norm James

    Und vy dos da peoples tink ve vant der trooth to be giveing to za masses. Ve vill decide vat dey can be told.
    Lovin Uncle Adolf.

  • Jovanna Gomez
  • Steve Smith

    Honesty, Truth, and Integrity. 3 words that have no meaning to today’s christian leaders. They are but minor inconveniences.
    Just type “Pastor Indicted” into any search engine to see what these people are all about.

    “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” – Sinclair Lewis

    Lewis should have added, “.. and revising history to suit their purposes.”

    Liars, the whole lot of them. And laughing, tax free, all the way to the bank.

  • Brian T

    Dear Mr. Green,

    I am not anybody’s “minion,” but I have followed this discussion on the internet and I sincerely hope you will post Chris Rodda’s recent response to your challenge. She offered a very specific example of a misleading claim in the “Jefferson Lies” book. I recognize that her tone is sometimes abrasive, but in this case her claim fits your bill exactly: she shows (convincingly, it seems to me) an example of David Barton mis-representing Jefferson’s interest in moving faculty from a European college founded by John Calvin in 1559 to teach in Virginia. Barton says “Jefferson wanted to bring this famous religious school to his state.” Rodda’s quotes make it quite clear that the college in question had long since abandoned its theological focus in favor of enlightenment values, and what Jefferson wanted to import was a faculty teaching sciences and humanities, not religion.

    If, as you state, you are sincere in your desire to civilly debate these matters, may I also suggest that you (or Mr. Barton) seek out John Fea, a historian who specializes in the religious history of the early US, and who is an evangelical Christian that teaches at Messiah College in Pennsylvania. You will find him polite, sympathetic with many of your own views, and deeply knowledgable about the issues in question.

  • Pingback: CAUGHT: FOX News Sister Censors US History Book on JeffersonRant Political()

  • Chris

    Actually Chris Rodda DIRECTLY refutes not just a single premise in Mr Barton’s book, but virtually the entire book. And she does so in an articulate and professional manner. Why don’t you post her refutation and let your readers decide?

  • James P. Healy

    As a 70 year old Graduate of a Catholic Liberal Arts College in New York City with a dual degree in History and Economics it was my experience that the History Professors were very much inclined to express “opinion” as much as historical fact.
    However, I can not recall instances where the Conservative or Liberal Professors represented the “Founding Fathers” and the period of the establishment of our Constitutional Republic differently.
    As a retiree I am now regularly in schools as a “Substitute Teacher” and find myself wondering what has happened to the “History of America” since my days as a student.

    Clearly, since the Presidency of JFK we have had a revisionist view of America’s role in the world. Worse we seem to have revised the notions of principles and standards and virtues and culture and what is meant by freedom to include the politically correct notions that everyone is entitled and most behaviors and beliefs are acceptable by anyone if they believe it okay as long as no one in any minority is affended in any way.
    God and the basis for “Rights” of citizens as provided for in the Constitution are under seige by the “collectivist iberal ” mindset that has been growing since the early 1900’s and has escallated in the post Vietnbam War opposition era as Democratic Party controlled Government sought to expand.





  • Marian L. Shatto

    David Barton is fond of declaring that the language of our United States Constitution was strongly influenced by the language of the Bible. Barton told James Robison on Trinity Broadcast Network, “You look at Article 3, Section 1, the treason clause – 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.”

    The Bible translation in use at the time of writing of the Constitution was the Authorized Version of 1611, commonly known as the King James Version. Because Barton cites chapter and verse in his second example, the comparison is quite easy.

    Constitution, Article II, Section 1, fifth paragraph: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    Deuteronomy 17:15, KJV: “Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.”

    Even if one permits the substitution of “President” for “king,” there is simply no way in which the former can be regarded as a verbatim (word for word) transcript of the latter. They differ in intent as well as in language, for the Constitution refers to formal, legal citizenship in a nation, while the Deuteronomy passage refers to blood membership in a clan or tribe.

    The reference to the treason clause is a bit more difficult to pin down. The clause in its entirety reads: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

    Using Abingdon’s Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (a standard reference work for those searching for particular Bible quotes) I find three uses of the word “treason.”

    I Kings 16:20 “Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and his treason that he wrought, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?” (The context is a rather complex one of political intrigue within Israel. It has nothing to do with external enemies.)

    II Kings 11:14 “And when she looked, behold, the king stood by a pillar, as the manner was, and the princes and the trumpeters by the king, and all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew with trumpets: and Athaliah rent her clothes, and cried, Treason, Treason.” (The context is a succession struggle, also internal within Israel.)

    II Chronicles 23:13 “And she looked, and, behold, the king stood at his pillar at the entering in, and the princes and the trumpets by the king: and all the people of the land rejoiced, and sounded with trumpets, also the singers with instruments of music, and such as taught to sing praise. Then Athaliah rent her clothes, and said, Treason, Treason.” (This is the Chronicles version of the story from II Kings cited above.)

    Clearly none of these provides the basis for Barton’s claim that the treason clause is a “direct quote out of the Bible.” It is possible that Barton is referring to the provision in Jewish law, as first cited in Deuteronomy 17:6, that requires the testimony of two or more witnesses in order to enforce the death penalty. “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.” This is one of the earliest recorded instances of the requirement in a legal code for the testimony of at least two witnesses in a criminal proceeding.

    The clear source of the treason clause in the Constitution, however, is the British Act of Parliament known as the Treason Act 1695, which repeated the two-witnesses rule from the Treason Act 1547, the Treason Act 1554, and the Sedition Act 1661. To these instances of settled English law, with which Jefferson would have been very familiar, the writers of our Constitution added the provision that the witnesses must be witnesses to “the same overt act.”

    Other researchers have documented at length and in depth the numerous errors, lies, and distortions in David Barton’s work. These two examples are miniscule compared to the work of others. As a faithful Christian, however, I particularly deplore the misuse of Scripture for political ends and so wish to lift these up as examples of Barton’s failure to heed the commandment against bearing false witness.

    Marian L. Shatto
    MAR, magna cum laude
    Lancaster Theological Seminary, 1991

  • Krista

    Hm…let’s see.

    ‘United States Congressional Endorsement of the Bible and God Congress printed a Bible for America and said: “The United States in Congress assembled … recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States … a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.” United States Congress 1782′

    That is not accurate. The phrase “neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools” was NOT written or endorsed by Congress. This quote came from Robert Aiken himself in his petition to Congress: “Under this persuasion your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools, But being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible to Issue forth without the sanction of Congress, Humbly prays that your Honours would take this important matter into serious consideration & would be pleased to appoint one Member or Members of your Honourable Body to inspect his work so that the same may be published under the Authority of Congress.”

    Also, “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” is not quoted ANYWHERE. The actual quote was:
    THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.”

    ‘In his speech on May 12, 1779, George Washington claimed that what children needed to learn “above all” was the “religion of Jesus Christ,” and that to learn this would make them “greater and happier than they already are.”’

    That is also taken out of context and misquoted. Washington said:

    “My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it.”

    in response to a speech by the Delaware Nation given on May 10th, 1779 ( in which these points were addressed:

    “That the said Delaware Nation have on the Invita[t]ion of Congress by their Commissioners & Agent, sent down three Children of their principal Chiefs to be placed at School by Congress. These Children if they live, and imp[r]ove the Advantages offerd to them will naturally have great Interest & Influence in the Counfills of the said Nation who therefore wish them to be educated accordingly & for this favour we beg leave to be obligated to the Wisdom and Genarosity of Congress alone.” and

    “That the said Delaware Nation have established a Town where numbers of them have enbraced Christianity under the Instruction of the Reverend and worthy Mr David Zeisberger whose honest zealous Labours & good Examples have Induced many of them to listen to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which has been a means of introducing considerable order, Regularity and love of Peace into the Minds of the whole Nation – the[y] therefore hope Congress will countenance & promote the Mission of this Gentleman, so far as they may deem expedient; and they may rely that the Delaware Nation will afford every encouragement thereto in their Power.”

    There’s one for you….

  • Krista

    How about this one?

    David Barton has BUTCHERED a quote by John Quincy Adams. Here’s the quote from his “Wallbuilders” website:

    “The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost, Who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the Bishop on the heads of candidates for the ministry. In the same manner, as the Holy Ghost is transmitted from monarch to monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a dove and by that other phial [vial] which I have seen in the Tower of London. There is no authority civil or religious, there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words, damnation. Although this is all artifice and cunning in the sacred original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lay down their lives under the ax or the fiery fagot [bundle of wood used for burning individuals at the stake] for it. Alas, the poor weak ignorant dupe, human nature. There is so much king craft, priest craft, gentlemens craft, peoples craft, doctors craft, lawyers craft, merchants craft, tradesmens craft, laborers craft, and Devils craft in the world that it seems a desperate [hopeless] and impractical project to undeceive it. Do you wonder that Voltaire and Paine have made proselytes [converts]? Yet there [is] near as much subtlety, craft, and hypocrisy in Voltaire and Paine, and more, too, than in Ignatius Loyola [a Spanish knight who was a founder of the Jesuits].”

    And what exactly is David Barton’s reason for taking that one paragraph out of context? I’m not really sure…because in a 2008 article (, he uses the quote like this:

    “My friend, there is something very serious in this business. The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost, Who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the Bishop on the heads of candidates for the ministry. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it – all without it is rebellion and perdition, or, in more orthodox words, damnation. . . Your prophecy, my dear friend, has not become history as yet. I have no resentment of animosity against the gentleman [Jefferson] and abhor the idea of blackening his character or transmitting him in odious colors to posterity. But I write with difficulty and am afraid of diffusing myself in too many correspondences. If I should receive a letter from him, however, I should not fail to acknowledge and answer it.”

    He omits the entire second paragraph about the “fiery fagot” and “poor weak ignorant dupe human nature” with the always questionable “…” and immediately jumps to a paragraph about Rush’s “dream.” The title of that article was “The Dream of Dr. Benjamin Rush & God’s Hand in Reconciling John Adams and Thomas Jefferson”. So he used the paragraph about the “Holy Ghost” to prove some kind of point that John Adams believe the “Holy Ghost” was involved in Benjamin Rush’s dream about Adams and Jefferson. But then, in a 2011 article entitled “John Adams: Was He Really an Enemy of Christians? Addressing Modern Academic Shallowness” (, he offers a completely different interpretation of that very same paragraph. Not ONCE is Rush’s “dream” mentioned in regards to the “Holy Ghost” comment in this article. This article is written because of people calling David Barton out on taking the paragraph out of context, so all of a sudden, David Barton writes another article in which he dissects these 2 paragraphs so much that it’s absurd. First, he makes a point, “So although we typically do not respond to critics such as Pinto, in this case, his videos have confused many Christians who have respectfully asked us to help them sort out the facts and discern the truth.” Then he offers a thorough lesson on “modernism” and “minimalism” and touches on several topics of religious history in Europe. Then he proceeds with the dissection:
    He claims that the first 3 sentences of the 1st paragraph are actually true, and that John Adams is stating them in all seriousness. But then Adams using the prepositional phrase “in the same manner” changes the entire tone of the rest of the paragraph, and from then on he’s being sarcastic and pointing out how people have abused and corrupted Christianity for greed and power. Interesting, I never knew that a phrase used when comparing similar things could also be used to state that they are completely the opposite…that’s a new one…

    Ultimately, what David Barton did in the 2011 article is mixed truth with his outrageous misinterpretation to give it a shred of credibility. By admitting that yes, the churches of Europe were corrupt and Christianity had been abused by government, kings, and clergy, and offering overwhelming evidence of such hypocrisy, he tries to use that truth as “proof” that his NEW interpretation of Adam’s “Holy Ghost” writings are also true, but never addresses his INITIAL article in which he inaccurately used the “Holy Ghost” bits out of context. James 1:8 “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”

  • Jeff Johnson

    I recommend anyone who wishes to arm themselves with a true insight into the mind of Jefferson go to beliefnet and read his letters in the Founding Faith Archive.

    I would especially recommend the one to F. A. Van Der Kamp.

    Here is a summary of my take away. It is clear that Jefferson considered himself a Christian, but not by accepting the dogmas of the churches of his day, whom he referred to as fanatics, but as a free thinker who considered his interpretation of Jesus to be that of True Christianity. The prevalent forms of Christianity in his day he referred to as corruptions of Jesus’ philosophy. In particular he disliked the teachings of Calvin and the idea of the Trinity. Jefferson said there was one God, not three, by which we can infer, with backing from other quotes, that Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Christ. Indeed he calls him a great “human sage”, and considered any teachings in the gospels that were outside of natural physical laws to be lies, including virgin birth and resurrection. Jefferson favored Unitarianism, which rejects the Trinity. Jefferson considered himself to have true Christian beliefs, unlike the corrupted fanatics who seem to fit the description of todays conservative Christians and Evangelicals. Jefferson’s descriptions of his own faith, which respected the moral teachings of Jesus, but not the supernatural miracles, seem to be consistent with Deism. I finish with this direct quote from the Van Der Kamp letter:

    ” I gave it the title of “The Philosophy of Jesus Extracted from the Text of the Evangelists. To this Syllabus and Extract, if a history of His life can be added, written with the same view of the subject, the world will see, after the fogs shall be dispelled, in which for fourteen centuries He has been enveloped by jugglers to make money of Him, when the genuine character shall be exhibited, which they have dressed up in the rags of an impostor, the world, I say, will at length see the immortal merit of this first of human sages. I rejoice that you think of undertaking this work. It is one I have long wished to see written of the scale of a Laertius or a Nepos. Nor can it be a work of labor, or of volume, for His journeyings from Judea to Samaria, and Samaria to Galilee, do not cover much country; and the incidents of His life require little research. They are all at hand, and need only to be put into human dress ; noticing such only as are within the physical laws of nature, and offending none by a denial or even a mention of what is not.”

    Notice at the end that Jefferson considers the incidents told of Jesus’ life that outside the “physical laws of nature” to be offensive and not worthy of mention. This is quite telling, and clearly indicates that Jefferson’s thinking was quite at odds with fundamentalist Christians.

  • Jeff G

    For some reason you have still refuse to post comments from people that accepted your challenge. Chris Rodda’s rebuttal is exactly what you were seeking. Your claim that she is trying to promote and drive sales of her book is nonsense because she is giving away free copies. There is no financial incentive here. The only incentive is the truth, something you are obviously not interested in. You are a coward with no integrity and should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Jeff G

    Big surprise. My com.ment is aw.aiting mo.der.ation. You are a co.wa.rd and a dis.grace.

  • Dianne

    Evidently Chris Rodda has offered a specific example (out of the dozens documented, with sources, in her book,) per your request.

    And her comment is still stuck in moderation. As I expect mine will be.

    By the way,

    “serious opponents that don’t just slander”

    It’s not “slander” if the allegations are true. And if, as you allege, Chris Rodda is not a serious opponent, why don’t you just publish her comments and let your readers judge that for themselves? Surely you have nothing to fear from an unserious opponent?

  • Michael

    Chris Rodda’s has responded to your post here but I cant see it anywhere, why is that? I believe she accepted your challange sir, maybe you should hear the response, I mean thats what you asked for yeah? you wanted to hear and see the evidence and Chris Rodda’s claims to have this, please post her comment

  • Don Draper

    I expect as much from elitest lying left. They have been using Jefferson inaccurately for years to make there bogus claim of “separation of church and state”. I have read a copy of the letter and it is simply not there. The left has taken a line out of context then made their own interpertation disregarding many other Jefferson statements as well as his actions.

    Do some reading/research of your own. Start with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They are pretty straight forward. And if you need interpretation don’t rely on the lying left who were not there, rather read things like the Fderalist Papers by men who were actually there.

    Sometimes when I read liberal interpertation I come to the conclusion that they think our founders were morons, didn’t know what they were saying and in some cases were stupid to the point of contradiction. Actually it has gotten so bad that Ms. Ginsburg is now shamelessly badmouthing the document she has sworn to uphold. Now that shows real character – NOT. Too many (probably most) liberal lack real character since to them “the end justifies the means”.

    Their words ring HALLOW because of inconsistencies and distortions/lies. Let me sight just two more
    First is abortion – a woman’s right to choose (to kill her child) but that same woman is not smart enough to choose the school she thinks best for her child.
    Second is racism. Remember the recent clamor about a “racist” shooting in Florida without real evidence (more like deception with the published “angelic” picture of the victim). Now we have actual evidence (a video tape) of a racist statement by an abortionist. The 2 race hustling Rev’s and the Congressional Black Caucus … uh, we’re waiting. Then again I don’t expect anything beyond “spin” if that because he is a big Dem donor (16 out of 17). Let focus on those two prolifers that confronted him, surely they are at fault for daring to question his “courageous” livelyhood.
    Third is (“keep it in the bedroom”) homosexuality. Oops I said just two so I’ll quite.

    The TRUTH is there to find if someone wants to really know. If your lazy or have an agenda just keep repeating the lies.

    I am diappointed that Thomas Nelson didn’t do their own homework (both before and after). I am agast at people who claim to be a follower of Christ and believe the garbage. The hypocrites that push the lies are “wolves in sheeps clothing” (even with a title). We have been warned. “Itching ears” is no excuse either.

  • Kirk W. Fraser

    While some have tried, no one has won a refutation of my original discovery, first published in Dec. 2009 in Christian News NW, built on a discovery by Anne Coulter, that the date since the Declaration in Article 7 of the Constitution incorporates the text of the Declaration in the Constitution by reference, that also the date of the year of our Lord incorporates the text of the Bible into the Constitution by reference. Thus in general all David Barton is saying about God in Government is supported by the foundation of the text of Scripture within the Constitution by reference. So any nit-picky errors even if substantiated are therefore trivial and arguing against the thesis of God as the firm foundation of America on the basis of trivial or imaginary errors is wrong-headed, false, and evil.

    If there is any doubt, what do you do with the Divine Providence clause of the Declaration of Independence? We are commanded by its inclusion as established law by reference to firmly rely on divine providence. How can one do that without knowing God? So first liberals need to get on the same playing field, get saved. Then you might seek after and find truth.

  • memurphy

    David Barton has done more than most anyone to remind us of our Christian heritage.Only one book I have read compares to David’s mission,evidenced by his
    dedication to informing and preserving our Christian history.
    A few years ago, I ordered a book (written over a decade ) by Benjamin J. Morris,and published in 1864,(It had been out of print for 100 years,and was republished in 2007 by American Vision).
    Titled: The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States;it is a wonderful book,I highly recommend reading it,although it does take months!!
    1060 pages of authentic history of our country and civil institutions,biographies of the founders,letters,speeches,etc.

  • Pingback: Reblog from Chris Rodda: “Barton Radio Co-Host Issues Challenge; I’ve Accepted” | Atheism, Music, and More…()

  • David Graff

    It’s been over 24 hours now since Chris Rodda posted the particulars on research regarding the errors contained in Barton’s oeuvre (i.e. his statements that contradict, misinterpret or misrepresent the evidence). Her posts, which are still awaiting “moderator approval” on this website, contain links to the source material that would satisfy the very sensible requests that already appear in other responses on this thread:

    It should be obvious that if Rodda’s posts never get approved here (as I expect my own reply will not be approved, because I provide a specific link to her work), the true nature of David Barton and WallBuilders will be prominently published elsewhere on the web.

    If specific links to Rodda’s material are ever presented on this thread at all, the only sensible way to “spin” it will involve admitting the validity of the evidence against most of Barton’s particular claims about Jefferson’s religiosity, and retracting those claims.

    One other thing: Kirk Fraser’s reliance on the authority of Anne Coulter notwithstanding, there is in fact no reference to holy scripture, and no “inclusion by reference” of holy scripture, in the U.S. Constitution. None. Any such would be a direct contradiction to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (which, having been placed first among the amendments, was apparently viewed by the founders as the most important).

    Regarding the Declaration of Independence (which is NOT “included by reference” in the U.S. Constitution – Article 7 makes no mention of it – and does NOT contain anything directly related to the establishment of our particular form of government and laws), it’s sole reference to “divine Providence” has to do with “support of this Declaration”: the signers of the Declaration seem to be stating their sentiment that their own position (seeking independence of the colonies from England) is better aligned with moral principles than King George’s position would be. That’s all – it carries no legal implication whatsoever for our constitutional form of government.

  • http://none Dean Pierson

    Hi there,

    I always admire organizations that hold up the truth and fulfil their commitments. I know that Wall Builders hold themselves up as the former, can they meet the high standards of the latter?

    If you can show me specifics that back up the image created by the critics innuendo, I’ll post it right here for the world to see.

    I know that Chris Rodda has answered your challenge, yet I see no mention of it here “for the world to see”.

    Making bold challenges requires the ability to meet your obligations. I guess we will all see what Wall Builders truly stands for soon enough.

    Thanks you, Dean

  • Krista

    Excuse me, but I have 2 posts that are still awaiting moderation, and it seems that someone who posted after me had his post made visible already. Is there a reason why mine still are not?


  • J

    We see the effects of the Liberal mentality everywhere and it is a sickening reality. Liberalism has done more to destroy the American way of life than all the wars in our history and I’m sure that many Liberals are proud of that fact, since they see America as the evil in the world. These people are a plague on our country that must be eliminated from our society and we can make a significant start with the defeat of Barack Obama and his evil gang of Marxist. We need more people to understand and recognize this threat as the same great evil that created Nazi Germany.

  • Pingback: » Book by Author Endorsed by Mike Huckabee and Glenn Beck Withdrawn by Publisher Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion()

  • Michael Miles

    Mr. Fraser,

    You are certainly welcome to leave comments on my blog. Regarding your claims of contradiction, I would certainly disagree. The question seems to center around the process of doing professional history. My criticism of David Barton’s work has not questioned the historical facts as much as it has questioned the editing and framing of those facts. That, and the lack of desire to credibly address the historiography of the subject leaves him vulnerable.

    And again, the “faux liberal” ad hominem does nothing to advance knowledge in this debate.

  • Deana M. Holmes

    Do you plan on posting Chris Rodda’s comments? I’ve read them; the second one exactly meets your requirements.

    Two other comments:

    1) I’ve got a lot of experience observing a certain space-alien cult. And in the general outline, David Barton runs his own little cult of Christian Americanism, one that has about as much truth in it as Scientology does with Xenu and body thetans.

    2) If David Barton lies to me about the origins of the American republic, as has been amply demonstrated by many people across the political spectrum, what’s to stop him from lying about Jesus? Absolutely nothing.

    If you won’t answer Chris Rodda, perhaps you or David Barton would like to take on Warren Throckmorton? :)

    P.S. Going full-metal Godwin in your post title is bad form, very bad form.

  • Pingback: "Clanking cymbals and blathering nonsense?" Challenge for evidence of false claims in Barton's controversial 'The Jefferson Lies' riles critics and researchers | God Discussion()

  • Pingback: Attacks on David Barton Same as Tactics of Saul Alinsky()

  • Pingback: This isn’t the way to defend David Barton | Past in the Present()

  • Herbert Barger

    It seems that everyone is overlooking the fact that an entire chapter is devoted to the lie that Thomas Jefferson fathered the Sally Hemings children.

    As a Jefferson Family Historian, founder of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society (, Assistant to Dr E.A. Foster, Jefferson-Hemings DNA Study, I know how the media has mishandled that study. No proof has been found that the Monticello and Annette Gordon-Reed claims are true. Mr Barton has done a good job on this and this is a study that should receive more complaints by your readers. A vast agenda is before us and I do not agree with Mr Barton’s publisher that they should “CENSOR” and burn his book and deny the public their freedom to hear his list of Jefferson lies. The original Campaign Lies were perpetuated by scandelous Richmond publisher, James Callender, whose charges were EXPOSED by the 1998 Jefferson-Hemings DNA Study, there was NO match between Thomas Woodson (claimed by Callender as TJ’s child) and only one match of a descendant of Eston Hemings whose family always claimed descent from “a Jefferson uncle or nephew” meaning Randolph Jefferson, TJ’s much younger brother. I told Dr Foster that he must make Nature aware of this, he REFUSED and worked closely with them to perfect a false headline which the media and Monticello ran with to accept Dr Foster’s false and unprofessional claims.

    Herb Barger
    Founder, Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society

  • Pingback: Wallbuilders #2 Man Compares David Barton’s Critics to Hitler and Alinsky()

  • George

    Mr. Green,
    I accept your challenge to provide a specific example that backs up the image created by the critics statements about Mr. Barton’s work, ‘The Jefferson Lies’.
    In the introductory chapter of his book, Barton provides discourse on five various ‘devices’ that he maintains are currently used by historians to “undermine historical accuracy”. In the last of these, his own concept, which he terms: ‘Academic Collectivism’, he claims that scholars and writers in the academic world rely heavily on each other through peer review, giving way to a “destructive and harmful tendency”. He also refers to this practice as “incestuous”, and it must change “if truth, accuracy, and objectivity are ever again to govern the presentation of history and historical figures.” Be that as it may, he then proceeds to give his own illustration of a “chilling example” of this “historical malpractice”, Academic Collectivism.
    From ‘The Godless Constitution’, by professors Isaac Kramnick & R. Laurence Moore, Barton’s own chosen example of ‘Academic Collectivism’, the following points are made:
    1. Barton states that the professors “assert that the Founding Fathers were a group of atheists, agnostics, and deists who deliberately set out to create a secular government.” Barton provides a footnote here pointing to three different places in the book that are meant to give credence to this statement.
    2. Barton claims the book has become a nationally recognized “staple” on its subject matter.
    3. Barton further claims that the book is cited by many in the educational and legal fields “as
    an authoritative source to ‘prove’ the Founding Fathers’ lack of religious belief.” Barton also
    includes a footnote here that references four separate sources of evidence backing up his contention.
    In answer to the above points:
    Point 1. Barton’s own assertion that the authors presented a view of the Founding Fathers as atheists, agnostics and deists is completely false. Nowhere in the entire book, ‘The Godless Constitution’, can such a idea be found; let alone in the three pages Barton cites in his footnote. In fact, if the full context of those and nearby pages were reviewed, one would find the following Kramnick and Moore statements that quite contradict the image Barton has created:
    Page 12: “…the nation’s founders, both in writing the Constitution and in defending it in the ratification debates, sought to separate the operations of government from any claim that human beings can know and follow divine direction in reaching policy decisions. They did this despite their enormous respect for religion, their faith in divinely endowed human rights, and their belief that democracy benefited from a moral citizenry who believed in God.”
    Page 24 “The creation of a godless constitution was not an act of irreverence. Far from it. It was an act of confidence in religion. It intended to let religion do what it did best, to preserve the civil morality necessary to democracy, without laying upon it the burden of being tied to the fortunes of this or that political faction. The godless constitution must be understood as part of the American system of voluntary church support that has proved itself a much greater boon to the fortunes of organized religion than the prior systems of church establishment ever were.”
    Where in the text of ‘The Godless Constitution’ does Barton derive his understanding that the Founding Fathers are being portrayed as atheists, agnostics, and deists?
    Point 2. Not contested, and not of much relevance, except that for Barton, it serves to demonstrate how broadly ‘Academic Collectivism’ pervades the country. But from another perspective it just might hint that there are a great many people who have a genuine interest in learning more about our own national culture and its heritage. Its overall acceptance suggests that its words have rung true for many.
    Point 3. Barton goes on with his indictment of Kramnick and Moore’s work; lamenting the authority it now commands in demonstrating to all a lack of religious belief by the founders. Built on the false premise of Point 1 above, Barton now alleges that the atheistic, agnostic and deistic perception of the Founding fathers is being spread far and wide into the work of others. To emphasize this point, Barton’s footnoted list of some of those ‘others’ is offered for proof. However when those ‘others’ are actually referenced, a very different perspective emerges. Remember, Barton uses these citations as proof of his Point 3 view:
    Footnote #48 from ‘The Jefferson Lies’, Introductory Chapter:
    Citation A. See Ross Anderson, “ACLU President Says Organization is Not Anti-Religion”
    Checking out this reference, one finds a report on a speech given by Nadine Strossen, past President of the ACLU, in 2006, including the following, which related to Kramnick and Moore’s ‘The Godless Constitution':
    “…Strossen argued that the separation of church and state, or a government ‘neutrality principle’ with regard to religion, was not hostile at all and instead very beneficial to religion.
    According to Strossen, ‘A good starting point for the true story of the role of religion in our system of government is the Constitution itself.’
    Citing the book The Godless Constitution by Cornell Professors Isaac Kramnick and Laurence Moore, Strossen said, ‘The deliberate decision that the framers of our Constitution made [was] to exclude any endorsement of either Christianity in particular or organized religion in general.’
    Kramnick and Moore rebutted charges of indifference or hostility toward religion by writing, ‘The creation of a godless constitution was not, as critics charged, an act of irreverence; rather, it was an act of confidence in religion. It reflects the American system of voluntary support of religious institutions, which has proved to be a much greater boom to organized religion than the prior systems of government establishment ever were.’ ”
    Citation B. Jill Goetz, “Authors argue the Religious Right is Wrong about the Constitution”
    This article is simply an interview of Kramnick and Moore by a local newspaper reporter at Cornell upon the initial release of the book.
    “…According to its authors, what makes The Godless Constitution different from other recent books about the religious right is that it is sympathetic to religion and its role in American society. ‘Our intention is not to marginalize religion,’ they write. ‘If anything, it is to warn against the ways that some aggressive proponents of religious correctness are doing exactly that in their political battles.’
    ‘You can be very religious and still take the Founders’ political view,’ Moore said.”
    Citation C. Ed Bruckner, “It’s a Free Country, Not a Christian Nation”
    From Mr. Bruckner’s own website, an extensive discourse on his own opinions on the topic described by his title; most of which would certainly bring about lively debate with Mr.’s Barton and Green. However within the essay Mr. Bruckner makes passing reference to ‘The Godless Constitution’, with no specific citations or correlations to it. Neither does Mr. Bruckner anywhere in the text suggest that the Founding Fathers were a group of non-believers. He even goes so far in places to say that they were religious; Example: ‘…Adams and Washington and possibly Jefferson did apparently believe religion and religious belief were necessary and desirable,…’
    Citation D. Matthew Dallek, ‘The Godless Constitution’
    A book review in the Washington Post upon the initial release of the book. A concise column; here’s what Mr. Dallek had to say about Kramnick and Moore’s thoughts about Founding Fathers and religion:
    “…the authors argue that, contrary to what Pat Robertson and company maintain, the founding fathers, though religious men, believed that only a clear separation between religious and civil authority could prevent tyranny.”
    What do the above four citations offer, in any manner, in support for Barton’s contention that Kramnick and Moore were part of some kind of academic conspiracy to spread a false historical version of the faith ofour founding Fathers. Not one of these references even hints at what Barton suggests is so on this issue. And as to Barton’s implication that these sources give credence to some kind of ‘Academic Collectivism’, his choice of examples have absolutely nothing to offer as evidence. Only one of them, Strossen’s speech does any borrowing from the professors, but only to reinforce her own position. Beyond that we get two book reviews about ‘The Godless Constitution’ itself ( how they can be considered part ‘Academic Collectivism’ is beyond comprehension) and a passing reference to the book on an opinion page of an individual.
    How much longer will Mr. Barton continue to malign Mr. Kramnick and Mr. Moore?
    I conclude with one more quote from ‘The Godless Constitution’, Chapter 2, The Godless Constitution:
    “There remains a crucial final reminder. The political Convictions of the men who struggled to ratify a godless constitution were not products of personal godlessness. Far from it. Almost everyone who participated in the debates about the Constitution shared a concern about the health of religion. The success of democracy depended upon a moral citizenry; and for most American thinkers of the eighteenth century, morality rested on some sort of religious convictions. So did a theory of human rights. Many of the men who championed the godless Constitution stayed aloof from dogmatic forms of Christian faith, but most of them believed in a God who rewarded good and punished evil in an afterlife. They respected the moral teachings of Christ and hoped that they would prosper among Americans and in the churches that Americans attended.”
    Where are Kramnick & Moore’s atheists, agnostics and deists?

  • Kirk W. Fraser

    Mr. Miles,

    > You are certainly welcome to leave comments on my blog.
    If so, why did your blog software reject my comment citing a reason of not having entered a Captcha when none was displayed to enter?

    > And again, the “faux liberal” ad hominem does nothing to advance knowledge in this debate.
    To the intelligent, everything advances knowledge. I coined the term “faux liberal” to show true Christian liberalism is generous and not dictatorial like today’s political liberals.

  • Roadrash548

    @Kirk W. Fraser The Declaration of Independence is not a document of law, but a legal document. There is nothing in it or elsewhere that compels myself or anyone else, by law or otherwise, to agree with, accept, believe in, or to practice, as principles, any of the language in it other than to acknowledge it’s sole, original intent, which was to declare our sovereign independence from the British Crown.
    There have been federal lawsuits that have claimed abuses of the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” clause, among others. However, these have usually been adjudicated as falling under the “due process” or “equal protection” clauses of the constitution, our primary document of law.
    In point of fact, I do believe in and accept the DoI’s principles and acknowledge as fact the historically confirmed abuses by the Crown, but with distinct exception to it’s non-christian, providential references to “Nature’s God, Creator, or Divine Providence”, which is my constitutional right.

  • Rocky

    David Barton is being attacked because Thomas Nelson Publishers is now owned by Harper Press. Harper is a very liberal left-wing socialist/communist-oriented publisher. Thomas Nelson has lost its way in the interest of financial gain by being purchased by Harper. I frankly will never buy any more books, let alone Bibles from Thomas Nelson, because of their stand on abortion and gay marriage. Many of their writers and editors support both. They would never criticize any author who advocated those views. They also no longer endorse any author who is pre-trib, pre-mill in eschatology, but endorse a-mill and post-trib authors. They also publish books supporting day-age creation and theistic evolution. Be warned, Christians, and do not allow your children to read any books published by Harper and/or Thomas Nelson published since 1999. They have been on a liberal drift since then.

  • Krista

    Why are my comments still “awaiting moderation”???

  • Kirk W. Fraser


    > In point of fact, I do believe in and accept the DoI’s principles and acknowledge as fact the historically confirmed abuses by the Crown, but with distinct exception to it’s non-christian, providential references to “Nature’s God, Creator, or Divine Providence”, which is my constitutional right.

    I strongly disagree, I believe you have no Constitutional right to except Nature’s God, the Creator, or Divine Providence from your life or anyone else’s in America. You are free and have the right to leave America (until the world gets saved). The first amendment is a protection against combining any God reliant (i.e. Christian) denomination and government like other nations did, but the term religion did not refer to therefore gives no rights to non-creator or godless philosophies from atheism to Islam.

  • David29073

    I have been following David Barton and “the Jefferson Lies” for quite some time now, and have read the criticism by Warren Throckmorton. I find those criticisms valid. I could begin by refuting David Barton’s claim about there NOT being a wall between church and state,( but I doubt that you are going to even post this. I will say this, Mr. Throckmorton has written a point by historical point rebuttal to Mr. Barton’s presentation of history.
    I also have a question, why was Mr. Barton’s book pulled from Thomas Nelson publishing?? Couldn’t be because of this:“in the course of our review learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported.” ( Just Asking??

  • Michael Miles

    Mr. Fraser,

    I have fixed the problem with Captcha, which related to a new WordPress plug-in. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.



  • Boo

    Rick- Throckmorton has the text of Virginia’s law for freeing slaves up at his website, which makes clear that masters only had to provide for elderly and child slaves. Thus, Jefferson could have freed all his adult slaves without paying anything but clerks fees.

    And you want credit for deleting the Hitler reference from the title but not the opening sentence? Real classy there. I notice that in all the accusations of innuendo and defamation, you fail to provide any actual documentation of these “elitist” professors doing so. Meanwhile, what does your repeated ranting about liberal elistist professors sound like to you? Hi there pot, my name is kettle!

  • http://n/a Charlie

    I am not a ‘leftie’, nor an elitist -anything-. I am an independent Christian concerned with the truth, particularly the historical truth about Christianity, including that part of it expressed here in the United States. Barton’s books use and misappropriate historical sources for his agenda. It doesn’t matter if he owns 100,000 original documents or a million, if he willfully misrepresents them in his books, he is giving false information to bolster the faith that needs no such false representation. I expect Mr. Barton and you, Mr. Green, to respond fairly to Ms. Rodda’s challenge to the accuracy of his claims for the documents cited in his book. If he is using that historical data cleanly and accurately, there should be no trouble answering honest detailed analysis and critique. I think you owe it to your Christian audience to stop enflaming further innuendo and sit down with the truth honestly displayed and examined.

  • oft


    You should bring up the notion of Throckmorton’s faith as a Christian. He is claiming he is a Christian, yet he’s a homosexual. Jesus tells the Pharisees in Luke 11, that people will be guilty of the sin we affirm. His blog promotes the sin of homosexuality everywhere.

    Jon Fea is another self proclaimed Christian, that is attacking David, yet he claims Throckmorton is a Christian. Does he also affirm the vile Sin of homosexuality the Holy Spirit cannot affirm?

    As for Chris Rodda, I have written about her mistakes on my blog as well.

  • Krista

    Why are my comments not being posted??? Too much fact for you to deny, or did you just want facts relating to nothing but the “Jefferson Lies” book? Either way, Barton is a revisionist, and blatantly pointing out contextual errors and misquotes completely disproves your entire article!

  • George

    Mr. Green,

    I provided you with an example of a specific inaccuracy or false claim by Barton this morning at approximately 8:15 AM (08/13/12). All day long it was shown to be ‘awaiting moderation’. This evening I noticed that it was no longer visible at all to me on-line. Can I assume it did not meet muster with your moderation filter. If that was the case, I believe common courtesy should extend, at least, to some kind of announcement to me, or on-line if that is all you could do, that such submittal has not been accepted. Would it be asking too much to hear from you on why it was removed from consideration?

  • Tom Riddle

    You are all blind following a charlaton into hell.why did jefferson say this: “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by a single letter into [“consubstantialists and like-substantialists”]. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the quakers, live without an order of priests, moralise for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe; for I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition.” — Jefferson’s Letter to John Adams, August 22, 1813
    or this:I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”

    “We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication .”

    “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” -Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
    This has never been nor ever meant to be a “Christian” nation
    I believe in Jesus Christ my lord and savoir but when christians resort to lies and supposition to control and deflect that is the greatest sin to me.

  • ken

    Rick on August 11th, 2012 11:07 pm

    “the very next point that David makes in the book, which is that there were other Virginia laws that applied to that law and provision, and they required that in order for an owner to emancipate a slave during his life, the owner had to provide an economic security bond for the slave to cover his living, education, or whatever, so that he would not be a drain on the state.”

    Can you give an unedited quote of these “other Virginia laws”? Further, w.r.t. to the “economic security bond” did that apply to ALL slaves or only slaves above/below a specific age (i.e. slaves too young or old to be able to provide for themselves)?

  • Rick

    Hey folks, finally got home tonight and had a chance to look through all the comments…absolutely comical to see the hysteria of those that seem to think my schedule and world revolves around making sure their comment is posted immediately and I respond immediately. No time to read them all and 90% of them say the exact same thing anyway, so let it fly…comments no longer require approval!!!!

    As time allows, I’ll get responses up for any actual points regarding the premises of David’s book rather than rabbit trails that are unrelated.

  • Chris

    Still awaiting your response to Chris Rodda. It’s all over the internet that you have been avoiding her. Why are her comments still “awaiting moderation”?

    By the way, very classy/intelligent throwing Hitler into the first line. After all, this is exactly how the holocaust started, when Hitler refuted a book full of factual errors written by a christian fundamentalist who was looking to re-write the american history books in order to advance his extreme far-right agenda. The resemblance is eery!

  • Mary Belton

    What ALL of you critics of David Barton, fail
    to understand is, David Barton physically owns
    the largest library of ORIGINAL documents written
    by the Founding Fathers. He is quoting from the
    original sourse! What the critics are quoting is
    opinion which is distorted through years of personal
    bias! David Barton is not giving OPINION,
    he is giving us Historical FACT!

  • Krista

    Mary Belton, just because David Barton OWNS the documents doesn’t mean they aren’t publicly accessible. David Barton IS giving opinion and is USING bits and pieces from his “collection” to try to prove his opinion is the truth. But unfortunately for him, most, if not all, of his documents are accessible through the Library of Congress’ website. Now unless you’re going to assume some conspiracy theory that the government altered the scans of the original documents and only Barton knows the truth (even though he is so fond of including “…” when providing quotations, which means he’s leaving something out), I suggest you look up his cited documents for yourself and read them FOR YOURSELF.

  • Boo

    Oft- try actually reading Throckmorton’s blog. He is not a homosexual. But it’s interesting that the kind of innuendo this blog post is supposedly decrying is all you could muster against him.

    Do you really expect anyone to fal for it? Truly?

  • Lois

    “They masterfully use the powerful art of innuendo to falsely defame those with which they disagree.”

    Hard to take thoughts seriously when the grammar is off:

    The phrase ‘with which’ should be ‘with whom’ because it refers to those who perform the action in the sentence.

    You said that 90% of comments were the same, but this one isn’t.

  • Mike Rollins

    Mr. Green,
    ‘Perhaps Barton would have been better off trying to turn the founder of Rhode Island and The First Baptist Church in America into a Satan worshiper, than trying to turn deists into saints.

    “For I know that after my departing savage wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also will men arise from among your own selves, speaking distorted things, to draw away disciples after them.”

    You, Barton, Huckabee, and Beck are the wolves in sheep’s clothing that Christ warned us about. I pray for your follows. I pray that they will open their eyes to the light, and see you and others for what they really are. Many of Bartons followers are professed Baptist. I offer this challenge to all the Baptist, read about the man who founded your denomination here in America. Read about him and his followers real persecution. Not this silliness that Dan Cathy allegedly endured. Read about how the Puritans and Anglicans mutilated, brutalized(enhanced interrogations) and killed Quakers and Baptist. Then you may no why Baptist like Williams prayed for a wall of seperation.

  • Krista

    Rick, you’re the one who advertised that anyone could respond to your article, and then you get offended when people are trying to post replies but their comments are held in limbo for days at a time while others are seemingly posted immediately after being written? Please consider showing a little humility, stop insulting everyone around you, and just accept the fact that you brought this on yourself…

    Thank you for allowing my comments to finally come through. I sincerely appreciate it.

  • Christian

    “Yet not a single article can point to a single factual error, quote out of context, or misleading claim.”

    Did you even read any of those articles? Any of them? Here, I’ll do it for you because you’re obviously either lazy or too busy saving face: “Barton claims Jefferson was an investor in an early American printing of the Bible, when it turned out that Jefferson only bought one copy.”

    There ya go buddy! Good luck with your career!

  • Tracy

    Thank-you for finally posting Chris Rodda’s post, however, we are all now eagerly awaiting an intelligent response from you.

    Thank -you


  • Michael

    Where is Chris Rodda’s post? I can’t find it.

  • Recreant

    Chris Rodda’s comment is finally up here, though it’s somewhat buried because it went up in sequence with its original timestamp.

    Look for: ■Chris Rodda on August 12th, 2012 12:51 am.

    Eagerly awaiting a concession post from Mr. Green

  • rwahrens

    For those who wanted to know where Chris Rodda’s post is, it is August 12th, 2012 12:51 am.

  • vel

    I’ve been watching this with amusement. Alas, Mr. Green, you’ve been shown the direct quotations by Mr. Barton that are intentional and rather inept lies on his part. There is no “innuendo” needed as you would try to claim. The supported problems with the book are not poorly supported claims but directly lies, against all evidence to the contrary.

    I wonder, Mr. Green, do you intend on defending such a liar? If you do so, refusing to acknowledge those lies, you become a much a liar as Mr. Barton. Assuming that you are a Christian, is your soul worth so little? The bible says that your god hates lies and liars, and even those who wish to delude themselves into thinking that they are lying for the benefit of this god (Romans 3).

  • Michael

    Recreant and rwahrens:

    Thanks for your help. I’ve found the post.

  • Pingback: Rick Green’s Thoughtful Response to David Barton’s Critics | TFN Insider()

  • Jeb

    It should be noted that Kidd, one of the “liberal elitist professors” who has called Barton out for his lies, is an elder at a very conservative Baptist Church. He’s about as far from liberal as you can get when it comes to good, well-researched scholarship.

  • Sylvan

    For those who are unaware, Godwin dictates that given enough time someone in an online discussion will make a misplaced comparison to Hitler or Nazi Germany. Incidentally, a newer tenet of Godwin states that once a reference to Hitler/Nazis is made, the discussion is over and the user of the reference has lost the argument. Green starts his blog post with the Hitler reference, hence losing the argument before he even began it.

  • http://none Charlie

    at 9:14 am Mary Belton wrote, ” David Barton physically owns the largest library of ORIGINAL documents written by the Founding Fathers. He is quoting from the original sourse!” Ms. Belton, it may or may not be true that Mr. Barton owns the largest library of early American original source documents. That is not important. The evidence indicates that, in order to prove his points, he is misusing and misquoting those documents in a way that academic and professional historians would find completely unacceptable. Have you ever encountered someone who misquoted scripture from the Bible to prove a point you knew wasn’t true because you knew the quote in-context was not communicating what the proposer claimed it did? You probably have. My issue is that this is exactly the way Mr. Barton is using the documents he quotes. He can own them all, but if he does not use them responsibly, he is misrepresenting the quotes, and misrepresenting our faith. I am looking forward to Mr. Barton working maturely, academically, and truthfully with Ms. Rodda to show and make public what these documents communicate. I hope Mr. Green takes a positive role in aiding this process. I say maturely because I am disappointed to see the name-calling I see going on in this ‘conversation’ by members of my faith. That is not in order with the scriptures I know and love.

  • Kirk W. Fraser


    > The evidence indicates that, in order to prove his points, he is misusing and misquoting those documents in a way that academic and professional historians would find completely unacceptable. Have you ever encountered someone who misquoted scripture from the Bible to prove a point you knew wasn’t true because you knew the quote in-context was not communicating what the proposer claimed it did?

    Academic and professional historians are notoriously wrong. For a historic example, examine the case of a well known Christian, Sir Isaac Newton, whose discoveries were rejected by those in power until he got in power. Likewise, my Bible analysis most professionals disagree with because I conclude truths based on truth seeking instead of position maintaining including these facts:
    1) Paul is the least accepted in God’s Kingdom, (Matthew 5:19) having disobeyed Jesus on money and positions.
    2) Elders are slave drivers (source – Egypt) and Jesus never authorized or approved them so church should have shepherds who feed and help people instead of elders.
    3) Nominal churches which bait with Jesus for salvation then switch to Paul for church business are harlots (Rev. 17:5) not churches. This one even though David Barton may agree with, he doesn’t speak on, to keep getting invited to speak.

    So it’s easy to have disagreements on the truth when people who are allegedly experts haven’t studied adequately or want to maintain their positions which are unsupported by a true analysis. Thus disagreement by academics and professionals reflects the example of the Pharisees which disagreed with Jesus. That means David Barton is in for a reward from Heaven.

  • ken

    Charlie on August 14th, 2012 3:53 pm

    “I am looking forward to Mr. Barton working maturely, academically, and truthfully with Ms. Rodda to show and make public what these documents communicate.’

    I wouldn’t hold your breath on that one. I know Warren Throckmorton has made a few attempts to have a debate with Barton via some of the talk shows Barton has been on. To my knowledge, Barton has never directly confronted any of his critics. Rather he has just attacked their character from a distance.

  • Krista

    Maybe you should read Proverbs 16:18 again – “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” You and Barton seem to have forgotten this Bible verse…

  • Chuck

    I am a Christian and a person who works with American history. Mr. Barton has deceived the Christian public in our country for years in his vain attempts to recreate something that never existed—a Christian nation on American soil. All “true” Christians should wash their hands clean of his books, ask themselves prayerfully why they allowed themselves to be so deceived, and stop believeing everything that any man says just because he sprinkles the holy name “Jesus” in with whatever patent medicine he is selling. Jesus taught us to “test the spirits” to see if they be true—not just mindlessly believe anything and everything that some “supposedly Godly person” tells us. Strong men of God in some of our most revered conservative Christian institutions have tested the works of Barton and have found them wanting. “Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin” is the handwriting on the wall for Mr. Barton, and the Babylon the Great with its “Great Wall” he has created is about to fall.

    Also, Jesus mentions in the New Testament that things will come along in life that have the power “to deceive even the elect, if that were possible.” Clearly, Mr. Barton has deceived millions in the Christian community who thought that they were the elect. The very fact that they were so deceived should prompt a self-examination as to whether they are indeed “the elect” or are just fooling themselves into believing that they are really Christians. Those who continue to follow Mr. Barton now that the truth is known and has been spread widely abroad among men by honest followers of Christ need to know that their continued insistence on following is the surest sign of how powerfully they have been deluded. Repent now and seek the truth while you still can.

  • B-Lar

    Well done Rick! You took a little step towards upholding the truth!

    Remain calm. Its easy to feel like you are under attack, but if you are honest and commit to the truth then you can only be strengthend. It might be worth distancing yourself from proven liars though… They will detract from your own integrity.

    Of course, if you want to continue to rail against “liberal elites” then please do. Tactically speaking it might be smarter to not make such grand challenges in future though, but I guess you realised that already. If you are going to deceive, do it vaguely, and throw away your integrity freely. There is no shame in it if your faith is solid.

  • Krista

    1803 treaty with the Kaskaskia, article 3:

    “And whereas the greater part of the said tribe have been
    baptized and received into the Catholic Church, to which
    they are much attached, the United States will give annually,
    for seven years, one hundred dollars toward the support of
    a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for said
    tribe the duties of his office, and also to instruct as many of
    their children as possible, in the rudiments of literature, and
    the United States will further give the sum of three hundred
    dollars, to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.”

    If this is “proof” that Jefferson wanted the American government to fund religious efforts, then so is the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, Article 10:

    “The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed.”

    After all, the United States government was giving money to Muslim states…what do you think they did with the money? Furthered the cause of Islam, maybe? In either case, these were TREATIES with SOVEREIGN NATIONS. This had nothing to do with “separation of church and state,” this had to do with two countries coming to a mutual agreement on what they wanted from each other. And another thing…why would Jefferson be so eager to provide funding to a Catholic church, when he made his opinions of the Catholicism very clear. Exa., in a letter from Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813, he describes his concerns over Mexico (a predominately Catholic country):
    “The livraison of your astronomical observations, and the 6th and 7th on the subject of New Spain, with the corresponding atlasses, are duly received, as had been the preceding cahiers. For these treasures of a learning so interesting to us, accept my sincere thanks. I think it most fortunate that your travels in those countries were so timed as to make them known to the world in the moment they were about to become actors on its stage. [NOTE THIS SECTION] That they will throw off their European dependence I have no doubt; but in what kind of government their revolution will end I am not so certain. History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”

    Hm…Jefferson seems to feel some hostility toward the corruption of the Catholic priests? Then why would he want the United States government to fund a Catholic priest as per the terms of the Treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians? Because those were the terms of THEIR treaty, and in return the United States would get 1,630 acres!

    “Article 1st.
    Whereas from a variety of unfortunate circumstances the several tribes of Illinois Indians are reduced to a very small number, the remains of which have been long consolidated and known by the name of the Kaskaskia tribe, and finding themselves unable to occupy the extensive tract of country which of right belongs to them and which was possessed by their ancestors for many generations, the chiefs and warriors of the said tribe being also desirous of procuring the means of improvement in the arts of civilized life, and a more certain and effectual support for their women and children, have, for the considerations hereinafter mentioned, relinquished and by these presents do relinquish and cede to the United States all the lands in the Illinois country, which the said tribe has heretofore possessed, or which they may rightfully claim, reserving to themselves however the tract of about three hundred and fifty acres near the town of Kaskaskia, which they have always held and which was secured to them by the act of Congress of the third day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, and also the right of locating one other tract of twelve hundred and eighty acres within the bounds of that now ceded, which two tracts of land shall remain to them forever.”

  • David Spoonhunter

    Well, Rick, it seems that a lot of people have given you sufficient evidence that David Barton deliberately lies by taking historical documents out of context for the exclusive purpose of further perpetuating his fictional false past in which the USA was founded as a Christian Nation, based upon Christan principles.

    Your followers (and David’s) have no problem dismissing the truth and accepting being lied to because they like the outcome and WANT it to be true. This proves that a comforting lie is easily accepted in place of an inconvenient truth. A lie is still a lie, no matter how many times or how many ways you repeat it or how many people believe it.

    This isn’t a partisan issue, nor is it an issue of Christian vs. anti-Christian. This is an issue of honesty and dishonesty. If the USA were a Christian Nation, it would say so in plain writing in the US Constitution. If the Constitution was based on biblical principles, it would have actual bible quotes in it. None of this would be cryptic and hidden, or waiting for David Barton to put his lying spin on it to make it seem true to his followers.

    If you were an honest man and a real follower of Jesus, you would dedicate some time to responding to each of the responses which provide factual evidence of David’s many lies. Unfortunately you are not a follower of Jesus, you are a follower of the current religious trend of using religion as a self-serving excuse for rampant capitalism. The message of Jesus was one of surrender and self-sacrifice. Let us know when you do that and become a real Christian. You are not my enemy- you are just one of the many who give a bad name to those of us who work hard to be true followers of the message of Christ.

  • Krista

    Amen to that, David Spoonhunter.

  • Krista

    Posted this with the link to Barton’s article, but it’s “awaiting moderation.” So I’ll just post it without the link and say this: search “Kaskaskia” on the Wallbuilders website and the article “WallBuilders – Issues and Articles – Sample Letters to the Editor” will be the first one to come up. In is, Barton states this:
    “And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government’s expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians.” Even MORE of a lie than trying to say Jefferson believed in government funding of religious endeavors alone, he claims the money was to go to CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES to the Indians!!! And I’m assuming these “Christian missionaries” would’ve been United States citizens according to Barton’s version of history, right? On the payroll of the federal government no less, right?! Give me a break…the lies are all there in bold writing. Not ONCE has Barton ever come clean and said, “Ok, I took that way outta context, my apologies.” NEVER has he admitted, even when it’s right there, plain as day, how out of line is interpretation was. NEVER. That speaks volumes to his character and integrity as a man, a Christian, and a supposed “historian.”

  • Krista

    Kirk W. Fraser on August 13th, 2012 12:51 pm


    > In point of fact, I do believe in and accept the DoI’s principles and acknowledge as fact the historically confirmed abuses by the Crown, but with distinct exception to it’s non-christian, providential references to “Nature’s God, Creator, or Divine Providence”, which is my constitutional right.

    I strongly disagree, I believe you have no Constitutional right to except Nature’s God, the Creator, or Divine Providence from your life or anyone else’s in America. You are free and have the right to leave America (until the world gets saved). The first amendment is a protection against combining any God reliant (i.e. Christian) denomination and government like other nations did, but the term religion did not refer to therefore gives no rights to non-creator or godless philosophies from atheism to Islam.

    Kirk W. Fraser on August 14th, 2012 5:04 pm


    > The evidence indicates that, in order to prove his points, he is misusing and misquoting those documents in a way that academic and professional historians would find completely unacceptable. Have you ever encountered someone who misquoted scripture from the Bible to prove a point you knew wasn’t true because you knew the quote in-context was not communicating what the proposer claimed it did?

    Academic and professional historians are notoriously wrong. For a historic example, examine the case of a well known Christian, Sir Isaac Newton, whose discoveries were rejected by those in power until he got in power. Likewise, my Bible analysis most professionals disagree with because I conclude truths based on truth seeking instead of position maintaining including these facts:
    1) Paul is the least accepted in God’s Kingdom, (Matthew 5:19) having disobeyed Jesus on money and positions.
    2) Elders are slave drivers (source – Egypt) and Jesus never authorized or approved them so church should have shepherds who feed and help people instead of elders.
    3) Nominal churches which bait with Jesus for salvation then switch to Paul for church business are harlots (Rev. 17:5) not churches. This one even though David Barton may agree with, he doesn’t speak on, to keep getting invited to speak.

    So it’s easy to have disagreements on the truth when people who are allegedly experts haven’t studied adequately or want to maintain their positions which are unsupported by a true analysis. Thus disagreement by academics and professionals reflects the example of the Pharisees which disagreed with Jesus. That means David Barton is in for a reward from Heaven.

    Kirk, it’s interesting how you are trying to change the subject and turn this into a theological debate. “Academics and professionals = pharisees and sadducees, and this proves that everything David Barton says is the truth.” Yeah…it would be nice if you’d stay on topic, aka. fact-checking David Barton’s claims rather than spout your own personal opinions and beliefs about Christianity and who does and doesn’t have rights here in the United States…

  • Krista

    Rick Green, you made a comment stating:
    “You mistake a request for facts as request for a debate. While I love debates, I save them for serious opponents that don’t just slander. Chris Rodda does not fit the first category. As stated in my blog just posted, I’m simply asking for someone to point out a single premise in David’s book that is false and to back it up with evidence.”

    In case you haven’t noticed, because you also claimed to be too busy to read through all these comments, even though you also said it was comical how upset everyone was for having their comments held in “moderation” mode for so long (so which was it…did you read them, or not?!), we HAVE pointed out premises…MANY of them. These have all been pointed out before, but you’ve ignored them then and you’re still ignoring them now.

    And maybe you should read over your own writings and see just who’s been resorting to the libelous, hate-filled name-calling here? Everyone who doesn’t share Barton’s and your beliefs MUST be “leftwing bloggers, elitist professors, and downright jealous peers” and “Rodda minions,” right? Now for a few verses from the Bible, the book you and Barton act like you’re the glorious champions of. Have you forgotten these verses?

    Isaiah 66:2 “For all those things has my hand made, and all those things have been, says the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembles at my word.” Have yet to see you or Barton display even a fraction of that kind of humility, and you both seem to have forgotten the basic commandments of the Lord. Proverbs 3:5: “Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not unto your own understanding.” You and Barton are doing nothing BUT relying on your own understanding, and that will not get you eternal live. Jesus already told us what will. Luke 10:25-28 “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

    Matthew 7:21-23: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
    Matthew 23:27: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.”

  • Chuck

    After reading the posts above, it is pretty clear to me that Barton has lost all credibility among real Christians. However, I suspect Mr. Barton is somewhere laughing his butt off over this whole thing because he was never interested in real Christians to begin with. Real Christians are a danger when your sole purpose is to use religion as a cynical tool to deliver votes to a political party. Wall Builders is not about God or Jesus. It is about a political ideology that tried to hijack Jesus and put him to work to achieve evil political ends.

  • Dave

    I don’t really see what the use is of trying to prove Thomas Jefferson was a Christian when you don’t even act like one. Comparing people that disagree with you to HItler! Seriously?? Your best ‘academic’ response to people who disagree with David’s book is to slander them?

    You already lost.

  • Andy

    Is this a record? Rick Green’s post obeys Godwin’s Law in the *first sentence*.

  • Tony Lloyd

    I see you have now posted Chris Rodda’s comment supplying a “premise in David’s book that is false and to back[ing] it up with evidence.”

    As you claimed to be “simply” asking for a “single” premise and you now have one, the claims of honesty require you to admit that David Barton’s work is dishonest and apologise for suggesting that his detractors “falsely defame” him when they point this out.

  • RR Edwards

    Question: What do elitist professors have in common with Adolf Hitler & Saul Alinsky?
    Answer: They masterfully use the powerful art of innuendo to falsely defame those with which they disagree.

    Irony much? Wait – maybe the reference to Hitler is a little to direct to be called innuendo.

  • Gordon Hilgers

    I just read a report about David Barton claiming that American troops exterminated Native Americans because the Native Americans were “terrorists”. So I suppose that anyone defending their homelands and hunting grounds and sacred sites that doesn’t happen to be one of the “false Christians” of David Barton’s ilk are to be obliterated too?

    Thomas Jefferson re-wrote the Bible and took-out all the miracles. That Bible, the Jefferson Bible, is given to every Congressperson and Senator on his or her first day on the job. Much like many Americans who don’t buy the fairy stories in the Bible, Jefferson was expressing sentiments quite common in the Age of Reason. As far as The Age of Reason, read Thomas Paine’s book by the same name. He takes the Bible and makes toilet paper out of it simply to show what a fraudulent document it is.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t suppose you have any evidence of that debate with a secular professor or his response to you that common people are too dumb to understand history. Just like you have no evidence that Barton’s critics are Elitists professors, left wing bloggers, or jealous peers, who as you put it “write boring books that nobody reads” or ” lose their power as the keepers of history” or attack barton with distortions, innuendo. That’s because their isn’t any evidence. You like Barton, can’t defend his claims against the criticisms of it. So you resort to name calling. Accusing them of being like Hitler and slandering and libelizing and defaming barton, when that is what your doing to them. Hypocrisy Much!! Plenty of people have presented plenty of evidence that barton’s claims are wrong, like his critics and commenters on this sight. You simply choose to ignore this evidence, because you don’t are about history except as a tool to advance your theocratic agenda. That’s why I won’t waste my time like Chris rodda did debunking Barton’s claims.

  • Mike Morrison

    Seriously? You started out this blog post by using Godwin? Come on! You can do better than that! Can you figure out why Godwin’s Law, while not a formal logical fallacy, is such a terrible argument to use? Perhaps because NOBODY is “like Hitler” in this post modern western society. Show me these “professional academic” types who support such things as wanting to see people burn for their religious beliefs or ethnic heritage. That’s a disgusting comparison to make. Especially when you, yourself, make the very same “innuendo to falsely defame those with which [you] disagree,” even while you defame people for doing what you yourself are doing as you speak! I believe this is called “hypocrisy.”

    Not to mention, practically everyone has done this who has ever lived at least one time in their lives. Such negative innuendo to defame someone else is so common, that a comparison to Hitler is totally moot. One might as well compare ME to Hitler, because we both happen to have brown eyes. Or to compare virtually everyone to Hitler because those who have the ability to read happen to be human. Weak. And disgusting.

    I have one further point, that perhaps you may have heard once or twice in your travels:

    If this were a “Christian nation,” and Christianity were to be the “law of the land,” and the founding fathers were Christian; then why is it that god is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, signed by all of those great and famous lawyers, politicians, and statesmen? And why does it begin with the phrase in the very first Amendment: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, nor prevent the free exercise.”?

  • Mike Morrison

    One more comment:

    You mention that you “debated with a professor from Baylor once over the separation of church and state.” Who was this “Baylor prof.”? When did this occur? Where did it occur? And in front of whom?

    You should really check out Steve Shives from Youtube. (Yes, he’s an Atheist liberal Nazi zombie communist!) But he has a series called “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist,” in which he picks apart a book co-written by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. One of the arguments he has to keep going over and over again (because they use it over and over again,) is the same exact argument you just made: a “history professor,” in which you “debunk/frustrate/embarrass” from a “leading university.” It’s practically formulaic! It is mind boggling just how childish such argumentation really is. And the more one sees it, the worse it becomes. It’s about as bad as an internet meme that will not go away that has been around for 10 years. Like Lulcatz. (Except that lulcatz are always amusing. Whereas, this tactic is rather boring and sophomoric.)

  • Mike Morrison

    Oh, and no. One last, last comment. (I promise!)

    You keep using the word “innuendo” over and over again, as if you are trying to sound as intelligent as possible. Again, quite ironic that you would reference a quote of Hitler talking about the use of propaganda in order to lure the less intelligent! You using a big-sounding word over and over again panders to such a crowd. I really do not think that word means what you think it means, which makes your attempt at sounding intelligent so….I dunno….moronic. More intelligent people with a better vocabulary than you are all quite embarrassed for you.

    “Innuendo” is an understated statement about a particular subject matter, without actually coming right out and stating the obvious. Google the term: “Sexual innuendo.”

    That is NOT what these “professionals” were doing with David Barton and his lies. They were actually coming right out and calling him a liar! Coming right out and stating something definitively is not “innuendo.” Quit using words that you do not know.