Why the clanking cymbals and blathering nonsense of some critics does not answer my challenge for specific proof that any premise in David Barton’s book about Thomas Jefferson is inaccurate…
I absolutely love the fact that this internet age of information makes it possible for ALL of us to have a voice and give our opinion. Gone are the days of the high priests controlling the dialogue for the entire nation or the big three networks being our only news source.
Any of us can sound off with what we believe. We can share stories or facts we find interesting, regardless of whether or not some nerd in the backroom of a publishing house agrees.
The playing field has been leveled. We are experiencing one of those rare times in history where the rich and powerful do not have the advantage they use to have.
The difference today though, is that you have to build your own audience. You can’t just walk into NBC and demand your own show. You can, however, quickly throw up a website or start commenting on Facebook…and more power to ya! The more voices the better!
We get to choose whom we want to read or what shows are worth listening to. No one gets to cram their views down our throats because none of us are part of a truly captive audience. If people choose to join your email list, follow your blog, like your FaceBook page, buy your book, or book you to speak, then God Bless you!
For those who have not been able to build much of an audience (think back to liberal talk radio trying and failing, trying and failing, etc. and always pushing the “fairness doctrine” so they can force their views on audiences built by other people), there is often an attempt to use someone else’s audience to get out their message. This is perfectly fine when the host invites them to participate. I’ve been blessed to speak lots of places, not always hosts or guests who agreed with me, but always within the parameters of the invitation.
This brings me to all the “minions” of one of our most vocal critics (minions is what SHE calls them, not me) clamoring for me to post her response on my website. I was traveling today, so unable to respond to their clamors until just now, but it is quite humorous to see them get all worked into a lather because they are not given my microphone as soon as they want it. I wonder where these people are when liberal professors shout down any student voicing a different opinion in a classroom paid for by our tax dollars? I thought about waiting until morning to respond just because, well, we all have our faults and one of mine is that I just love getting under the skin of liberals. I can’t help it (insert sinister grin here). I know we aren’t supposed to enjoy such a thing, but consider it a vice Christ has not yet purged from my depravity.
Chris Rodda seems to have devoted her life to making youtube videos of herself ranting about WallBuilders and now she has teamed up with the military version of the ACLU. Her criticisms are exactly like those I described in my previous blog, but even more illogical and lacking real substance. She has a very small audience, so she follows our radio show and blogs and looks for opportunities to criticize. She has written a “book” about her criticisms of those of us who promote the faith of America’s Founders and based on her comments on my web page, wants to use my website and FaceBook page to promote and sell her book.
I am a very, very small fish in the big national pond, so she does not reach that many people through me, but the book is called “Liars for Jesus” (which might give you a hint as to the tone) and you should consider reading at least the free sample chapters and compare her criticisms to the actual facts.
I really struggled with whether this was a Proverbs 26:4 or 26:5 situation…I often struggle with knowing which one of those verses to apply to a situation. Proverbs tells us to sometimes ignore a fool in their folly and at other times to answer them. I’ve been a fool in my folly at times when I was best ignored and then there were times when God sent mentors to answer my folly and get me back on track, so I kind of understand why Proverbs has both scenarios.
I will not hand over my hard earned outlets (website, Facebook, etc.) to critics who have proven themselves to be illogical and slanderous. Those critics are more than welcome to build their own audience. But since I did issue a challenge and ask for people to give me specifics, I am gladly recommending to you Ms. Rodda’s book because it is further evidence of EMPTY criticism that reminds me of clouds without rain. I’ll even provide a link here to her website, but I will not post her generalized accusations that have no actual evidence. If you read her book and in comparison to Barton’s book you are persuaded by her, then congrats to her! That’s the beauty of the arena of ideas!
Even with the lack of rhetoric and logic taught in our schools today, I doubt anyone will genuinely be persuaded by her, but liberals will love her claims regardless of the lack of evidence. The problem with Ms. Rodda’s posts and book is that they come nowhere close to answering my challenge for “specific inaccuracies” or “false claims” in David Barton’s book on Jefferson.
For instance, one of Ms. Rodda’s chief points of attack on David is regarding The Northwest Ordinance. The relevant language says:
“Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
Barton has often quoted that law as an example of the Founding Fathers encouraging religious and moral instruction rather than banning it from our schools. Ms. Rodda does not dispute the language or the fact that it was adopted by both the Continental Congress AND the first Congress under the Constitution.
Yet she spends page after page giving unrelated information about businessmen and pastors like Manasseh Cutler supporting the law and then jumps to the conclusion that when the Founding Fathers said religion and morality were necessary for good government that they did not really mean it. She claims that even though they said so in the same sentence in which they encourage schools, somehow the two were completely unrelated.
What is her reasoning for this?
After several very long rabbit trails and dozens of pages, her main argument turns out to be that because a 1785 committee draft of the language was disliked by James Madison, she deduces that the 1787 & 1789 versions actually adopted by Congress (see language above) no longer (in Ms. Rodda’s way of thinking) mean exactly what they actually say.
That is the logical equivalent of responding to a Mike Olt walk off base hit in the bottom of the 9th Inning with evidence that Ron Washington really meant to pinch-hit Craig Gentry for Nelson Cruz in the 4th Inning…of a game last season… or even last decade! Even if a scratched out lineup card is produced for said claim, it has absolutely nothing to do with point at hand and does not change the fact that 23 year old Mike Olt got that hit tonight, Nelson Cruz scored from second base, and the Rangers beat the Tigers (despite Justin Verlander pitching 7 great innings for Detroit…but I digress).
Do I really need to do a point – counterpoint on this? I think this is definitely one of those Proverbs 26:4 situations, so I may have just wasted all of our time.
I’m still looking for specific examples. I’m not going to post ridiculous, unrelated, illogical ramblings, but I will gladly post legitimate questions of research or challenges to any point made in the Jefferson book. I know I will not have time to respond to every single one, but will do my best. There was a good question posted by “boo,” so it will be posted at the bottom of the previous blog and I’ll do my best to respond. I normally prefer posts that give your actual name, but since we aren’t getting any other scholarly questions, “boo” gets the floor!!!