Today’s New York Times profile of Christian right propagandist David Barton reports on how the self-styled historian wields a great deal of influence in conservative and Christian nationalist circles, spreading his gospel that the U.S. was founded on Christian principles.
The Times‘ Erik Eckholm reports that “many historians call his research flawed” and that “liberal organizations are raising the alarm over what they say are Mr. Barton’s dangerous distortions,” and he quotes Baylor University critic Derek H. Davis, who says that Barton’s work includes “a lot of distortions, half-truths and twisted history.”
So Eckholm tells us that Barton has critics who say he generally mangles history, but what is true? This is where journalism and the professional judgment it entails should intervene, but Eckholm is content to act the court stenographer, simply recording what the various parties say, rather than informing readers about the evidence for the conflicting views.
Nor is any mention made of Barton’s controversial role in the creation of public school history curricula and text books, or past links with extremist groups, including the Christian Reconstructionist movement and the racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity sect (Church & State, 4/93).
It’s not that there’s a shortage of critical work on Barton. Online reports about his links to extremists are widely available, as are any number of solid factual debunkings of his historical claims. Indeed, you can even read about how Barton himself conceded that a dozen quotes he’d attributed to U.S. founders and other prominent political figures were either false or unverifiable. For instance, the Constitution’s co-author and deist James Madison never said, as Barton claimed:
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, nor [sic] upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves … according to the Ten Commandments of God.
Wouldn’t Times readers be better served to know not just that Barton’s detractors exist, but that their charges are backed by abundant evidence? And wouldn’t it also be important for Americans to know that such a careless and extreme “historian” is playing an influential role in creating public school history curricula and text books that their children are using in school?
By reporting on a conservative icon without ferreting out the facts, the Times can say they covered the issue without incurring the right’s anger. It’s a Times formula last noted by Julie Hollar about the Times profile of anti-immigrant activist John Tanton.
Corrected version, 5/11/11–providing fuller version of Barton’s “Madison” quote.
I’m fascinated by this man and watching him on the Daily Show was high-quality viewing. I am a Christian, but even I don’t understand how the Right confuses the personal faith of our founding fathers with the governance of our nation. These are the same people who refuse to allow people into this country freely, who scream for their taxes to be lowered and entitlements to the poor to be limited. Yes, I understand that as a Christian, my faith will permeate all aspects of my life. But that means I should actually care about people… God forbid that thought.
Call yourself a Christian? Maybe you should read the bible.
Don’t think this country was founded on Christianity? Read the constitution & Bill of rights
Apparantly you are illiterate.
Ignorance of this nation astounds me at times, and the inability to deliver a quality thought often makes my jaw drop. You are a prime example of how even the churches have been perverted throughout the years.
You claim that James Madison give me ONE source that claims that. Because I can give you one thousand sources that claims he did. You are a distortionist of the truth, and a liar to benefit your own cause. You are a prime example of why journalism is dead in this country. Give your own opinion as though it’s a fact. In other words you opened your mouth and proved you were a fool. Find a new job.
@Brian:
Where do you find the support for your idea– that this country was founded on Christianity– in the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights?
I ain’t illeterate, and, well,… I’m not seeing it here, Lloyd (to quote Dumb & Dumber).
Pray enlighten us all as to what we’re missing in the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights, Brian of Nazareth. ‘Cause a simple FindSearch on a PDF yields no results on “christian or christianity”, no results on “god”, 1 match for “lord”– it’s part of the phrase “in the year of our Lord…”, and, of course a couple matches in the 1st Amendment– which is about freedom of religion: any religion, not just Christianity.
So what are we all missing?
Apparantly you are illiterate.
Lol!
This pains me. Why is it apparently not admissible to state that positions have been proven false and that its proponent is therefore wrong? Why employ fact checkers if a paper isn’t willing to go with their conclusions?
The result of such editorial policies is that is will appear more and more impolite and out of bounds to call things by their name – is that still journalism?
It’s what Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman called Manufacturing Consent.
“On this earth you must belong to the church militant or get the hell out of it. You’re either with me or against me. There is no middle ground in this battle between Christ and the anti-Christ.”
–Father Coughlan
“She had heard all about excluded middles; they were bad shit, to be avoided; and how had it ever happened here, with the chances once so good for diversity?”
–Thomas Pynchon, Crying of Lot 49
“Barton himself conceded that a dozen quotes…..were either false or unverifiable”. This tactic is used so very often on the Right. Say it over and over and over again until called on it, then admit you were wrong and go on to repeat it ad nauseam again. I thought the best one of these flips was by the Senator (Kyl?) who said the “facts” he gave were not meant to be facts. Oh that was a day of great belly laughs!!!!!
You’re comments are thoughtful, Jenn, and bookend nicely with the ravings of the semi-literate numbskull who criticized you. As a citizen and a Christian, shouldn’t you also be deeply concerned with lying and the truth? That an ignorant fraud like David Barton admits that he’s a liar, and is still treated with respect is an outrage, no? What would Jesus do? Countenance the lies because it “supports” the “cause” of Christianity?
These people are interested not only in turning our past into their fiction but the future into their fiction and our reality. It happened before in Germany, Russia and other places. They want a corporate theocracy to be the base for a rulership of the earth. Since in Dominionism there is no rapture and their Aryan-Nordic God won’t show up until they have not only evangelicalized the entire earth but to subdue, kill, enslave all of them that do not convert.
With regards to Brian’s comments up above, I have a simple response that I have found useful when talking with people who seem to want to undermine the separation of church and state by climing that the Founding Fathers were deeply religious (that religion being, of course, Christianity): you simply respond by saying, yes, the Founding Fathers were deeply religious, and because of that they deeply understood the importance of the separation of church and state.
True the nation was founded on separation of church and state as one of it’s cornerstones.. And that goes to the heart of our freedoms. But never confuse it with being a strictly academic test tube experiment this nation of ours..An atheistic endeavour of common sense morals, based on the best science, and economics of that day.It was more than that . Every utterance of our founding fathers is tempered with Judea christian tenants. These men were religious almost to a man.To say it did not play a seminal- if not “thee” seminal role in forming a more perfect union is simply re writing history.