webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Barton, david

==-

prolly some neglect, constant RWW

see wod4: TheBrain

see theocracy

see tim wallbuilders

see debunk repeated

see cornwall cfact rothbard

see nepotism

see mike johnson spkr

rww Tags:  David Barton

---

rww

10/09/2026

byKyle Mantyla

-=-=

09/04/2026

by

Kyle Mantyla

-=-=-

anti-commie sa am elections since doge except brazil

rww

How David Barton's Bogus History Is Shaping Trump Administration Policy

Christian nationalist pseudo-historian David Barton reveals how the bogus history he peddles played a role in the Trump administration's dismantling of USAID.

vid]

09/03/2026

by

Kyle Mantyla

From the moment President Donald Trump returned to the White House for his second term, Christian nationalist pseudo-historian David Barton has played a key role in shaping the administration's actions, especially surrounding the celebration of the nation's 250th anniversary, which has been steeped in precisely the Christian nationalist

ref 1 USAID officially shuts down and merges remaining operations with State Department

ref 2

USAID shutdown has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

11 25

Trump administration’s decision to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths from infectious diseases and malnutrition, according to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Atul Gawande.

Gawande—a surgeon, author, and distinguished professor in residence at Ariadne Labs, which he co-founded—served in the Biden administration as the assistant administrator for global health at USAID. He wrote a Nov. 5 article in the New Yorker about the devastating impact of the loss of USAID funds around the world. He was also featured in an accompanying short documentary called “Rovina’s Choice,” which he co-executive produced, that told the story of how one mother living in a Kenyan refugee camp tried to save her severely malnourished daughter after U.S. support dried up.

In the article, Gawande cited an analysis in The Lancet that estimated that USAID assistance—aimed at combatting diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, and polio, reducing maternal and child deaths, and fighting malnutrition—had saved 92 million lives over two decades.

The dismantling of USAID, according to models from Boston University epidemiologist Brooke Nichols, “has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children,” Gawande wrote. He noted that the toll will continue to grow and may go unseen because it can take months or years for people to die from lack of treatments or vaccine-preventable illnesses—and because deaths are scattered.

“We are now witnessing what the historian Richard Rhodes termed ‘public man-made death,’” Gawande wrote.

The documentary told the story of how Rovina Naboi, a single mother of nine children, took her daughter Jane, whose health has deteriorated due to malnutrition, to a clinic and stayed with her there for 10 days. But she felt compelled to leave with Jane—still seriously ill—because she learned that her other children, left alone at home, had not eaten for days. Arriving home, Naboi managed to find food for her other children. But Jane died the next day.

The clinic’s chief medical officer, Dr. Sila Monthe, commented on Naboi’s predicament—having to choose between leaving the hospital with Jane, or staying while her other children starved. “That is a decision that no mother should ever have to make,” she said.

Read the New Yorker article: The Shutdown of U.S.A.I.D. Has Already Killed Hundreds of Thousands

Watch a Democracy Now! interview featuring Gawande: Dr. Atul Gawande: Hundreds of Thousands Have Already Died Since Trump Closed USAID

About The Author

Karen Feldscher

venez earthquake

romania poland, bombing airlift

franklin graham

-=-=

rww

08/24/2026

by

Kyle Mantyla

There was a lot missing from today’s profile.

There’s a reprehensible tradition in this country of blaming diseases on immigrants. The Florida Republican added to this ignominious record.

Doug Wilson, a Christian Nationalist pastor in Idaho and a self-described “paleo-Confederate,” wants to strip the citizenship of anyone who voted for New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Republican Darren Bailey thinks humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and he’s very upset people keep bringing it up.

The president’s illegal boat strikes resumed this weekend after a mysterious two-month pause. Somebody inside the administration knows why the murders were paused — and it's time for them to speak up.

The hospitals are performing “reverse surgery” to stop “transgender for everybody.” And it’s all because of Trump.

Women attending the signing of the law, which will allow more patients to receive care in the Bay State, were called “witches” and “shrieking harpies”

-=-=

-=-=

RWW

07/29/2026

by

Kyle Mantyla

A seven-figure settlement is announced two days before a scheduled Senate committee vote on Todd Blanche’s nomination to be attorney general.

Months before the governor’s proclamation, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy emailed DPS a report that levies similar evidence against the Muslim civil rights group.

RFK Jr.’s MAHA movement is finding plenty in common with the bros who are obsessed with peptides.

So why does the Trump administration care so much about controlling the Smithsonian Institution? One factor: the influence of right-wing Christian nationalist “historian” David Barton and his son Tim.

The ministry leader says casting off evil spirits is his greatest achievement, but his exorcisms have drawn questions and criticism.

Tennessee Pastor Greg Locke, who is under federal investigation for allegedly misappropriating church funds, says his “tent” church, which drew up to 3,000 people in its heyday, is now down to a few hundred in the wake of his ongoing challenges.

RWW

07/07/2026

by

Kyle Mantyla

RWW

06/26/2026

by

Kyle Mantyla

rww says as long FF bs will ctr

[Despite having obtained only a Bachelor of Arts degree from Oral Roberts University in the 1970s, David Barton now routinely bills himself as “America’s premier historian” and has established a reputation as the Religious Right’s go-to “expert” for making the case that the Founding Fathers intended to establish America to be a Christian nation that operates according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible.]

---

RWW

05/21/2026

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

---

RWW

04/21/2026

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

RWW

01/16/2026

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

RWW

09/24/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

The killing of Charlie Kirk could turn the movement into a faith that outlives Donald Trump.

John Solomon’s Informing America set out to create an echo chamber to shape public opinion. It’s working.

State Board of Education picks Barton for advice on history.

Turning Point USA, which was co-founded by Charlie Kirk, helps organize and educate students in conservative principles.

InfoWars founder celebrates after DOJ asks questions about FBI special agent who responded to the Connecticut school shooting.

Twenty years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts took the oath of office and ushered in a new era for the Supreme Court. His 2005 confirmation vote marked the transition from the Rehnquist court—where a narrow majority of conservatives and moderates had largely maintained the status quo on abortion, affirmative action, and voting rights—into something much more reactionary.

===

---

rww

09/23/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

RWW

[Christian Nationalism ## David And Tim Barton Blast The Smithsonian Institution's 'Obsession With Slavery'

Christian nationalist pseudo-historian Tim Barton cheers on Trump's attack on the Smithsonian, saying the museums should not treat slavery as "the most significant thing for American history" because "we had slaves for less than 100 years in our nation's history."

https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwingwatch/david-and-tim-barton-blast-smithsonian-institutions-obsession-slavery)

---

AN 7 25

POlitical operative David Barton held up a thick Bible with years of wear on its dark brown cover and proclaimed its pages put Protestant Christianity at the center of the country’s very foundation.

*This story first appeared at The 74, a nonprofit news site covering education. Sign up for free newsletters from The 74 to get more like this in your inbox.

“This is actually printed by the official printer of Congress,” said Barton, a best-selling author and influential far-right Christian nationalist. Barton has spent the last 40 years arguing that the separation of church and state is a myth — and has built a multimillion-dollar media and lobbying operation to influence public opinion and shape laws around the belief that the United States was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation.

Atthis particular hearing [VID] in April, Barton appeared before the Texas House education committee and testified in favor of legislation, since signed into law, requiring that posters of the Ten Commandments be placed inside every classroom in the state’s nearly 9,100 public schools by September. With him, Barton brought a small collection of books he claims were foundational to the country’s public education system until the 20th Century.

Barton isn’t just a primary pitchman for the Ten Commandments law in Texas, his home state, an investigation by The 74 reveals. His fingerprints appear on 28 bills that have cropped up before the legislatures in 18 states this year. A data analysis of the bills exposes how their language, structure and requirements are inherently identical. In dozens of instances, they match model legislation pitched by Barton verbatim.

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

At the Texas hearing, Barton’s eyes fixated on the cover of the rare 1782 Aitken Bible.

“It also says it’s ‘a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools,’” he continued. “It has the Ten Commandments.”

In actuality, Barton lifted language from Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken calling on Congress to sanction a Bible that could also be for “the use of schools.” Christian nationalists have for years falsely claimed the Revolutionary-era printing includes a government promotion of Christianity. Barton has long been accused of taking historical quotes out of context, and in 2012, the Christian publisher of his bestselling book on Thomas Jefferson ceased its production because “basic truths just were not there.”

Texas is one of three states in the last two years to pass a law requiring that the Ten Commandments be posted in public schools. The mandates are part of a coordinated nationwide effort to overturn a 1980 Supreme Court ruling forbidding Kentucky from requiring Ten Commandments displays in classrooms.

As the influence of Barton and the burgeoning Christian nationalist movement find favor in state legislatures, the White House and with U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson — who cites Barton as a “profound influence” — the lobbyists and lawmakers behind the state Ten Commandments bills told The 74 they’re confident the current Supreme Court’s conservative super-majority is on their side, too.

IFrame Content

A Flourish table

The analysis by The 74 reveals how language in virtually every state bill matches model legislation created by Project Blitz, a Barton-steered Christian “bill mill” that’s long flooded statehouseswith legislative templates that promote Christianity in public schools, legalize discrimination against LGBTQ+ people and restrict abortion.

A dozen bills specify, for example, that the Ten Commandments displays must be hung in a “conspicuous” location. Another 11 specify they should be at least 11-by-14 inches in size. Nearly all of the bills — 25 — mandate a Christian version of the religious and ethical directives be displayed as a “poster or framed.” The 74 tallied 96 instances where bills introduced this year match Project Blitz’s model legislation, including template bills to require the Ten Commandments or the phrase “In God We Trust” in public schools.

Among the architects of Project Blitz is the Barton-founded influence machine, WallBuilders. The flurry of state bills were introduced after WallBuilders — the name is an Old Testament reference to rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem — convened its annual national conference of state legislators in November where the model legislation was promoted.

After Louisiana passed its first-in-the-nation Ten Commandments law last year, new mandates approved in Arkansas and Texas this year follow the same Project Blitz template.

‘No such thing as separation of God and government’

Texas state Sen. Mayes Middleton is the joint author of the state’s new Ten Commandments law and the author of another new law permitting a daily prayer period and Bible readings in public schools statewide. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed both in June.

Middleton, whose district southeast of Houston includes his hometown of Galveston, acknowledged Barton’s influence over not just his own legislative agenda, but Texas’ broader conservative movement. Barton previously served as vice chair of the state Republican Party.

“Of course, WallBuilders is very supportive of the bill,” Middleton told The 74, as were the conservative legal groups Alliance Defending Freedom and the First Liberty Institute. “And, of course, all of their missions is to advance religious liberties, especially in the public realm where there is no such thing as separation of God and government.”

Founded by Barton in 1988, WallBuilders promotes theories — discredited by serious scholars — about Christianity’s central role in the formation of the United States through its podcasts, books and a museum with “one of the largest private collections of United States historical documents.”

####

Through WallBuilders’ lobbying arm, the Pro-Family Legislative Network, Barton leads direct outreach to lawmakers and educators at its annual conferences at a four-star waterfront resort in suburban Dallas. It was at this gathering where Indiana Rep. J.D. Prescott, a Republican, got the idea for Ten Commandments legislation in his state, he told The 74.

Prescott proposed a bill requiring a “durable poster or framed picture” of the commandments in each library and classroom at all public schools statewide. The legislation ultimately failed to garner support. Bills in other states also failed to gain traction, including in South Dakota where the bill’s critics — including some Republicans — said a government mandate was the wrong way to spread Christianity and ran afoul of the Constitution.

“Our early common school system was really designed to teach biblical principles in the Bible, so it’s just getting back to that point,” said Prescott, who described himself as a “student of history.”

The Pro-Family Legislative conference offers lawmakers scholarships and discounted hotel rates to attend the event. In at least one instance, a New Hampshire state lawmakerfiled a disclosure form reporting that he had received $859.47 from the Pro-Family Legislative Network, including $500 reimbursing him for air fare, to attend the November 2024 conference.

Prescott told The 74, “I learned a lot of it at a WallBuilders conference hosted by David Barton. They’ve got a great conference for legislators down in Texas every November. I did look at the WallBuilders model legislation and it’s a good place to start.”

Not everyone’s Ten Commandments

Experts said the bills seek to do more than require “durable” Ten Commandments posters in every public school classroom. The campaign is part of a broader, well-organized and deep-pocketed assault, they argue, on the separation of church and state.

Although WallBuilders isn’t required to disclose its donors, the nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy analyzed federal tax filings with the Internal Revenue Service to bring its finances into focus. In 2021, WallBuilders reported $5.9 million in revenue and $6.3 million in total assets.

The group relies heavily on donor-advised giving, a tax loophole that allows anonymous supporters across the political spectrum to contribute to contentious causes without scrutiny. For example, donor-advised funds have been exploited by far-right activists to leverage global campaigns against the civil rights of women and the LGBTQ+ community, according to a 2023 investigation by openDemocracy.

Mercury One, a nonprofit founded by high-profile conservative pundit and media personality Glenn Beck, is both a WallBuilders donor and primary sponsor of Barton’s annual Pro-Family Legislative Conference to brief elected officials “on pressing issues from a constitutional perspective.”

Barton, who didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment, describes himself as a self-taught historian and the owner of the largest private collection of historical documents about the Founding Fathers. His critics pan the graduate of the Oral Roberts University as a discredited pseudohistorian and propagandist.

Barton is “the granddaddy of Christian nationalist disinformation,” constitutional attorney Andrew Seidel, who serves as vice president of strategic communications at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told The 74.

John Fea, an American history professor and history department chair at Messiah University, a private evangelical Christian institution in Pennsylvania, accused Barton of cherry-picking historical information to present a misleading portrayal of the past, one that bolsters his own present-day political agenda.

“This is clearly an attempt by Christian nationalists to try to advance their own version of what America should be,” Fea said, noting that even as historians challenge Barton, he’s amassed influence among Republican lawmakers interested in leveraging a distorted accounting of history for political gain.

“Barton provides that history for these lawmakers. It adds a certain depth, even though it’s hollow.”

Darcy Hirsh, the senior director of government relations and advocacy at the nonprofit National Council for Jewish Women, said the Ten Commandments laws present an attack on “the strict wall of separation” between church and state.

“Any efforts to perpetuate the falsehood that the United States is a Christian nation is something that we find deeply alarming,” Hirsh said. Requiring a protestant Christian version of the Ten Commandments in schools, she said, is “exclusionary and coercive” to children from diverse backgrounds.

“A Protestant interpretation of the Ten Commandments is different than the Jewish interpretation of the Ten Commandments, in fact, they are numbered differently,” she said. Constitutional protections separating church and state, she said, are critical to the country’s democratic society.

“It’s that protection that has really allowed the Jewish community and other minority faith communities to flourish in the U.S.”

The laws successfully passed in Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas now face lawsuits from parents alleging they violate the separation of church and state. The issue could soon appear again before the nation’s highest court. In June, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, among the nation’s most conservative, struck down Louisiana’s Ten Commandments display mandate, finding it “plainly unconstitutional.”

####

Parents with diverse religious identities are being backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State in challenging the laws. In a complaint filed in Arkansas, parents allege students will be “unconstitutionally coerced into religious observance” and “pressured to suppress their personal religious beliefs.”

Fea, the evangelical historian, told The 74 the far-right campaign isn’t about the Ten Commandments’ place in the nation’s founding but about advancing the influence of Christianity in society.

“They’re using this historical argument to disguise the fact that they believe that somehow — and I don’t know how this happens, by osmosis or whatever — a student sitting in a classroom where the Ten Commandments is displayed will somehow buy into those ideals and values and become more Christian,” he said.

‘The hostility is gone’

At the Texas House education committee hearing in April, Barton held up a second book. This one was much smaller than the first, but just as old and, Barton testified, just as significant.

Barton lectured the Republican-controlled state legislature on The New England Primer, a widely used Colonial-era reading text. The book, he said, drilled first graders with 43 questions about the Ten Commandments.

Then he introduced a third book, and a fourth.

“The courts have pointed to the Ten Commandments as the reason we have all types of laws,” Barton testified. “So there’s a lot of history and tradition for that document that’s not there for other documents.”

Barton’s prop-focused presentation isn’t just scripted — it’s well rehearsed. This year, the 71-year-old has traveled across the country with his books and a small team of collaborators to spread the gospel of Christian nationalism. Like the bills before the state legislatures, Barton’s speech was replicated again and again.

As Barton testified on the Ten Commandment bills nationally, legislative sponsors routinely parroted his talking points, not just about Christianity’s role in the country’s origin, but the Supreme Court’s support for their movement.

During his recent appearances in Nebraska and other states, Barton’s testimonies invoked the court’s 2022 opinion upholding the rights of a Washington state high school football coach to lead prayers with his team on the 50-yard line after games.

Prescott, the Indiana lawmaker, said he became interested in introducing his bill after learning of the implications of the coach’s Supreme Court victory.

To Barton and other members of his coalition, the court’s opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District creates a clear path to require Ten Commandments in schools — and inject Christianity into other facets of public life — by proving they’re part of a longstanding traditional practice.

In finding for Coach Kennedy, the Supreme Court abandoned its 1971 opinion ruling that religious displays don’t violate the Constitution if they have significant secular or nonreligious purposes. The court’s new standard revolves around whether the religious displays are part of historical practices. In other words, the heart of Barton’s pitch.

“That is the new standard, so the hostility is gone,” he testified. “Showing that this is something that is longstanding practice, you go back to The New England Primer.”

Bought and paid for — according to specs

Even as bill proponents championed states’ rights as one legal justification for their Ten Commandments display mandates, Middleton, the Texas legislative leader, said there is a key benefit to the near-identical requirements in the bills across the 18 states.

“We just wanted uniformity in these displays. We thought that was important,” the oil company president and cattle rancher told The 74. “Obviously, these are primarily going to be donated as well, so it’s probably going to be primarily private funds funding these.”

Project Blitz model legislation devises a funding scheme that revolves around donated displays without the reliance on public funds — a provision that appears in 16 states’ bills. Others invoke the model legislation by encouraging donated displays, but broaden the mandate so schools are also free to spend taxpayer dollars to comply.

Mirroring the Project Blitz model legislation, the new Arkansas law requires the Ten Commandments display be composed of a “durable poster or framed copy” of the document and that it be “prominently” positioned in each public classroom and library across the state. The law also stipulates that the posters should be donated by outside groups, meaning the same private entities who had a hand in crafting the specifications, supporting the bills and getting them on legislators’ radars, will also be the ones buying the versions of the Ten Commandments that wind up in schools.

Even as the Louisiana law is caught up in federal court, religious groups who lobbied for the law’s passage and have close ties to the WallBuilders have plans to donate the displays set to appear in classrooms across the state.

In April, First Liberty Institute and The Louisiana Family Forum announced that Patriot Mobile, which describes itself as “America’s ONLY Christian conservative wireless provider,” had donated 3,000 Ten Commandments displays “as part of a project to provide, at no cost to the Louisiana taxpayer, displays in schools throughout Louisiana.”[CHART]

---

rww

06/23/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

06/18/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

rww

06/16/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

RWW

04/24/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

rww

04/18/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

-----

rww 4 25 sorta random grab

04/08/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

---

rww

04/04/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

---

rww

03/21/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

rww

02/14/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

rww

same day 2x 3x

01/14/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

01/14/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

The report, which said the special counsel’s office stood “fully behind” the merits of the prosecution, amounted to an extraordinary rebuke of the president-elect.

Would Pete Hegseth carry out an order to shoot American protesters on American streets? His reluctance to give a straight answer spoke volumes.

President-elect Donald Trump’s inaugural parade is expected to feature the MAGA-adorned garbage truck he rode last year in a nod to President Biden’s shot at the then-Republican nominee’s supporters.

David Barton is the founder of Wallbuilders, a nonprofit group which promotes history stories with themes of America as a Christian nation. They often do a lot with a little bit of material.

These Gen Z entrepreneurs bring a militant version of Christianity to Trump’s inner circles.

On the latest episode of his YouTube show, BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre interviewed “Peachy Keenan” about the ongoing Southern California wildfires. Keenan, a pseudonymous writer who authored an article for The Federalist decrying “anti-white racism,” blamed “schizophrenic” homeless people for starting the fires.

With a combined net worth just shy of $1 trillion, the titans of Big Tech will all attend Trump's inauguration.

rww
A Reminder That David Barton Isn't Just Wrong About American History

12/11/2024

by

Kyle Mantyla

In addition to being the originator and leading purveyor of most of the bogus Christian nationalist propaganda circulating today, David Barton is also a virulently anti-LGBTQ religious-right activist who has repeatedly said that AIDS is God "penalty" for those who engage in "shameful sexual acts."

As such, Barton has asserted multiple times that AIDS is something for which there will never be a cure. As he stated in 2012:

There's a passage that I love in Romans 1 - I don't love what the topic is - but it talks about homosexuality and it says that they will receive in their bodies the penalties of their behavior. And the Bible again, it's right every time, and studies keep proving that and that's why AIDS has been something they haven't discovered a cure for or a vaccine for, because it's the fastest self-mutating virus known to mankind. Every time they just about get a vaccine discovered for it, it transmutes into something new and they have to start over again. And that goes to what God says, hey you're going to bear in your body the consequences of this homosexual behavior.

In a shocking development, the confident predictions of a right-wing activist with a bachelor's degree in Christian education from Oral Roberts University havebeen refuted by actual scientists:

Researchers are announcing that a 53-year-old man in Germany has been cured of HIV.

Referred to as "the Dusseldorf patient" to protect his privacy, researchers said he is the fifth confirmed case of an HIV cure. Although the details of his successful treatment were first announced at a conference in 2019, researchers could not confirm he had been officially cured at that time.

Today, researchers announced the Dusseldorf patient still has no detectable virus in his body, even after stopping his HIV medication four years ago.

As ABC News reported, "modern medication can keep the virus at bay, and studies looking into preventing HIV infection with a vaccine are also underway," which is also something that Barton repeatedly asserted would never succeed.

---}:

rww 12 24

12/04/2024

by

Kyle Mantyla

The Court appears likely to uphold bans on gender-affirming care, and may gut the rules barring all forms of sex discrimination in the process.

President-elect Donald Trump announced he would be in person to receive the “Fox Patriot of the Year Award” at Thursday night’s Patriot Awards in Long Island.

Anonymity has long been a tactic used by extremists to spread their ideology while avoiding social consequences, from Klansmen hoods to online pseudonyms.

Penelope Hegseth, the mother of Donald Trump’s current and embattled nominee for U.S. Secretary of Defense, appeared on the cable network where her son Pete works, to urge the U.S. Senate, and especially “female Senators,” to disregard media reports—which include allegations of sexual misconduct, excessive alcohol abuse, financial mismanagement of two veterans’ organizations, and tattoos suggesting a link to Christian nationalism. She insisted her son is a changed man and should be confirmed.

===

---

rww bio

[Despite having obtained only a Bachelor of Arts degree from Oral Roberts University in the 1970s, David Barton now routinely bills himself as “America’s premier historian” and has established a reputation as the Religious Right’s go-to “expert” for making the case that the Founding Fathers intended to establish America to be a Christian nation that operates according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible.

---

rww

11/12/2024

by

Kyle Mantyla

On today's episode of his "WallBuilders Live" radio program, Christian nationalist pseudo-historian David Barton praised Donald Trump's pledge to "move parts of the sprawling federal bureaucracy to new locations outside the Washington Swamp."

Barton said that there were multiple benefits to potentially moving Congress and other parts of the federal government out of Washington D.C. First, it would make it very hard to staff the government with liberals and secondly, it would free them from demonic control.

"Can you imagine how different Congress would be, the Capitol would be, if we were to suddenly say on Friday night, 'Hey, we're all going to meet together in Fargo, N.D., as the US capital come Monday morning'?" Barton said. "You leave all those outside regulators, you leave all the the lobbyists, you leave it all behind and you get with people who actually know what's happening in the real world and they're not entrenched in this bureaucracy."

"Take the FBI and move it to Beaver, O.K.," he continued. "Now, I don't know that there's a liberal in Beaver, O.K., anywhere, so who are you going to hire to run your staff? It's not gonna be the swamp people."

"You start moving to towns like that, you're gonna break up that swamp really quick," Barton asserted. "It's just going to be such a healthier place to get outside that one entrenched [area]. And just speaking spiritually too, we know from Ephesians 8 and even in the Book of Daniel, we see that there's principalities and powers and rulers of darkness and heavenly places and there's got to be the biggest ever demons over Washington, D.C., because there's so much power there and it's all centralized. Just breaking that up is going to break the spiritual warfare up as well. No question in my mind."

===

rww

11/12/2024

by

Kyle Mantyla

we already have record early vote more than pandemic?

10/25/2024 rww

by

Kyle Mantyla

* David Barton says that this election is poised to have "the lowest presidential election turnout in American history": "All the way back to George Washington, we've never had an election turnout as low as this one is showing to be." That doesn't even make sense, given that Washington and the first several presidents were all chosen directly by the Electoral College with next to no input from voters whatsoever.

===

===

rww

FlashPoint" host Gene Bailey interviews "prophet" Joseph Z.

Monday night’s edition of the FlashPoint program on televangelist Kenneth Copeland’s Victory Channel focused on the selection of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as the Democratic candidate for vice president.

Guest Rick Green, an associate of Christian nationalist historian David Barton, declared Walz a “power-hungry tyrant” who is “perfect for the Communist Democrats.” If Green was hoping that would be the program’s most memorable attack line, he would soon be sorely disappointed.

That honor goes to “prophet” Joseph Z. Here’s part of his answer to his first question from host Gene Bailey, who asked if Z was encouraged or discouraged by what’s going on the country right now:

I believe very clearly the spirit of the Lord is making a way for the body of Christ to go through in this time. And you know even when we bring up guys like Tim Walz and look at what’s going on, people say he’s you know midwestern folksy, I have another word for him, being from Minnesota myself, and it’s weird. The guy’s just weird. You see the way he hugs his wife. You see the way he does everything. I believe the Spirit of the Lord is letting them overextend their reach. I believe he’s giving them a sense of confidence that’s actually going to be a surprise silver lining turnaround in this whole narrative. I believe the spirit of the Lord is going to bring victory and breakthrough. And you know it’s interesting how the spirit of antichrist just loves to pick these people that fit right in with the wicked overlord lizard mafia that is really driven by their goblin masters, and when you’re looking at this, I believe that’s exactly what we’re facing right now—a spirit of antichrist that wants to have its way.

Remarkably, Bailey had just introduced the Colorado-based Z to FlashPoint viewers by vouching for his credibility:

What we put on the air we take very seriously. And who we put on the air we take seriously as well. But that comes even more so when it comes to men of the cloth and prophets. Well, I met Joseph Z over a year ago, and I’ve continued to watch Joseph. My friend Hank Kunneman—we’ve continued to watch him. When he didn’t know we were watching, we were watching to see how he handled things. And I’m glad to say, I’m proud to have Joseph Z on the show tonight.

FlashPoint was launched by the Victory Channel in the fall of 2020 to help rally conservative Christians to support Trump and likeminded candidates, and as Right Wing Watch has reported, “provides a steady platform for pro-Trump, Christian nationalist propaganda and conspiracy theories, as it did on the night of Jan. 6, 2021.” Trump has rewarded the show’s loyalty by calling in repeatedly and sitting down with Bailey for a Mar-a-Lago interview last year. More from RWW:

“FlashPoint” played a key role in spreading lies about the 2020 election and the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, with host Gene Bailey regularly welcoming right-wing “prophets” and evangelists like Lance Wallnau, Hank Kunneman, and Mario Murillo on to the program, where they steadfastly refuse to accept the election results.”

Wallnau, a New Apostolic Reformation figure and promoter of Seven Mountains Dominionism, wrote a foreword to Z’s book “Demystifying the Prophetic,” which promises among other things to teach readers how to “identify real and false prophets.”

Last year Green displeased Bailey and other Christian nationalist leaders and activists when he said he thought then-presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy could make a good president, and Green was forced to “eat crow” on the program and insist that the nation’s founders said “over and over again” that the country needs “biblical leaders.”

FlashPoint regularly takes its show on the road, hosting events in front of live audiences to rally conservative Christian activists. Promoting a 2023 event to train right-wing Christians how to take over local school boards, Bailey declared, “That sounds like we’re trying to take over the world? Yes, we are. I fully admit that. That’s exactly what we’re doing.”

===

---

July 30, 2024 rww

---

7 24

Will David Barton Fill Oklahoma’s Curriculum With Lies and Disinformation?

By Kyle Mantyla | July 22, 2024 rww

Earlier this month, Oklahoma’s Christian nationalist state superintendent of education Ryan Walters announced that he was creating an executive review committee to overhaul the state’s social studies curriculum and that it would be stocked with far-right activists and ideologues.

Among those appointed to the committee was Christian nationalist pseudo-historian David Barton, a longtime religious-right activist who has repeatedly misrepresented his academic credentials and whose scholarship is so shoddy that one of his books was pulled off the marked by his own publisher in 2012 after it concluded that “basic truths just were not there.”

Barton is notorious for misrepresenting history in order to bolster his right-wing political agenda and for continuing to repeat his false claims long after they have been debunked. Both of these tendencies were on display when Barton appeared on “The War Room” over the weekend.

David Barton Discusses President Trump's "Providential" Head Turn

“According to University of Houston, they did a 10 year study,” Barton said. “They collected the writings the Founding Fathers in the founding era—15,000 they used—and they found in those 3,154 direct quotes. They said, ‘All right, now let’s see who the Founding Fathers quoted.’ The number one source for their quotes was the Bible. Thirty four percent of all those political quotes came out of Bible verses, and the number one Bible book [was] the book of Deuteronomy.”

“So, this is not hyperbole,” Barton insisted.

While it might not be “hyperbole,” Barton’s statement is certainly misleading, as Right Wing Watch has pointed out time and again:

This claim is a deliberate misrepresentation of a 1984 study conducted by professor Donald S. Lutz of the University of Houston that sought to identify which writers and sources of ideas were most cited in “the political writings of Americans published between 1760 and 1805.” Lutz found that the Bible was cited most frequently solely because many of the pamphlets included in the research were sermons that had been reprinted for mass distribution. Once the sermon pamphlets were excluded, Lutz reported that quotes from the Bible appeared no more frequently in the political writings of the era than citations of the classical or common law.

More importantly, Lutz also noted that when the focus was solely on the public political writings from 1787 to 1788, when the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, “the Bible’s prominence disappears” almost completely.

Undaunted, Barton continued to spread claims that were debunked years ago.

“I was involved in 13 cases at the U.S. Supreme Court,” Barton stated later in the interview. “Even [former Supreme Court Justice] Stephen Breyer said, ‘We all know the due process rights of the Constitution came out of the Bible.”

“The right to confront your accusers comes out of John 8:10,” Barton insisted. “The right to compel witnesses in your behalf comes out of Proverbs 18:17. The right to speak in your own defense [comes out of] Acts 22:1. If you don’t know scriptures, you’re not going to understand how the Constitution works.”

Right Wing Watch first debunked this claim nearly a decade ago, pointing out that what Breyer actually said in his 1999 concurrence in Lilly v. Virginia was merely that “the right of an accused to meet his accusers face-to-face is mentioned in, among other things, the Bible, Shakespeare, and 16th and 17th century British statutes, cases, and treatises.”

The Court’s effort to tie the Clause so directly to the hearsay rule is of fairly recent vintage, compare Roberts, supra, with California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155—156 (1970), while the Confrontation Clause itself has ancient origins that predate the hearsay rule, see Salinger v. United States, 272 U.S. 542, 548 (1926) (“The right of confrontation did not originate with the provision in the Sixth Amendment, but was a common-law right having recognized exceptions”).

The right of an accused to meet his accusers face-to-face is mentioned in, among other things, the Bible, Shakespeare, and 16th and 17th century British statutes, cases, and treatises. See The Bible, Acts 25:16; W. Shakespeare, Richard II, act i, sc. 1; W. Shakespeare, Henry VIII, act ii, sc. 1; 30 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure §6342, p. 227 (1997) (quoting statutes enacted under King Edward VI in 1552 and Queen Elizabeth I in 1558); cf. Case of Thomas Tong, Kelyng J. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (out-of-court confession may be used against the confessor, but not against his co-conspirators); M. Hale, History of the Common Law of England 163—164 (C. Gray ed. 1971); 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *373. As traditionally understood, the right was designed to prevent, for example, the kind of abuse that permitted the Crown to convict Sir Walter Raleigh of treason on the basis of the out-of-court confession of Lord Cobham, a co-conspirator. See 30 Wright & Graham, supra, §6342, at 258—269.

Needless to say, there is absolutely no historical evidence to support Barton’s claims that our due process rights came out of John, Acts, or Proverbs. More importantly, Barton has never even bothered to cite any historical record to support his claim, nor has he ever had any incentive to do so. And this is because Barton has built his career on exploiting the biblical and historical ignorance of his own audiences, knowing that they are unprepared to question his assertions and will get no traction even if attempt to do so.

Now that Barton has been tapped to overhaul the academic standards in Oklahoma, it is entirely possible that these sorts of bogus claims will work their way into the state’s social studies curriculum, indoctrinating future generations with a Barton-esque Christian nationalist worldview that is built on lies and intentional misinformation.

===

===

July 8, 2024 rww

===

David Barton Vows to Ensure the Republican Platform Aligns With the First Twelve Chapters of Genesis

David Barton Keeps Spreading False Christian Nationalist History

===

an 5 24

at Texas GOP convention, Republicans call for spiritual warfare]

(https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/28/texas-gop-convention-elections-religion-delegates-platform/)" was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

SAN ANTONIO — From his booth in the exhibit hall of the Texas GOP’s 2024 convention, Steve Hotze saw an army of God assembled before him.

For four decades, Hotze, an indicted election fraud conspiracy theorist, has helmed hardline anti-abortion movements and virulently homophobic campaigns against LGTBQ+ rights, comparing gay people to Nazis and helping popularize the “groomer” slur that paints them as pedophiles. Once on the fringes, Hotze said Saturday that he was pleased by the party's growing embrace of his calls for spiritual warfare with “demonic, Satanic forces” on the left.

![](https://thumbnails.texastribune.org/JFkqsROPRlcFcL99azhBNmhW0bY=/1200x804/smart/filters:quality(75)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/ee33b4da54577749111fe238d8b0bd90/0905%20Impeach%20Trial%20Day%201%20BD%20TT%2013.jpg)

From left: Conservative activists Steven Hotze and Jared Woodfill enter the Senate gallery during the afternoon session of Day 1 of the Ken Paxton impeachment trial in the Texas Senate on Sept. 5, 2023. Credit: Bob Daemmrich for The Texas Tribune

“People that aren’t in Christ have wicked, evil hearts,” he said. “We are in a battle, and you have to take a side.”

Those beliefs were common at the party’s three-day biennial convention last week, at which delegates adopted a series of new policies that would give the party unprecedented control over the electoral process and further infuse Christianity into public life.

Delegates approved rules that ban Republican candidates — as well as judges — who are censured by the party from appearing on primary ballots for two years, a move that would give a small group of Republicans the ability to block people from running for office, should it survive expected legal challenges. The party’s proposed platform also included planks that would effectively lock Democrats out of statewide office by requiring candidates to win a majority of Texas’ 254 counties, many of which are dark-red but sparsely populated, and called for laws requiring the Bible to be taught in public schools.

Those moves, delegates and leaders agreed, were necessary amid what they say is an existential fight with a host of perceived enemies, be it liberals trying to indoctrinate their children through “gender ideology” and Critical Race Theory, or globalists waging a war on Christianity through migration.

![](https://thumbnails.texastribune.org/fzcMrsQQEKXRO3FPEF7YT6aOTHo=/1200x804/smart/filters:quality(75)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/da9c4842dbc8e8cb35ddbcee11590f3b/0523%20GOP%20Convention%20EH%20TT%2031.jpg)

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick speaks during the Texas GOP Convention on Thursday, May 23, 2024 in San Antonio. Credit: Eli Hartman/The Texas Tribune

Those fears were stoked by elected officials in almost every speech given over the week. “They want to take God out of the country, and they want the government to be God,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said Thursday morning.

“Our battle is not against flesh and blood,” Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, said Friday. “It is against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

”Look at what the Democrats have done,” U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Saturday. “If you were actively trying to destroy America, what would you do differently?”

*[“The house is on fire”: Texas GOP plots its next chapter amid civil war, depleted staff, funding drops]

Controlling elections

The Texas GOP’s conventions have traditionally amplified the party’s most hardline activists and views. In 2022, for instance, delegates approved a platform that included calls for a referendum on Texas secession; resistance to the “Great Reset,” a conspiracy theory that claims global elites are using environmental and social policies to enslave the world’s population; proclamations that homosexuality is an “abnormal lifestyle choice”; and a declaration that President Joe Biden was not legitimately elected.

The 2024 convention went a step further.

It was the first Texas GOP convention set against the backdrop of a civil war that was sparked by the impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton and inflamed by scandals over white supremacists and antisemites working for the party’s top funders:{, West Texas oil billionaires Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks. This year’s convention was also sparsely attended compared to past years, which some longtime party members said helped the Dunn and Wilks faction further consolidate their power and elect their candidate, Abraham George, for party chair.}:

“What we're seeing right now is a shift toward more populism,” said Summer Wise, a former member of the party’s executive committee who has attended most conventions since 2008, including last week’s. “And the [party’s] infrastructure, leadership, decision-making process, power and influence are being controlled by a small group of people.”

(https://thumbnails.texastribune.org/_X93OkVqWjKf0MF0YqIovXarXM4=/1200x804/smart/filters:quality(75)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/37d777dfbb61f282f112bd04a575cbbc/0523%20GOP%20Convention%20EH%20TT%2055.jpg)

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, wave to attendees during the Republican Party of Texas convention in San Antonio on Thursday, May 23, 2024. Credit: Eli Hartman/The Texas Tribune

That shift was most evident, she said, in a series of changes to the party’s rules that further empower its leaders to punish dissent. The party approved changes that would dramatically increase the consequences of censures — which were used most recently to punish House Speaker Dade Phelan for his role in impeaching Paxton, and against U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales for voting for gun safety legislation.

Under the changes, any person who is censured by the party would be banned for two years from appearing on GOP primary ballots — including judges, who are elected in partisan races but expected to be politically neutral once on the bench. The party also voted to unilaterally close its primaries, bypassing the Legislature, in a move intended to keep Democrats from voting in Republican primaries.

“It’s pretty hypocritical,” Wise said of the changes, which legal experts and some party members expect will face legal challenges. “Republicans have always opposed activist judges, and this seems to be obligating judges to observe and prioritize party over law — which is straight-up judicial activism.”

The convention came amid a broader embrace of Christian nationalism on the right, which falsely claims that the United States’ founding was God-ordained and that its institutions and laws should reflect their conservative, Christian views. Experts have found strong correlations between Christian nationalist beliefs and opposition to migration, religious pluralism and the democratic process.

*[Proposed Texas GOP platform calls for the Bible in schools, electoral changes that would lock Democrats out of statewide office]

Wise said she has seen parts of the party similarly shift toward dogmatic political and religious views that have been used “to justify or rationalize corrupting the institution and stripping away its integrity, traditions, fundamental and established principles" — as if “‘God wants it, so we can rewrite the rules.’”

“Being Republican and being Christian have become the same thing,” she said. “If you're accused of being a (Republican in Name Only), you're essentially not as Christian as someone else. … God help you if you're Jewish.”

The “rabbit hole”

Bob Harvey is a proud member of the “Grumpy Old Men’s Club,” a group in Montgomery County that he said pushes back against Fox News and other outlets that he claims have been infiltrated by RINOs.

“People trust Fox News, and they need to get outside of that and find alternative news and like-minded people,” Harvey, 71, said on Friday, as he waited in a long line to meet Kyle Rittenhouse, who has ramped up his engagement in Texas politics since he was acquitted of homicide after fatally shooting two Black Lives Matter protesters.

Rather, Harvey’s group recommends places such as the Gateway Pundit, Steve Bannon’s Breitbart News or the Epoch Times, a far-right website that also had a booth at this year’s convention and is directly linked to the Falun Gong, a hardline anti-communist group.

Such outlets, Harvey said, are crucial to getting people “further down the rabbit hole,” after which they can begin to connect the dots between the deep-state that has spent years attacking former President Donald Trump, and the agenda of the left to indoctrinate kids through the Boy Scouts of America, public schools and the Democratic Party.

Harvey’s views were widely-held by his fellow delegates, many of whom were certain that broader transgender acceptance, Critical Race Theory or “diversity, equity and inclusion” initiatives were parts of a sinister plot to destroy the country and take over its churches.

The culprits behind the ploy differed — Democrats, socialists or “globalists,” to name a few. But their nefarious end goals loomed over the convention. Fearing a transgender takeover of the Republican Party of Texas, delegates pushed to explicitly stipulate that the party’s chair and vice chair must be “biological” men or women.

At events to recruit pastors and congregations to ramp up their political activism, elected leaders argued that churches were the only thing standing between evil and children. And the party’s proposed platform included planks that claim gender-transition care is child abuse, or urge new legislation in Texas that's "even more comprehensive" than Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law, which prohibits the teaching of sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools.

![](https://thumbnails.texastribune.org/ciJpskJjFVkA32MexM-6q3bGI6M=/1200x804/smart/filters:quality(75)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/8fc7586ac950819feeeabb4760560fb8/0523%20GOP%20Convention%20EH%20TT%2072.jpg)

Kyle Rittenhouse shakes hands with conventioneers at a meet and greet during the Texas GOP convention on Thursday in San Antonio. Credit: Eli Hartman/The Texas Tribune

“Our next generation is being co-opted and indoctrinated where they should have been educated,” Rep. Nate Schatzline, R-Fort Worth, said at a Friday luncheon for pastors and churches. “We are in a spiritual battle. This isn't a political one.”

For at least a half-century, conservative Christian movements have been fueled by notions of a shadowy and coordinated conspiracy to destroy America, said Mark Chancey, a religious studies professor at Southern Methodist University who focuses on movements to put the Bible in public schools.

“It's like the boogeyman that won't go away, that gets summoned whenever a justification is needed for these types of agendas,” he said. “They say that somebody is threatening quintessential American freedoms, and that these threats are posed by some sort of global conspiracy — rather than just recognizing that we're a pluralistic democracy.”

In the 1950s, such claims were the driving force behind the emergence of groups such as the John Birch Society, a hardline anti-communist group whose early members included the fathers of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and Trump. After decades of dwindling influence, the society has seen a revival since Trump's 2016 election. And in the exhibit hall last week, so-called Birchers passed out literature and pamphlets that detailed the New World Order's secret plans for "world domination."

Steve Oglesby, field director for the Birch Society's North Texas chapter, said interest and membership in the group has been on the rise in recent years — particularly, as COVID-19 lockdowns and international climate change initiatives have spurred right-wing fears of an international cabal working against the United States.

"COVID really helped," he said, adding that the pandemic proved the existence of a global elite that has merely shifted its tactics since the 1950s. “It’s not just communism — it’s the people pulling the strings.”

Throughout the week, prominent Republicans invoked similar claims of a coordinated conspiracy against the United States. On Friday, Patrick argued that a decadeslong decline in American religion was part of a broader, “Marxist socialist left” agenda to “create chaos,” including through migration — despite studies showing that migrants are overwhelmingly Christian. Attorney General Ken Paxton echoed those claims in his own speech minutes later, saying migration was part of a plan to "steal another election."

“The Biden Administration wants the illegals here to vote,” he said.

![](https://thumbnails.texastribune.org/XrT-lkapyY0opApzI2UV_yF-8JE=/1200x804/smart/filters:quality(75)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/f65ff0a8564b0acdb321e69bd3b233c7/0523%20GOP%20Convention%20EH%20TT%2011.jpg)

Ella Maulding and Konner Earnest watch as Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick speaks during the Republican Party of Texas convention in San Antonio on Thursday, the first day of the gathering. Credit: Eli Hartman/The Texas Tribune

As Paxton continued, Ella Maulding and Konner Earnest held hands and nodded their approval from the convention hall’s front row. Last year, the two were spotted outside of a Tarrant County office building where Nick Fuentes, a prominent white nationalist and Adolf Hitler fan, was hosted for nearly seven hours by Jonathan Stickland, then the leader of Dunn and Wilks' most powerful political action committee. They eventually lost their jobs after The Texas Tribune reported on their ties to Fuentes or white nationalist groups.

Maulding has been particularly vocal about her support for Great Replacement Theory, a conspiracy theory that claims there is an intentional, often Jewish-driven, effort to replace white people through migration, LGBTQ+ acceptance or interracial marriage. Once a fringe, white nationalist worldview, experts say that Great Replacement Theory has been increasingly mainstreamed as Republican leaders, including some who spoke last week, continue to claim that migration is part of a coordinated effort to aid Democrats. The theory has also been cited by numerous mass shooters, including the gunman who murdered 22 Hispanic people at an El Paso WalMart in 2019.

Five hours after Paxton and Patrick spoke, Maulding took to social media, posting a cartoon of a rabbi with the following text: “I make porn using your children and then make money distributing it under the banner of women’s rights while flooding your nation with demented lunatics who then rape your children.”

David Barton

Kason Huddleston has spent the last few years helping elect Christians and push back against what he believes is indoctrination of children in Rowlett, near Dallas. Far too often, he said, churches and pastors have become complacent, or have been scared away from political engagement by federal rules that prohibit churches from overt political activity.

Through trainings from groups like Christians Engaged, which advocates for church political activity and had a booth at this year’s convention, he said he has been able show more local Christians that they can be “a part of the solution” to intractable societal ills such as fatherlessness, crime or teen drug use. And while he thinks that some of his peers’ existential rhetoric can be overwrought, he agreed that there is an ongoing effort to “tear down the family unit” and shroud America’s true, Christian roots.

“If you look at our government and our laws, all of it goes back to a Judeo-Christian basis,” he said. “Most people don’t know our true history because it’s slowly just been removed.”

He then asked: “Have you ever read David Barton?”

Since the late 1980s, Barton has barnstormed the state and country claiming that church-state separation is a “myth” meant to shroud America’s true founding as a Christian nation. Barton, a self-styled “amateur historian” who served as Texas GOP vice chair from 1997 to 2006, has been thoroughly debunked by an array of historians and scholars — many of them also conservative Christians.

![](https://thumbnails.texastribune.org/Pr4f05aMyQrJ6_1ubGg9az8vwjQ=/1200x804/smart/filters:quality(75)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/7acf1f2412dd7df9c6f492e50a5f07ee/BD%20INC%20Barton%20David%20748%202012)

David Barton, left, of WallBuilders, at a Texas Eagle Forum reception at the Republican Party of Texas convention in Fort Worth on June 7, 2012. Credit: Bob Daemmrich for The Texas Tribune

Despite that, Barton’s views have become widespread among Republicans, including Patrick, Texas Supreme Court Justice John Devine and U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson. And his influence over the party was clear at last week’s convention, where his group, WallBuilders, maintained a booth and delegates frequently cited him.

This year’s platform, the votes for which are expected to be released later this week, included planks that urged lawmakers and the State Board of Education to “require instruction on the Bible, servant leadership and Christian self-governance,” and supports the use of religious chaplains in schools — which was made legal under a law passed by the state Legislature last year.

Warren Throckmorton, a former Grove City College professor and prominent conservative, Christian critic of Barton, told the Tribune that the platform emblematized Barton’s growing influence, and his movement’s conflicting calls to preserve “religious liberty” while attempting to elevate their faith over others. The platform, he noted, simultaneously demands that students’ religious rights be protected, and for schools to be forced to teach the Bible.

“What about the other students who aren’t Christians and who don't believe in the Bible?” he said. “This is not religious liberty — it’s Christian dominance.”

As Zach Maxwell watched his fellow Republicans debate and vote last week, he said he was struck by the frequency and intensity with which Christianity was invoked. Maxwell previously served as chief of staff for former Rep. Mike Lang, then the leader of the ultraconservative Texas House Freedom Caucus, and he later worked for Empower Texans, a political group that was funded primarily by Dunn and Wilks.

He eventually became disillusioned with the party’s right wing, which he said has increasingly been driven by purity tests and opposition to religious or political diversity. This year’s convention, he said, was the culmination of those trends.

“God was not only used as a tool at this convention, but if you didn’t mention God in some way, fake or genuine, I did feel it was seen as distasteful,” he said. “There is a growing group of people who want to turn this nation into a straight-up theocracy. I believe they are doing it on the backs of people who are easily manipulated.”

Nancy Leclerc poses for a photo in front of a GOP elephant statue during the Texas GOP convention in San Antonio on Thursday, May 23, 2024. Credit: Eli Hartman/The Texas Tribune

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/28/texas-gop-convention-elections-religion-delegates-platf

rww 5 24

there is no myth that Christian nationalists love repeating more than the claim that the Bible was the source most frequently cited by the Founding Fathers. And Tim Barton of WallBuilders has a particular love for spreading this false claim, which makes sense given that it originated with his father, Christian nationalist pseudo-historian David Barton.

On yesterday’s episode of “WallBuilders Live,” the younger Barton was at it again.

“When people talk about America being a secular nation, it’s really because they don’t understand the history, they haven’t done the research,” Barton said. “And there’s some people that claim to have done the research, and [say], ‘We don’t see it.’ Well, you have to be completely intentionally ignoring it when it’s so evident.”

“We can point to books like ‘The Origins of American Constitutionalism,’ where a group of professors went through and they documented who the Founding Fathers quoted and cited the most in their writings,” Barton continued. “And what they identified was that 34 percent of all of the quotations they found in the Founders’ writings were quotations from the Bible. They only included things that were in quotation marks. … [While] they’re only measuring what’s in quotation marks, they acknowledged that they recognized so many Bible references that were very obvious Bible references that weren’t in quotation marks, that [had] they included what the very obvious things were, they would have been far higher than 34 percent of the quotes and references to the Founders’ writings coming from the Bible.”

“This wasn’t a study done by a group of Christian professors,” Barton concluded. “This was a study done by intellectually honest professors who were saying, ‘We just want to see what really influenced the Founding Fathers,’ and the Bible is so far above and beyond any other influence on the Founding Fathers, as far as evidenced in their writing.”

IFrame Content

As Right Wing Watch has explained multiple times, this claim is rooted in a 1984 study conducted by professor Donald S. Lutz of the University of Houston that sought to identify which writers and sources of ideas were most cited in “the political writings of Americans published between 1760 and 1805.” Lutz found that the Bible was cited most frequently solely because many of the pamphlets included in the research were sermons that had been reprinted for mass distribution. Once the sermon pamphlets were excluded, Lutz reported that quotes from the Bible appeared no more frequently in the political writings of the era than citations of the classical or common law. More importantly, Lutz also noted that when the focus was solely on public political writings from 1787 to 1788, when the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, “the Bible’s prominence disappears” almost completely.

In 1988, some of the contents from that study made their way into a book Lutz wrote called “The Origins of American Constitutionalism” and, predictably, it does not say what Barton claims it does. What Lutz’s book actually says is that “approximately 80 percent of the political pamphlets published during the 1770s were reprinted sermons” and that his study found that “about three-fourths of all the references to the Bible came from reprinted sermons.” Lutz said that he included about “one-third of all significant secular publications” in his study, but only “one-tenth of the reprinted sermons.” Had the two sources been “strictly proportional” in his study, Lutz said it “would have resulted in an abundance of religious references.”

When biblical citations contained in sermons were excluded, Lutz reported that the citation of the Bible among secular works represented “about 9 percent of all citations—about equal to the percentage for classical writers.”

Lutz did not find, as Barton asserted, that “34 percent of all of the quotations … found in the Founders’ writings were quotations from the Bible.” And Lutz most certainly did not say, as Barton claimed, that if indirect references to the Bible had been included in the study, there “would have been far higher than 34 percent of the quotes and references to the Founders’ writings coming from the Bible.”

Barton was deliberately misrepresenting what Lutz wrote in both his study and his book, and he presumably knows that. But what Barton also presumably knows is that his audience does not know this, which is why he and so many other Christian nationalists continue to repeat it, because doing so helps them promote their own modern-day right-wing political agenda.

===

March 14, 2024 rww

===

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/andrew-wommack-says-it-would-be-worth-having-a-civil-war-to-turn-this-nation-back-to-god/

nepo?

rww

:{:{January 23, 2024 }:

---

semi random rww

December 4, 2023 rww

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson wrote the foreword and publicly promoted a 2022 book that spread baseless and discredited conspiracy theories and used derogatory homophobic insults.

They had come out by the hundreds, decked out in patriotic attire this October evening in 2021, to hear from a man who was introduced to them as “America’s greatest living historian.” They had come for David Barton.

It reveals the deep-seated anti-intellectualism present among conservative evangelicals. It shows how politics has torn the church apart. As long as Connelly is able to secure funding to travel around the country with David Barton and tell lies about the American past in service to his “Christian” political agenda, the more anti-intellectualism and the political captivity of the evangelical church will persist.

Despite past controversy, Barton’s influence has found an eager audience with the rise of Christian nationalism in the age of Trump.’

Some members of the committee said such a ban, proposed two months after a prominent conservative activist was caught meeting with a famous white supremacist, might be a “slippery slope” or too vague.

Voters eligible to cast ballots are already being swept up in a grassroots effort to purge the nation’s registration rolls ahead of the 2024 presidential election, a CBS News investigation has found.

I don’t think it’s too salacious to come out and say that the accusations against Voris are of a sexual nature.

Enter Kirk Cameron, whose entire post-Growing Pains career has centered around trying to replicate his success in the secular world and failing in bigger and bigger ways. His latest gambit is to offer a right-wing alternative to Scholastic book fairs.

---

---

Kelly Shackleford reported that they had met Mike Johnson in the Rotunda of the Capitol and had prayer with him. The night before, David Barton had led the First Liberty group in a tour of the Capitol. In the picture below, you can see Kelly Shackleford, along with David Barton standing next to Speaker Mike Johnson.

---

November 13, 2023 rww

Christian Nationalist Andrew Wommack Took Over Woodland Park Schools, Now He Wants To Take Over Colorado’s

Kyle Mantyla | November 2, 2023 2:35 pm

Andrew Wommack is a far-right anti-LGBTQ evangelist who routinely spreads misinformation and baseless conspiracy theories from his position as founder of Charis Bible College in Woodland Park, Colorado.

In 2016, Wommack teamed up with Christian nationalist pseudo-historian David Barton to launch a “Practical Government School” at Charis that teaches students how to “restore God’s purpose in government.” And in 2018, Wommack teamed up with Seven Mountains dominionist Lance Wallnau to launch a political organization called the Truth & Liberty Coalition.

In 2021, Wommack declared that using just the people associated with his Charis Bible College, he had enough votes to “take over” Woodland Park … and then he proceeded to do just that, bragging that he was able to get nearly 80 percent of his candidates elected to office and to completely take over the local school board.

Earlier this year, NBC News looked at what has happened to Woodland Park in the wake of Wommack’s takeover and the results were alarming:

As the school year winds down, many of the Woodland Park School District’s employees are heading for the exit, despite recently receiving an 8% raise. At least four of the district’s top administrators have quit because of the board’s policy changes, according to interviews and emails obtained through records requests. Nearly 40% of the high school’s professional staff have said they will not return next school year, according to an administrator in the district.

Emboldened by his local success, Wommack and his Truth & Liberty Coalition are looking to expand their reach statewide in the upcoming elections, reports Steve Rabey of Religion News Service:

In recent months, Wommack has been making the same argument to Christians across Colorado. He’s also provided candidates who fit the bill. When voters in 30 school districts go to the polls Tuesday (Nov. 7), they will find ballots primed with candidates recruited and trained by Transform Colorado, a movement, launched by Truth & Liberty, “that unites Christian leaders to restore biblical values in the public square,” according to its website.

The group is promoting its picks in local churches and through voter guides that include candidate answers to five questions about hot-button topics common to conservative Christian campaigns nationally: transgenderism, “boys in girls’ sports,” sex education, parental rights, and social studies and history curriculums.

The effort spans from Colorado Springs, the state’s second largest city, to remote rural districts such as Holyoke, on the border with Nebraska, and Burlington, both of which have seen spikes in the number of candidates this year.

Wommack is an ardent Christian nationalist who openly declares that right-wing Christians “are supposed to be ruling in this world” and he is clearly intent on making that belief a reality in Colorado.

Womack also has a broader reach through his association with national religious-right figures like Barton and Wallnau. The Truth and Liberty Coalition was a sponsor of the Family Research Council’s Pray Vote Stand activist conference this year, where it offered a breakout session on “changing the culture through the local church.” Womack’s ministries topped $100 million in annual revenue, his CEO told a local reporter in 2021.

Christian Nationalist Andrew Wommack Took Over Woodland Park Schools, Now He Wants To Take Over Colorado’s

Kyle Mantyla | November 2, 2023 2:35 pm

Andrew Wommack is a far-right anti-LGBTQ evangelist who routinely spreads misinformation and baseless conspiracy theories from his position as founder of Charis Bible College in Woodland Park, Colorado.

In 2016, Wommack teamed up with Christian nationalist pseudo-historian David Barton to launch a “Practical Government School” at Charis that teaches students how to “restore God’s purpose in government.” And in 2018, Wommack teamed up with Seven Mountains dominionist Lance Wallnau to launch a political organization called the Truth & Liberty Coalition.

In 2021, Wommack declared that using just the people associated with his Charis Bible College, he had enough votes to “take over” Woodland Park … and then he proceeded to do just that, bragging that he was able to get nearly 80 percent of his candidates elected to office and to completely take over the local school board.

Earlier this year, NBC News looked at what has happened to Woodland Park in the wake of Wommack’s takeover and the results were alarming:

As the school year winds down, many of the Woodland Park School District’s employees are heading for the exit, despite recently receiving an 8% raise. At least four of the district’s top administrators have quit because of the board’s policy changes, according to interviews and emails obtained through records requests. Nearly 40% of the high school’s professional staff have said they will not return next school year, according to an administrator in the district.

Emboldened by his local success, Wommack and his Truth & Liberty Coalition are looking to expand their reach statewide in the upcoming elections, reports Steve Rabey of Religion News Service:

In recent months, Wommack has been making the same argument to Christians across Colorado. He’s also provided candidates who fit the bill. When voters in 30 school districts go to the polls Tuesday (Nov. 7), they will find ballots primed with candidates recruited and trained by Transform Colorado, a movement, launched by Truth & Liberty, “that unites Christian leaders to restore biblical values in the public square,” according to its website.

The group is promoting its picks in local churches and through voter guides that include candidate answers to five questions about hot-button topics common to conservative Christian campaigns nationally: transgenderism, “boys in girls’ sports,” sex education, parental rights, and social studies and history curriculums.

The effort spans from Colorado Springs, the state’s second largest city, to remote rural districts such as Holyoke, on the border with Nebraska, and Burlington, both of which have seen spikes in the number of candidates this year.

Wommack is an ardent Christian nationalist who openly declares that right-wing Christians “are supposed to be ruling in this world” and he is clearly intent on making that belief a reality in Colorado.

Womack also has a broader reach through his association with national religious-right figures like Barton and Wallnau. The Truth and Liberty Coalition was a sponsor of the Family Research Council’s Pray Vote Stand activist conference this year, where it offered a breakout session on “changing the culture through the local church.” Womack’s ministries topped $100 million in annual revenue, his CEO told a local reporter in 2021.

Christian Nationalist Andrew Wommack Took Over Woodland Park Schools, Now He Wants To Take Over Colorado’s

Kyle Mantyla | November 2, 2023 2:35 pm

Andrew Wommack is a far-right anti-LGBTQ evangelist who routinely spreads misinformation and baseless conspiracy theories from his position as founder of Charis Bible College in Woodland Park, Colorado.

In 2016, Wommack teamed up with Christian nationalist pseudo-historian David Barton to launch a “Practical Government School” at Charis that teaches students how to “restore God’s purpose in government.” And in 2018, Wommack teamed up with Seven Mountains dominionist Lance Wallnau to launch a political organization called the Truth & Liberty Coalition.

In 2021, Wommack declared that using just the people associated with his Charis Bible College, he had enough votes to “take over” Woodland Park … and then he proceeded to do just that, bragging that he was able to get nearly 80 percent of his candidates elected to office and to completely take over the local school board.

Earlier this year, NBC News looked at what has happened to Woodland Park in the wake of Wommack’s takeover and the results were alarming:

As the school year winds down, many of the Woodland Park School District’s employees are heading for the exit, despite recently receiving an 8% raise. At least four of the district’s top administrators have quit because of the board’s policy changes, according to interviews and emails obtained through records requests. Nearly 40% of the high school’s professional staff have said they will not return next school year, according to an administrator in the district.

Emboldened by his local success, Wommack and his Truth & Liberty Coalition are looking to expand their reach statewide in the upcoming elections, reports Steve Rabey of Religion News Service:

In recent months, Wommack has been making the same argument to Christians across Colorado. He’s also provided candidates who fit the bill. When voters in 30 school districts go to the polls Tuesday (Nov. 7), they will find ballots primed with candidates recruited and trained by Transform Colorado, a movement, launched by Truth & Liberty, “that unites Christian leaders to restore biblical values in the public square,” according to its website.

The group is promoting its picks in local churches and through voter guides that include candidate answers to five questions about hot-button topics common to conservative Christian campaigns nationally: transgenderism, “boys in girls’ sports,” sex education, parental rights, and social studies and history curriculums.

The effort spans from Colorado Springs, the state’s second largest city, to remote rural districts such as Holyoke, on the border with Nebraska, and Burlington, both of which have seen spikes in the number of candidates this year.

Wommack is an ardent Christian nationalist who openly declares that right-wing Christians “are supposed to be ruling in this world” and he is clearly intent on making that belief a reality in Colorado.

Womack also has a broader reach through his association with national religious-right figures like Barton and Wallnau. The Truth and Liberty Coalition was a sponsor of the Family Research Council’s Pray Vote Stand activist conference this year, where it offered a breakout session on “changing the culture through the local church.” Womack’s ministries topped $100 million in annual revenue, his CEO told a local reporter in 2021.

Christian Nationalist Andrew Wommack Took Over Woodland Park Schools, Now He Wants To Take Over Colorado’s

Kyle Mantyla | November 2, 2023 2:35 pm

Andrew Wommack is a far-right anti-LGBTQ evangelist who routinely spreads misinformation and baseless conspiracy theories from his position as founder of Charis Bible College in Woodland Park, Colorado.

In 2016, Wommack teamed up with Christian nationalist pseudo-historian David Barton to launch a “Practical Government School” at Charis that teaches students how to “restore God’s purpose in government.” And in 2018, Wommack teamed up with Seven Mountains dominionist Lance Wallnau to launch a political organization called the Truth & Liberty Coalition.

In 2021, Wommack declared that using just the people associated with his Charis Bible College, he had enough votes to “take over” Woodland Park … and then he proceeded to do just that, bragging that he was able to get nearly 80 percent of his candidates elected to office and to completely take over the local school board.

Earlier this year, NBC News looked at what has happened to Woodland Park in the wake of Wommack’s takeover and the results were alarming:

As the school year winds down, many of the Woodland Park School District’s employees are heading for the exit, despite recently receiving an 8% raise. At least four of the district’s top administrators have quit because of the board’s policy changes, according to interviews and emails obtained through records requests. Nearly 40% of the high school’s professional staff have said they will not return next school year, according to an administrator in the district.

Emboldened by his local success, Wommack and his Truth & Liberty Coalition are looking to expand their reach statewide in the upcoming elections, reports Steve Rabey of Religion News Service:

In recent months, Wommack has been making the same argument to Christians across Colorado. He’s also provided candidates who fit the bill. When voters in 30 school districts go to the polls Tuesday (Nov. 7), they will find ballots primed with candidates recruited and trained by Transform Colorado, a movement, launched by Truth & Liberty, “that unites Christian leaders to restore biblical values in the public square,” according to its website.

The group is promoting its picks in local churches and through voter guides that include candidate answers to five questions about hot-button topics common to conservative Christian campaigns nationally: transgenderism, “boys in girls’ sports,” sex education, parental rights, and social studies and history curriculums.

The effort spans from Colorado Springs, the state’s second largest city, to remote rural districts such as Holyoke, on the border with Nebraska, and Burlington, both of which have seen spikes in the number of candidates this year.

Wommack is an ardent Christian nationalist who openly declares that right-wing Christians “are supposed to be ruling in this world” and he is clearly intent on making that belief a reality in Colorado.

Womack also has a broader reach through his association with national religious-right figures like Barton and Wallnau. The Truth and Liberty Coalition was a sponsor of the Family Research Council’s Pray Vote Stand activist conference this year, where it offered a breakout session on “changing the culture through the local church.” Womack’s ministries topped $100 million in annual revenue, his CEO told a local reporter in 2021.

10 23 rww

When Rep. Mike Johnson was elected Speaker of the House earlier this week, Christian nationalist religious-right activist Rick Green was “literally in tears” because, he said, Johnson “is one of our guys.”

Johnson himself confirmed as much back in 2021 when he spoke at a WallBuilders Pro-Family Legislators conference where he heaped praise on Christian nationalist pseudo-historian David Barton, saying that Barton’s work “has had such a profound influence on me and my work and my life.”

Green and Barton produce a daily “WallBuilders Live” radio program together, and on Thursday, they were downright giddy about Johnson’s elevation to the speakership, declaring that Johnson “sounds like a WallBuilders speaker” and proclaiming that “this is literally the kind of guy that we have been praying for.”

Johnson certainly does “sound like a WallBuilders speaker” and given that Right Wing Watch has covered Barton and WallBuilders for decades, it is worth taking a look at just what that means.

David Barton has built an entire career out of misusing, misrepresenting, and outright falsifying history, the Bible, and current events and doing so to promote his Christian nationalist political agenda. He has been highly influential not only within Republican politics, where he has many fans among current and former GOP legislators, but also internationally. On top of that, Barton’s Christian nationalist pseudo-history is shaping both Christian and secular educational institutions across the country.

Barton, who has repeatedly misrepresented his academic credentials and personal history, had his book on Thomas Jefferson pulled by his own publisher in 2012 after it concluded that “basic truths just were not there.”

Undaunted, Barton has soldiered on, repeatedly declaring that Christians who share his far-right worldview are supposed to be choosing our elected leaders and ruling the world because everything must operate according to biblical principles.

Barton falsely insists that our Constitution and entire system of government are based on the Bible and thus asserts that everything from the minimum wage to the income tax to the teaching of evolution are unconstitutional because they supposedly violate Biblical teachings. Barton also believes that there should be literally no limits on the Second Amendment, meaning that average citizens are entitled to own tanks, fighter jets, and even nuclear weapons.

Predictably, Barton takes a far-right position on issues like abortion—going so far as to proclaim that life actually begins *before* conception—and on LGBTQ issues, asserting repeatedly that AIDS is God’s punishment for sin and therefore a cure will never be found.

IFrame Content

On Thursday, Barton appeared on the “Victory News” program, where he declared that he has “been friends for years” with Johnson, whom he praised for having not only a proper “biblical worldview” but also a corresponding Christian nationalist understanding of the founding and history of the United States.

“This is a God guy, and we thank God for putting a God guy in at this time in our history,” Barton celebrated. “It’s a really good thing.”

IFrame Content

David Barton is almost single-handedly responsible for creating the Christian nationalist myths that the far-right uses to justify its push to enact harmful public policies that weaken the separation of church and state, undermine women’s rights, and deny legal equality to LGBTQ Americans. The fact that Rep. Mike Johnson, who is now Speaker of the House and second in line for the presidency, is an acolyte of Barton and his teachings ought to be alarming to all Americans.

---

David Barton Blames 'Progressives' For Slavery

:{August 24, 2023 rww

Tags: Bunni PoundsDavid BartonHank KunnemanJarrin JacksonJim GarlowJosh BrecheenLeftoversChristians Engaged

July 24, 2023 

Tags: Dalton Clodfelter David Barton Eric Burlison Mark Burns Sean Feucht Stew Peters Leftovers

June 26, 2023 

Tags: Alex Jones Jarrin Jackson Rodney Howard-Browne Sean Feucht Tim Barton Leftovers Road to Majority Conference Faith and Freedom Coalition

==

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/david-barton-doesnt-just-lie-about-history-he-lies-about-current-events-too/

rww 4 23

in  2022, right-wing cellphone company Patriot Mobile launched a political action committee through which it spent over $600,000 supporting school board candidates in Texas. All 11 of the candidates it backed won election, prompting Patriot Mobile President Glenn Story to brag that because of their efforts, Christian conservatives “took over four school boards.”

In March, Patriot Mobile, which bills itself as “America’s ONLY Christian conservative wireless provider,” organized an “Equip and Educate” event in Grapevine, Texas, that focused on “The State of Public Schools in America.” While Patriot Mobile claims that the event was organized “to equip citizens with the tools needed to preserve our union and educate them on all facets of important issues facing America,” the company’s choice to have Christian nationalist pseudo-historian David Barton and his son Tim Barton serve as keynote speakers suggests that providing the audience with accurate information was not a primary concern.

Predictably, the Bartons teamed up to deliver a presentation on The History of Public Schools in America” that was rife with the sort of disinformation and false history for which they are known.

Tim Barton, who shares his father’s penchant for blatantly misrepresenting history, did precisely that by repeating his father’s false claims about the public school curriculum in New Jersey in the 1800s.

As Right Wing Watch reported in 2022, David Barton routinely cites a document from 1816 that he claims shows that all public school students in New Jersey were required to memorize Bible passages, hymns, and sermons as part of the state’s public school curriculum. Barton’s claims are nonsense, as the document he cites was produced by the board of directors of the Free School Association of Elizabeth-Town, which was an organization that oversawSunday schools in the state, not public schools.

According to professor John Fea, chair of the History Department at Messiah University and author of “Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?,” a search of American newspapers and periodicals published in the early 1800s “clearly show that this is a Sunday School.”

Despite the fact that this claim is blatantly and verifiably false, Tim Barton nevertheless repeated it during his presentation at the Patriot Mobile event, wrongly asserting that “this is a report from that district to the state of what their students were accomplishing.” It was nothing of the sort; the document is actually a report from the board on what students were expected to learn in the Sunday schools it was running.

To make matters worse, in an effort to bolster the idea that public school students were once routinely required to memorize large portions of the Bible in class, Tim Barton added another false claim. Tim Barton cited a document from 1892 which he claimed showed that every week, public school students in Pennsylvania were required to “memorize two things: a passage from the Bible and then something of significance in the literary world.”[vid]

tim Barton claimed that this document was a report regarding what public school students in Pennsylvania were required to learn, but that is false. The document in question is actually an essay on the benefits of memorization written by educator J. P. McCaskey that was published in various journals in the late 1890s. Contrary to Barton’s assertions, this document is not “a report” on the curriculum in public schools in Pennsylvania, but simply an essay on the merits of memorization that contained various suggestions of what sorts of things would be beneficial to memorize.

In both cases, what Tim Barton claimed were documents attesting that Bible reading and memorization were central components of the American public education system turned out, upon examination, to be something completely different. But the truth about these documents, and American history in general, don’t really matter much to Tim Barton or his father as they are primarily interested in misusing history to mislead audiences about the supposed Christian founding of this nation—all in an effort to promote their modern-day right-wing political agenda.

In addition to promoting the Bartons, Patriot Mobile’s YouTube page also features dozens of videos of Rafael Cruz, the radical Christian nationalist father of Sen. Ted Cruz, leading prayers and Bible study. :{In a }video:{ posted Monday, Cruz ranted that schools accommodating transgender students is “an abomination before God,” declaring that “it is imperative that we as Christians” elect “committed believers that are going to govern according to the word of God to every position in government.” And that starts, Cruz said, with local school boards. [vid]}:

Tags: David Barton Rafael Cruz Tim Barton Christian Nationalism Education Patriot Mobile

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/14-bible-verses-how-david-barton-misuses-history-and-scripture-for-political-purposes/

when the Family Research Council held its annual “Pray, Vote, Stand” summit last week, Christian nationalist pseudo-historian David Barton was given a prime speaking slot, along with dozens of right-wing pastors, activists, commentators, and members of Congress.

While introducing Barton, FRC’s president Tony Perkins declared that what critics deride as Christian nationalism is simply true American history, and he credited Barton for having “done more than anyone else to help Americans, and Christians in particular, to know their history”—a history that Perkins claimed has intentionally been “hidden” by mainstream historians.

Perkins is correct in noting that nobody has been as influential as Barton in convincing millions of Americans that the United States was founded to be an explicitly Christian nation. And that is a problem, given that Barton’s misuse and misrepresentation of both American history and the Bible have been well-documented.

Barton’s willingness to misrepresent history and scripture to promote his right-wing political agenda was on display when hespoke at Calvary Church in Moline, Illinois, last Wednesday as part of the Faith Wins voter mobilization effort.

One of Barton’s favorite methods of convincing his audience that America was founded as a Christian nation is to assert that Americans of the founding era were so deeply knowledgeable about the Bible that they referenced it continuously in their writings and speeches. The problem today, Barton insists, is that modern Christians are ignorant of both history and scripture and are thus incapable of recognizing the fact that our founding documents are chock-full of Bible quotes.

The irony of this assertion is that it relies on the very ignorance Barton decries in order to be effective, as anyone willing to look into the claims Barton makes will inevitably find that he is lying.

While speaking at Calvary Church, Barton trotted out a new example of this technique, when he claimed that first- and second-grade students attending public schools in New Jersey in the early 1800s were required to memorize large portions of the Bible as part of their curriculum.

[vid

it interesting to go back in those early records and see what was being taught in the schools. For example, let me take you to some early schools. I want to take in New Jersey. And in this case, I’m just going to choose 1816 [in] New Jersey. They’re going to show you what happens with first- and second-graders in New Jersey. Here’s what they say. It says, ‘All the scholars of the first and second classes commit to memory portions of the New Testament or Psalms, a lesson of the Catechism, several hymns, and the text of the preceding Sabbath.’ Everybody in public school in New Jersey, if you’re in first and second grade, this is what you’re getting memorize. And by the way, what are the texts of the preceding Sabbath? That means whatever Pastor Tim talked about on Sunday, we’re going to memorize those Bible verses; so whatever verses he referenced, we’re going to memorize. A public school is doing this? Yes, absolutely. This is what public schools did.

As we all know, some kids are sharper than other kids, and they talked about one of the kids that was really sharp. They said, ‘One of the scholars has committed to memory the Book of John, and the first 30 Psalms, together with 119th Psalm.’ A [student] in first and second grade memorized the Gospel of John, 30 Psalms, and Psalm 119. He was really sharp. The rest of the kids weren’t quite so sharp. Here’s what it said about the rest of them, ‘The majority have committed to memory the Gospel of John.’ The average kid has memorized the Gospel of John. Everybody does that in first and second grade, but we got one kid that added 30 chapters out of Psalms and Psalm 119. Really? Common for first and second grade is everybody memorizes the Gospel of John? Maybe one in 1,000 Christians today has memorized the Gospel of John, and that was first and second grade stuff back then.

Thanks to the quotations Barton cited, we were able to track down the document he used in making this claim. It was a report from the board of directors of the Free School Association of Elizabeth-Town published in a periodical called The Christian Herald and, predictably, Barton was blatantly misrepresenting it.

The first thing one notices upon reading the report is that the reference to “the scholars of the first and second classes” does not refer to what today would be called first and second graders. The report explicitly states students are “divided into seven classes” based upon their reading and writing abilities and that “most of the children in the fifth class were unable to read when they entered school.”

It is unlikely that first- and second-graders were memorizing entire books of the Bible, as Barton claimed, while fifth-graders were unable to read.

But more importantly, the document further reveals that this was not a public school at all, as Barton claimed, but rather a Sunday school.

As it notes, the students were “taught on the Lord’s day, immediately after the conclusion of public worship in the afternoon.”

In fact, the document itself confirms that these students were enrolled in Sunday school when it notes the existence of “two other Sunday schools” that were not under the board’s control.

As author James J. Gigantino II explained in his book, “The Ragged Road to Abolition: Slavery and Freedom in New Jersey, 1775-1865,” the Free School Association of Elizabeth-Town grew out of the so-called “Sabbath school” movement, in which “schools sponsored by churches and private donors took over black education and continued white paternalistic control over it. These schools were led by white teachers and administrators, focused primarily on reading, writing, and basic mathematics, and taught biblical reading knowledge and prayer to instill religious and moral lessons in their students.”

From “Church of the Founding Fathers of New Jersey: A History,” a book chronicling the history of the First Presbyterian Church Elizabeth, it is clear that these were indeed Sunday schools set up by Rev. John McDowell, the author of the document that Barton cited.

One of the great and enduring achievements of the church during John McDowell’s ministry was the founding of the Sunday School. The first Sunday Schools in America were founded about 1805 in Boston and Philadelphia. The movement spread rapidly to other cities of the country, but not always with success. In many places, the schools were virtually forced upon the church members and the communities, and after a brief trial period, they were abandoned.

Reverend McDowell decided that the idea of founding a Sunday School was good, and used a very cautious approach in establishing the first school in this area. He enlisted the support of his Session, and then contacted Reverend John Churchill Rudd, Rector of St. John’s Church, and Reverend Thomas Morrell, minister of the Methodist Church, to ask their support. Both men became convinced that the purpose of the proposed Sunday School was good, and the three clergymen began to “sound out” their congregations on the idea. The groundwork was laid in 1812 and 1813.

By the spring of 1814, enough parents were convinced that religious training for their children was a desirable thing, so the school was opened, meeting in the Public Academy located on the north-east corner of the church property. Presbyterian, Episcopal, and Methodist children met together, and were taught by the three ministers, at the first sessions. At once the school was a success, and at the end of the first month, it was necessary to open a second school for the Negro children of the town. The colored Sunday School was taught by a student who was studying theology with Reverend McDowell. An organization calling itself the Free School Association of Elizabethtown was set up to handle the administration of the Sunday Schools, with Miss Maria Smith as superintendent.

According to professor John Fea, chair of the History Department at Messiah University and author of “Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?,” a search of American newspapers and periodicals published in the early 1800s “clearly show that this is a Sunday School.”

“This once again shows that Barton fails to understand the larger context of the periods from which he cherry-picks his facts,” Fea told Right Wing Watch. “It would have taken Barton less than an hour, with the historical databases available to professional historians, or even just a search on Google Books, for him to dig up multiple primary sources showing that the ‘Free School Association of Elizabeth-Town’ was, in fact, a Sunday School. In fact, ‘public schools’ as we know them today did not exist in the early decades of the 19th century. This is the kind of sloppy work—void of any concept of context or change over time—that has characterized Barton’s entire career as a Christian Right activist who raids the past for something useful to help him advance his political agenda in the present.”

Tags: David Barton Wallbuilders

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/their-failure-to-consider-the-bible-relevant-debunking-christian-nationalists-favorite-claim-about-the-founding-era/

earlier this month, former Rep. Michele Bachmann spoke at an “Understanding The Times” conference in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, where she declared that “it isn’t even debatable” that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation.

As “evidence” of this claim, Bachmann asserted that “you can find scripture” throughout both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—which, as we have pointed out countless times, is entirely untrue.

Bachmann also falsely claimed that “the number one book that was referenced by the Founders, across the board, when they were putting this nation together was the Bible."

[twt]

Right-wing broadcaster Glenn Beck made this same claim on histelevision program a few weeks ago, misrepresenting the findings of a study conducted by a University of Houston professor decades ago. [vid]

in an attempt to document the source of the unique ideas that created the longest ongoing constitution in world history, political scientists from the University of Houston analyzed writings from the founding era, covering the years 1760 to 1805. Their goal was to identify the specific political authorities quoted during that period. Selecting 15,000 representative writings, the researchers identified 3,154 direct quotations in the works. They documented the original sources of those quotations. The results showed a singular single source cited far more, far more, above and away: the Bible. Thirty four percent of all of the quotes that [are] in the representative writings of the founding era were taken directly from the Bible.

This false claim, like nearly all of the misinformation the right regularly cites about the supposedly Christian founding of this nation, originated with religious-right pseudo-historian David Barton.

As usual, Barton cherry-picked and misrepresented data from a University of Houston study to bolster his political views, as researcher Chris Rodd explained more than a decade ago. But since Barton and those who rely on his work, like Bachmann and Beck, continue to spread this misinformation in their efforts to chip away at the separation of church and state, it is worth debunking this claim yet again.

In 1984, professor Donald S. Lutz of the University of Houston published a study in The American Political Science Review titled “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought.” The purpose of the study was to identify which writers and sources of ideas were most cited in “the political writings of Americans published between 1760 and 1805.”

The finding, Lutz reported, was that “there was no one European writer, or one tradition of writers, that dominated American political thought” during that era, but that the Bible was cited most frequently solely because many of the pamphlets included in the research were sermons that had been reprinted for mass distribution.

As Lutz explained:

Anyone familiar with the literature will know that most of these citations come from sermons reprinted as pamphlets; hundreds of sermons were reprinted during the era, amounting to at least 10% of all pamphlets published. These reprinted sermons accounted for almost three-fourths of the biblical citations, making this nonsermon source of biblical citations roughly as important as the Classical or Common Law categories.

As Lutz noted, once the sermon pamphlets were excluded, quotes from the Bible appeared no more frequently in the political writings of the era than citations of the classical or common law.

More importantly, Lutz also noted that when the focus was solely on the public political writings from 1787 to 1788, when the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, “the Bible’s prominence disappears” almost completely.

Tables 4 and 5 illustrate the pattern of citations surrounding the debate on the U.S. Constitution. The items from which the citations for these two tables are drawn come close to exhausting the literature written by both sides. The Bible’s prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible had little to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles of government,but the Federalists’ inclination to Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible relevant.

Not only is the claim that the Bible was the most cited document during the founding era misleading, the very article upon which this claim relies completely debunks the Christian nationalist narrative that the Bible was a key source in crafting the Constitution by demonstrating that the Federalists, who drafted the document and supported its ratification, did not publicly cite the Bible once during the crucial time period.

rww 8 22

right-wing commentator Glenn Beck and religious-right pseudo-historian David Bartonteamed up for an event Tuesday that was organized by the Utah Eagle Forum on the dangers allegedly posed by “The Great Reset and ESG.”

The Great Reset is the name for a plan created by the World Economic Forum on how best to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, and ESG refers to the use of environmental, social, and governance criteria by investors when determining the worth and value of potential investments. Both issues have recently become a focus of Beck’s trademark doomsday catastrophizing.

But Beck sees hope in his fellow Mormons.

As Beck does whenever he addresses a crowd made up of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he cited the fabled “White Horse Prophecy” while declaring that the audience has the power to call down miracles that will save this nation.

As we explained when Beck cited this prophecy in 2016 while campaigning in Utah for Sen. Ted Cruz, who was then running for president, and Sen. Mike Lee.

Back in 1843, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, supposedly delivered a message known as “The White Horse Prophecy” that declared that one day, when the U.S. Constitution was hanging by a thread, the Mormon people would rise up and save this nation.

This is how Brigham Young reportedly explained it in 1854:

Will the Constitution be destroyed? No; it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, “The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.”

In 2010, the LDS church issued an official statement that “the so-called ‘White Horse Prophecy’ is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine.”

The fact that the LDS church denies the legitimacy of this supposed prophecy has never prevented Beck from promoting it, as he did when speaking in Utah earlier this week.

“Read 3 Nephi,” Beck beseeched the crowd. “I read it on the plane on the way here. You read 3 Nephi right now, and all I could see was America. We celebrate our victories, but we have not humbled ourselves in front of God. We have not asked for forgiveness for our sins.”

“Unless we humble ourselves, we will be swept off this land,” hecontinued. “I am a convert. Where are the rest of the Mormons that will stand up and say, ‘We have this information; we were given the prophecy for this land’? The time is here. It’s now!”

“Do you really not believe that the Lord could rain miracles down on righteous people and save our nation and our land and our people?” Beck asked. “I know if you’re a Christian, you believe that he rose from the dead. I think that one’s a bigger miracle than saving us. Let’s believe and live our lives in a way—I promise you—if we live our lives in the way that we need to live our lives, we will not only witness the very hand of God in our life—I mean real miracles, we will see them—but if we are a righteous people, we can call them down. We must be righteous and call them down.”

==

https://www.alternet.org/2021/07/nationalists/

In April 2018, researcher Frederick Clarkson _{exposed the existence of Project Blitz}_, a secretive Christian nationalist "bill mill" operating below the radar to shape and enact legislation in dozens of states, using a network of state "prayer caucuses," many of which had unsuspecting Democratic members. Its plan was to start with innocent-seeming bills, such as requiring public schools to display the national motto, "In God We Trust," and to culminate with laying the foundations for a "Handmaid's Tale"-style theocracy, enshrining bigotry in law under the guise of "religious freedom."

_{Salon was the first}_ to report and build on Clarkson's findings, as well as _{subsequent progressive organizing efforts}_ which eventually drove Project Blitz back underground, following a high-profile _{USA Today}__{ exposé}_ (Salon follow-up _{here}_.) Now, three years later, Clarkson, a senior research analyst at Political Research Associates, has unearthed the playbooks Project Blitz has used since going dark, and discussed their implications with Salon in an exclusive interview.

"The playbooks advise legislators to cloak their religious mission in the guise of more secular intentions and they've renamed several bills to make them sound more appealing," _{Clarkson reported at Religion Dispatches}_. But there's another, more hopeful message: These playbooks "also tell a story of the resilience of democratic institutions and leaders in the face of movements seeking to undermine or end them."

Clarkson told Salon, "While most people to the left of the Christian right view the Project Blitz playbook with revulsion, I see it as a gift to democracy. The playbook and their accompanying briefings and events laid bare their intentions and their game plan." Because of that, he continued, "We were handed a vital tool for the defense of democratic values and, arguably, the wider defense of democracy itself. The things that happened in response, I think, are underappreciated, even by some of those who should be taking great pride in their victories."

In particular, Clarkson said,"We were fortunate that Rachel Laser, the then-new president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, recognized this right away and made taking on Project Blitz a signature campaign of her presidency." One highlight of Laser's work was "organizing _{dozens}_ of national religious and civil rights organizations to issue a joint letter to state legislators opposing the anti-democratic, Christian nationalist intention" behind Project Blitz.

He also cited the webinars staged for various national groups by Alison Gill of American Atheists, Elizabeth Reiner Platt of Columbia University Law School and Clarkson himself, which "laid out the implications of the Project Blitz campaign," Clarkson said. (My reporting on that is _{here}_.) That in turn led to the formation of Blitz Watch, which focused attention on the continuing threat.

In Clarkson's article for Religion Dispatches, he writes, "In 2020, depending on how one counts, 92 bills were introduced, 8 of which passed. In 2021, so far, 74 bills have been introduced, 14 of which have passed, according to _{Blitz Watch}_." So Project Blitz is still in action, and still a threat. But it's not the massive and successful onslaught that its founders intended and hoped for — and the fact that it was forced into stealth mode shows how successful the pushback has been.

At the end of his story, Clarkson offers this summary:

The ongoing exposure and response to Project Blitz has taught us several things. First, that it's possible to stand up to and prevail against anti-democratic movements and measures, and that our democratic institutions are more resilient than they sometimes seem. Sen. John Marty _{showed}_ that — when he spoke up for the integrity of his faith and stood down a national smear campaign led by Fox News, as noted earlier. Librarians and their allies showed that, even in the face of demagogic attacks on the competence and integrity of public libraries, state legislators could be made to see reason. Efforts since 2018 by scores of national organizations _{organized}_ by Americans United for Separation of Church and State and _{Blitz Watch}_, have also shown that it's possible to defend democracy and its institutions against a secretive and formidable opponent of democratic values, and of democracy itself. What's more, journalism has once again shown that sunlight remains the best disinfectant.

Elaborating on this last point, Clarkson told Salon, "Scores of national media outlets covered either Project Blitz directly, or covered the patterns of bills introduced in legislatures across the country, especially the most common, In God We Trust bills…. Thus Project Blitz was exposed as part of wider problem of manipulation of state legislatures, and found itself compared to the tobacco and the pornography industries as corruptors of democratic institutions."

What's equally important is that these lessons can also provide tools and strategies to counter the right's latest culture war offensive — the racist backlash flying under the banner of fighting "critical race theory."Although the two campaigns are dissimilar in some respects, in both cases the right is defending a founding myth (America as a "Christian nation," or America as a flawless "beacon of liberty") and perverting or taking hostage a progressive value to claim it as their own (religious freedom or racial equality). In both cases, the reliance on blatant deception tells us that conservatives themselves understand that progressives hold the stronger hand. The right may be more mobilized now — just as it was before Project Blitz was first exposed — but it won't win if progressives can learn, and adapt, the lessons of their recent success.

As Clarkson first reported, Project Blitz originally divided its bills into three tiers. The first tier aimed at importing the Christian nationalist worldview into public schools and other aspects of the public sphere. A signature example is display of the motto, "In God We Trust," a Cold War replacement for "E pluribus unum" — out of many, one — which better reflects America's pragmatic, pluralist foundations.

The second tier, "Resolutions and Proclamations Recognizing the Importance of Religious History and Freedom," aimed at making government a partner in "Christianizing" America, largely by promoting bogus historical narratives. For example, Clarkson told me, the model "Civic Literacy Act and the Religion in History Acts," required the study or posting of "the founding documents" in the public schools, but with a twist:

"Curiously, the Mayflower Compact is included as a founding document," he said, "but there is no mention of the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty [the law Thomas Jefferson wrote which served as the model for the First Amendment] ... because it throws a monkey wrench into the _{Christian nationalist}_ narrative, which seeks to link Christianity and national identity from the British colonies at Jamestown and Plymouth to the present."

The third tier contained three types of proposed laws that "protect" religious beliefs and practices specifically intended to benefit bigotry. "Although category three is divided in three parts, you could also see it as having two main underlying intentions," Clarkson _{explained in a later story}_. "First to denigrate the LGBTQ community, and second to defend and advance the right to discriminate. This is one way that the agenda of theocratic dominionism is reframed as protecting the right of theocrats to discriminate against those deemed second-class, at best. As the late theocratic theologian R.J. Rushdoony said, 'Only the right have rights.'"

The basic structure of Project Blitz's agenda hasn't changed much, but its presentation has. "The 2020-2021 playbook offers slicker arguments than previous years," Clarkson notes. "For example, they deny that they seek a theocracy, try not to be overtly Christian, present secular arguments for their legislation and attempt to give the appearance that they respect religious pluralism. But they don't quite succeed."

The contradictions he notes are not surprising. Authors of these proposed laws insist, for example, that they're not out to "change our model of government into a theocracy" and that the bills don't "mimic or enact any particular religious code." But the inclusion of "The Ten Commandments Display Act" isn't very convincing on that score. They further insist that the model bills promote "religious tolerance" and "do not force any religion on anyone," yet the "National Motto Display Act" calls for the posting of the _{Christian religious slogan "In God We Trust"}_ in public schools and buildings. Still they allege that "tolerance [is] sorely lacking in those who reject various aspects of religious teaching," an old talking point that frames rejection of imposed religion in public spaces as "intolerance."

That last point is another example of how the right attempts to usurp progressive values and turn them on their heads. It also represents an attempt to erase religious liberals, progressives and radicals from the public sphere, by pretending that only "secular humanists" can possibly oppose what they are doing.

The 2019-2020 playbook was more narrowly focused, dealing only with bills related to sexual orientation and gender identity. That made sense, since it was the rapid shift in public attitudes around LGBTQ rights that put the religious right into its current defensive posture, out of which it conceived its counter-offensive: recasting religious bigotry as a defining feature of faith, and claiming a right to discriminate as an essential aspect of "religious freedom." The fact that the other tiers were dropped from the 2019-2020 playbook is a tell of sorts — but of course the playbook's authors never expected it to become public.

The 2020-2021 playbook returned to the full three-tier format, under a new rubric of "categories," adding two additional ones. "Category 4 offers 'talking points to counter anti-religious freedom legislation,' which is simply a breakout of the talking points previously included in other sections," Clarkson notes, while "Category 5 provides four new model policies dealing with prayer in public settings — three for public school settings and one for municipal settings, such as city council meetings."

One important new ingredient

One new bill that Clarkson draws attention to would criminalize libraries and librarians, and became infamous even before Project Blitz adopted it:

The "_{Parental Oversight of Public Libraries Act}_," introduced by then-freshman Missouri State _{Rep. Ben Baker}_ (R-Neosho), ignited a _{state}_ and _{national controversy}_ in January 2020 shortly after he took office. …

His bill sought to create "parental review boards" with the authority to "convene public hearings" and restrict access to anything they deemed "age-inappropriate sexual materials." Not only would their decisions be "final," but the bill also prescribed fines or jail for librarians who "willingly" violated board decrees regarding what is inappropriate, and included the potential state defunding of libraries accused of violating the statute.

This bill is deceptive in two key ways. First, as Clarkson notes, it "feigns a democratic method to achieve an anti-democratic result." These board members wouldn't be chosen in a general election, but by voters who show up in person at a scheduled public meeting where the issue is raised. "Thus the boards could be elected by small groups of zealots able to pack an otherwise routine evening meeting of a town council," Clarkson writes. These boards would then be given powers to overrule existing library boards, which are either democratically elected or appointed by democratically elected officials. In short, this is an attack on local democratic control, the very principle it pretends to embody.

The second deception is over the term "age-inappropriate sexual materials," since the impetus for the original bill wasn't about sexual content at all, but rather gender representation:

Baker said he was originally concerned about the _{popular-but-sometimes-controversial}_ _{Drag Queen Story Hour}_ in libraries and bookstores around the country.

Drag Queen Story Hour describes its events simply as "drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores … [where] kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real."

Baker sees something more sinister at work. Any break in rigid gender stereotypes is inherently subversive to his snowflake sensibilities, as he explained _{to the New York Times}_: "What inspired this bill is becoming aware of what is taking place at our publicly funded libraries with events like Drag Queen Story Hour, and materials that have a clear agenda of grooming our children for the L.G.B.T.Q. community with adult themes and content that fit the description of a objectionable sexual nature."

In this worldview, any breakdown in rigid gender stereotypes is associated with "grooming our children" for the LGBTQ community," a trope used by the right dating back at least to the Eisenhower-era John Birch Society, when scientific knowledge about gender orientation and identity was virtually nonexistent. Not only does this lack any scientific credibility, it's also a hysterical overreaction, since no one is forced to attend Drag Queen Story Hour. If this law were passed, as an official with American Library Association warned, not just Drag Queen Story Hour could be censored, but also displays relating to Pride Month, Black History Month and other specific commemorations.

This attempted intrusion into local library politics is just one example of how Project Blitz overlaps with the new wave of white backlash under the banner of fighting "critical race theory." For several decades, he right has repeatedly mobilized to take over nonpartisan school boards, and occasionally library boards, as a way of building grassroots power and grooming candidates for higher office. Such elections usually have low turnout and relatively little campaign organization, which makes them attractive targets for extremists running scare-tactic campaigns. The parental oversight bill takes things one step further by empowering small activist groups who invadie local government meetings, but the organizing principle is the same: Use fear and stealth to seize power, and use simulated democratic legitimacy to advance a divisive, reactionary agenda.

These library-centered battles served to underscore a broader point that Clarkson made to Salon. "When people are invested in democratic institutions like public libraries, or any aspect of government, it is important not to 'other-ize' government, which in a democratic society is intended to be an expression and function of what we need and want to do together, and is necessarily an expression of democratic values," Clarkson said.

"That librarians and allies around the country rallied to the defense of the archives of democratic knowledge, culture and practice is a case example of how we need not be bullied by Christian right demagoguery. Screechy charges may make headlines and bring in ad revenue on right-wing talk radio, but most people, most of the time, do not want their schools and libraries messed with by authoritarian bigots and mobs of the easily led."

Reflecting on lessons learned

Exposure was the key to success, according to two important figures in this struggle, both mentioned above. Rachel Laser is president of Americans United For Separation of Church and State, and Alison Gill is vice president for legal and policy matters at American Atheists.

"To oppose Project Blitz effectively, we first had to raise awareness about this campaign," Gill said.

"Project Blitz's strategy was to start with seemingly less controversial legislation that organizers thought they could slip past the public," Laser said, "then build to even more harmful, more controversial bills. They had some success early on. But once we exposed that strategy and people became aware of Project Blitz and its agenda of codifying Christian nationalism, the initiative began to unravel, because people don't want to force religious beliefs on public schoolchildren and they don't want our laws to license discrimination in the name of religious freedom."

Gill focused more on exposing the secretive workings behind the Project Blitz operation. "At first, the campaign worked discreetly and without broadcasting their intentions to lure unsuspecting lawmakers into state prayer caucuses," she said. "These caucuses then provided a structure with which to pursue the Project Blitz legislation. By elevating the campaign to media and lawmakers, highlighting its connection to Christian nationalism and showing that these bills were not organically driven by in-state interest, we succeeded in neutralizing their advantage."

Gill cited two other lessons as well. "Our work to oppose Project Blitz reinforced the importance of cross-movement collaboration," she said. "Project Blitz is a campaign that targets civil rights in multiple fields — LGBTQ equality, access to reproductive services and religious equality — and so coordination with organizations across affected movements was required to effectively oppose it."

That took time and crucial information, Laser added: "It wasn't until we learned of the Project Blitz playbook and their organizing strategy that we were able to build a coalition of allies to fight this movement at its source, rather than only state by state and bill by bill."

Gill cites the pooling of resources as another important factor. "Project Blitz provided Christian nationalist lawmakers and activists with all the tools they needed in one place to pursue these bills and flood state legislatures with harmful legislation," she said. "However, the resources necessary to oppose these varied bills were scattered and less organized, so initially the opposition work was less cohesive. By bringing advocacy and messaging resources together at BlitzWatch.org, we helped ensure that lawmakers and advocates opposing Project Blitz had access to all of these tools."

More worrisome than Project Blitz itself, Gill said, are the forces behind it. "The same forces pushing forward Project Blitz have now seized upon new issues, and they are already flooding state legislatures with dangerous model bills," she said. "There were at least four major waves of harmful legislation propagated in 2021: anti-trans youth legislation, religious exemptions to COVID-related public health protections, broad denial-of-care bills, and bills that undermine abortion access."

Of those, she says the most dangerous element is a "renewed emphasis on Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) measures at the state level. RFRAs create a limited exemption from state laws whenever religious organizations say that their activities are burdened. RFRAs have been used to attack nondiscrimination protections, access to contraception and abortion, and even child labor laws."

Such laws were a major focus of conservative activism during Barack Obama's presidency, although "none were successfully passed after significant public setbacks in 2015 in states like Indiana," Gill noted. "In the wake of the pandemic and state-imposed public health restrictions," she said, "activists have rebranded these bills as necessary to protect churches from government overreach." Three states — Arkansas, Montana and South Dakota — passed RFRAs this year, and we should expect to see many more coming in 2022, she warns.

It's also important to consider how these lessons can be applied to the racist backlash formulated around the bogeyman term "critical race theory," which Fox News has _{repeated thousands of times}_ without ever clearly defining it. This can be seen in the state legislative map as well. _{Chalkbeat}_ has tracked efforts in 27 states to "restrict education on racism, bias, the contributions of specific racial or ethnic groups to U.S. history, or related topics," compared to efforts in 12 states to expand education. _{Brookings reports}_ that seven states have passed such laws, though only one explicitly mentions "critical race theory." Brookings lists actions taken by state boards of education, other state actors and local school boards as well. So the scope of right-wing activism is clear, as is the need for an effective response.

For Laser, the parallels are clear. "White Christian nationalism is the belief that America is and must remain a Christian nation founded for its white Christian inhabitants, and that our laws and policies must reflect this premise," she said. "They completely reject church-state separation. White Christian nationalists oppose equality for people of color, women, LGBTQ people, religious minorities and the nonreligious.

"The same white Christian nationalist ideology that is behind Project Blitz is also driving the backlash against a deliberate caricature of critical race theory," she continued. "Therefore, a similar strategy to the one that has hamstrung Project Blitz — recapturing the narrative about our nation's ideals, exposing the real intent of the extremists, making clear how their agenda harms freedom and equality for all of us, and bringing together a diverse coalition of people and groups to speak out against this harmful movement — should be part of the strategy to combat opponents of racial justice."

Gill sees similarities, but differences as well. "Both campaigns are similar in that they focus on redefining and manipulating language for political advantage — 'religious freedom' and 'critical race theory,' respectively," she said. "However, there are also significant differences. The anti-CRT campaigns seem at once better funded and less organized than Project Blitz. Moreover, there is a degree of moral panic associated with the anti-CRT efforts that was not as present for Project Blitz."

Still, she offered three specific lessons learned from the resistance to Project Blitz:

  1. Raise awareness about the anti-CRT campaign and bring to light where it came from, who is funding it and for what purposes.
  2. Build collaboration between the various sectors that support diversity education in schools to push back against anti-CRT efforts. Successful coalitions must include educators, experts in diversity education, political leaders, civil rights leaders, parents and students.
  3. Ensure that tools and messaging to oppose anti-CRT efforts are effective and widely available.

If America's founding was really "as pristine as the religious myth requires it to be," Clarkson observed, "it cannot be marked by the racism and genocide that the facts of history reveal. History is thus an existential crisis for Christian nationalist beliefs. That's why history must be revised and the evils that mark so much of our history be erased, rather than acknowledged and addressed. The attack on the straw man of CRT is of a piece with what we might call the purification of American history in the name of God's history."

But history and politics tend to be messy, not pure. "The Christian right, supported in part by the Project Blitz playbooks, is using — and mastering — the tools and institutions of democracy in order to erode or end them," Clarkson said. "They know that well-organized factions can win elections, beginning with low-turnout party primaries, and that the Christian Right minority can gain the mantle of democratic legitimacy by out-organizing those of us who actually believe in it." So it's up to "everyone to the left of the Christian Right," as Clarkson puts it, to mobilize for democracy.

"This includes identifying some common approaches to history, as well as religious freedom, which will remain a battleground," he said, "as well as better approaches to electoral organization at all levels of government. This will mean jumping into electoral democracy with both feet, and learning the mechanics and calendar of electoral democracy." This may mean, he warns, avoiding the distractions of cable news, social media and other forms of entertainment in favor of real-world organizing. "To borrow from and with apologies to the late Gil Scott-Heron," Clarkson said, "the mobilization will not be televised."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

=== ===

https://www.alternet.org/2021/07/in-god-we-trust/

City vehicles in Chesapeake, Virginia, will soon be getting religion.

At a meeting on July 13, 2021, city councilors unanimously voted in favor of a proposal that would see the official motto of the U.S., “In God We Trust," emblazoned on every city-owned car and truck, at an estimated cost to taxpayers of US$87,000.

Meanwhile, the state of Mississippi is preparing to defend in court its insistence that all citizens, unless they pay a fee for an alternative, must display the same four-word phrase on their license plates. Gov. Tate Reeves vowed last month to take the issue “all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court should we have to."

“In God We Trust" became the national motto 65 years ago this month. But over the past few years a string of bills and city ordinances has sought to expand its usage and presence. Such efforts include legislation requiring or encouraging the motto be displayed in government buildings and schools, on license plates and on police vehicles.

Mississippi license plates carry the motto.

State of Mississippi

The rise of bills across the country at this time is no coincidence. It fits with a concerted effort by Christian nationalists who view the motto as a tool to help legitimize an agenda of passing legislation that privileges conservative Christian values.

Christian nationalism is a political ideology that fuses conservative religious beliefs with a – usually white – American identity. Christian nationalists assume that the laws of the land should be based on Christian morals.

As a scholar of religious and political rhetoric, I have observed how Christian nationalists are using what I call “theistnormative" legislation – government-endorsed policies, rituals, laws and symbols that use vague religious references, such as “God" – to encourage people to view the United States as a theistic collective – that is to say, as a nation of believers in God.

From coins to national motto

Christian nationalists played a key role in getting “In God We Trust" put on coins during the Civil War and ever since have attempted to use the motto as “proof" that the United States is a Christian nation.

Early Christian nationalists criticized the Founding Fathers for failing to recognize the United States as an explicitly Christian nation in the Constitution. An early Christian nationalist organization, The National Reform Association, pushed for a “Christian Amendment" that would correct what they called the “original sin" of not recognizing Jesus Christ in the Constitution.

Their efforts failed. But Christian nationalists had better success in getting the more ambiguous motto “In God We Trust" put on coins in 1864. It followed a report to the U.S. Treasury by the director of the U.S. Mint, James Pollock, an active member of the National Reform Association, in which he asked: “We claim to be a Christian Nation – why should we not vindicate our character by honoring the God of Nations in the exercise of our political Sovereignty as a Nation?"

[pix]

Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase amends 'In God is our Trust' to 'In God We Trust' in an 1863 letter to James Pollock, director of the Philadelphia mint.

National Archives and Records Administration

Amid fears of “atheistic communism" during the Cold War a century later, Christian nationalists in the U.S. again tried and failed to pass a “Christian Amendment." But they again found success in advocating for legislation that used vague religious references, culminating in the adding of “under God" to the pledge of allegiance and making “In God We Trust" the national motto on July 30, 1956.

Since it became the national motto, conservative Christians have used “In God We Trust" to justify opposing abortion rights and same-sex marriage by suggesting that they violate the principles embedded in the motto.

Earlier this year, Mississippi state Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith justified legislation that would ban voter registration on Sundays by holding up a dollar bill and saying, “This says, 'The United States of America, in God we trust.' … In God's word in Exodus 20:18, it says 'remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.'"

While most Christian nationalists claim to support religious freedom – which would seemingly apply to all faiths – most believe Christianity, specifically white conservative Christian values, should be privileged in the public sphere.

'Project Blitz'

Christian nationalists have increasingly turned to “In God We Trust" bills as a way to further legitimize their agenda. This is particularly evident in the “Project Blitz" initiative, led by the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, which states its aim as “restoring Judeo-Christian principles to their rightful place."

Project Blitz started in 2015 with the purpose of “blitzing" the country with legislation advancing Christian nationalism. As David Barton, a leader in the initiative, explained in a 2018 conference call with state legislators: “It's kind of like whack-a-mole for the other side; it'll drive 'em crazy that they'll have to divide their resources out in opposing this."

One such success in Project Blitz was in Chesapeake, where the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation is based. The organization successfully pushed for the motto “In God We Trust" to be displayed at the City Hall.

After Project Blitz generated negative publicity in 2018, it was misleadingly rebranded as “Freedom for All." During a recorded strategy meeting that was later circulated by the social justice think tank Political Research Associates, Lea Carawan of the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation explained, “As soon as we understood that they knew they were on to us, we changed the name; shifted things around a little bit […] we've renamed and moved on but it's moving just as strong and just as powerfully."

Up to 2018, the initiative had helped more than 70 bills relating to their agenda get proposed. The group continues to have successes in getting legislation not only proposed, but also passed. According to BlitzWatch, a group tracking Project Blitz initiatives, this includes bills that su**pport Bible readings in schools**and policies that allow adoption and foster agencies and health care providers to deny services based on religious grounds. But it is the “In God We Trust" bills that have seemingly been the most successful for Project Blitz.

Pushing America's 'Christian heritage'

According to the initiative's 2020-2021 playbook – which was obtained by the religion news website Religion Dispatches – “In God We Trust" bills aim to recognize “the place of Christian principles in our nation's history and heritage."

While those behind “Project Blitz" claim the bills are not about converting people to Christianity, they also argue that the U.S. should be a Christian nation whose laws and policies reflect Judeo-Christian or biblical values and concepts."

As such, “In God We Trust" bills set the foundation for more explicitly conservative Christian legislation.

The playbooks suggest “In God We Trust" bills can “shore up later support for other governmental entities to support religious displays" to help America accept its “Christian heritage." The Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation also recommends legislators push for other types of bills including, as stated in their 2018-2019 playbook, a resolution to establish policy “favoring intimate sexual relations only between married, heterosexual couples."

The risk of opposing

What makes “In God We Trust" bills so successful is that they often receive bipartisan support. In Louisiana, for example, it was a Democratic governor who signed the 2019 bill requiring the motto be displayed in all schools. Politicians who do oppose “In God We Trust" bills run the risk of being labeled as “anti-faith."

Despite its being the national motto for only 65 years, Christian nationalists have framed “In God We Trust" as part of the U.S.'s founding tradition. Moreover, the motto has become an important rhetorical weapon for Christian nationalists – using it to advance their belief that governments and people are to “trust in God," and more specifically their perception of a conservative Christian God.

Kristina M. Lee, Ph.D. Candidate in Rhetoric, Colorado State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

===

===

boxer chair inhofe ranking member?

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110shrg61968/html/CHRG-110shrg61968.htm

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman

MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island

Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director

C O N T E N T S

----------

Page

JUNE 7, 2007

OPENING STATEMENTS

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 2

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 4

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of

Missouri....................................................... 93

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.... 95

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of

Connecticut, prepared statement................................ 242

WITNESSES

Schori, The Most Reverend Dr. Katharine Jefferts, Presiding

Bishop, The Episcopal Church................................... 97

Prepared statement........................................... 99

Carr, John L., secretary, Department of Social Development and

World Peace, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops............... 102

Prepared statement........................................... 104

Ball, The Reverend Jim, Ph.D., signatory to the Evangelical

Climate Initiative............................................. 107

Prepared statement........................................... 109

Saperstein, Rabbi David, director and counsel, Religious Action

Center of Reform Judaism....................................... 117

Prepared statement........................................... 120

Moore, Russell D., dean, School of Theology, senior vice

president for Academic Administration, associate professor of

Christian Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.. 122

Prepared statement........................................... 124

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 183

Tonkowich, The Reverend Dr. James, president, Institute on

Religion and Democracy......................................... 194

Prepared statement........................................... 195

Barton, David, author and historian.............................. 204

Prepared statement........................................... 206

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 210

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

The Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship............ 9-92

Appendixes:

Southern Baptist Convention:

Environmental Stewardship, June 1990..................... 129

Environmentalism and Evangelicals, June 2006............. 131

Resolution No. 5 on Global Warming, June 2007............ 185

Climate Change and the Responsibility of Civil Society: Some

Biblico-Theological Aspects of the Global Warming Debate,

by E. Calvin Beisner, April 2007........................... 134

Interfaith Stewardship Alliance:

A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An

Evangelical Response to Global Warming, 2006, by E.

Calvin Beisner, Paul K. Driessen, Ross McKitrick, and

Roy W. Spencer......................................... 145

An Open Letter to the Signers of ``Climate Change: An

Evangelical Call to Action'' and Others Concerned About

Global Warming, Interfaith Stewardship Alliance........ 175

Policy Statement on Global Warming, August 2005, The Ethics &

Religious Liberty Commission, by Andrew R. Lewis........... 169

Pro-Abortion Foundation Aided Evangelical Climate Effort, by

Tom Strode, Baptist Press, March 2006...................... 189

A Selected List of Scientists and Scholars with Relevant

Experience Who Question the Validity of the Theory of

Catastrophic, Human-Caused Global Warming.................200-203

Petition Project, La Jolla, CA................................... 211

Letter from Rabbi Daniel Lapin, June 12, 2007.................... 214

Chart, the Sun is a more likely and dominant driver of the

recorded Arctic temperature variations......................... 216

Principles for Federal Policy on Climate Change.................. 220

Gallup poll, National Post (Canada), Copyright 2007 Financial

Post,

June 2, 2007, Lawrence Solomon................................. 224

Statements:

The Reverend Mark S. Hanson, Presiding Bishop, Evangelical

Lutheran Church in America................................. 244

National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, June 7,

2007......................................................252-299

Brief, Economic and Budget Issue, Congressional Budget Office,

April 25, 2007, by Terry Dinan................................. 300

AN EXAMINATION OF THE VIEWS OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS REGARDING GLOBAL

WARMING

----------

THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2007

https://wallbuilders.com/testimony-david-barton-global-warming/

cites wilie 2x

Testimony of David Barton on Global Warming

Testimony of David Barton in the June 7, 2007^1

U.S. Senate Hearing

on Global Warming in the

Environment and Public Works Committee

My name is David Barton. I represent a group that works to integrate faith with the many practical issues of daily life, and each year I personally speak to hundreds of religious groups from numerous different Christian denominations. I was honored to be named by Time Magazine as one of America’s twenty-five most influential Evangelicals,^2meaning, of course, that I will address this issue from an Evangelical perspective.

Evangelicals are generally characterized by an adherence to what is considered a traditional – that is, a conservative – Biblical theology. While Gallup has placed the number of Evangelicals at 124 million and Barna at much less, most estimates place the number at about 100 million.^3Significantly, statistics demonstrate that the religious groups and denominations in America adhering to conservative theological views (such as Evangelicals) are growing in membership and affiliation,^4whereas those adhering to liberal theological views are declining.^5

In my experience, three factors influence how people of conservative religious faith – especially Evangelicals – approach the issue of man-caused Global Warming. The first is their theological view of man and the environment; the second is the perceived credibility of the scientific debate; and the third is how Evangelicals

prioritize the issue of Global Warming among the other cultural and social issues of concern to them.

Concerning the first factor, a very accurate rendering of Evangelicals’ general theological position on the environment is presented in theCornwall Declaration, ^6prepared by twenty-five conservative Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish theologians. In general, conservative people of faith view the creation in Genesis as moving upward in an ascending spiritual hierarchy, beginning with the creation of the lowest (the inanimate) and moving toward the highest (the animate), with the creation of man and woman being the capstone of God’s work. God placed man and woman over creation, not under it;^7man and woman interacted with nature and the environment, they were not isolated from it.^8As the Cornwall Declaration explains, there is no conservative theological basis for the current belief of environmentalists that “humans [are] principally consumers and polluters rather than producers and stewards,” and that “nature knows best,” or that “the earth, untouched by human hands is the ideal.”^9Religious conservatives believe just the opposite; and as my orthodox Jewish Rabbi friend reminded me just last week, the Scriptures teach conservation, not preservation. Man is the steward of nature and the environment and is definitely to tend and guard it, but it is to serve him, not vice versa.^10From the beginning, God strongly warned against elevating nature and the environment over humans and their Creator.^11This generally summarizes the theology common among Evangelicals on this point.

The second factor influencing conservative religious adherents is the credibility of the scientific debate; and when something is still debated as heavily as is the issue of man-caused Global Warming, and when there is still not a clear consensus, Evangelicals tend to approach that issue with great skepticism. Significantly, in 1992, Al Gore declared: “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”^12Yet a Gallup Poll that same year revealed that “53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe [man-caused] global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed [man-caused] global warming had begun.”^13Clearly, despite Gore’s claims to the contrary, there was much more than “an insignificant fraction of scientists” denying that there was a man-caused Global Warming crisis.

Now, fifteen years later, there still is no consensus. For example, even though 2,500 of the world’s top scientists agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertions about man-caused Global Warming,^14well over 10,000 scientists do not.^15Recent national articles have attempted to draw attention to this fact (see, for example, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Atmospheric Science Professor Richard Lindzen declaring: “There is no ‘Consensus’ on Global Warming”;^16“They

Call This A Consensus?” in the Canada Financial Post^17Yet, when such truthful claims are made, those making them are aggressively attacked by the Global Warming supporters, whose counter-claims are eagerly broadcast by the mainstream media. For example, when NASA head Michael Griffin recently stated that he did not see Global Warming as a “problem we must wrestle with,” >^18outspoken Global Warming promoter James Hansen (called “a grandfather of the

Global Warming theory”^19)

immediately and fiercely attacked the NASA chief, telling national news reporters: “It’s an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement. It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change.” >^20Even though numerous scientists across the globe sided with NASA chief Griffin,^21their voices were unreported. Griffin eventually acknowledged that he wished “he’d stayed out of the debate on climate effects,” noting that “this is an issue which has become far more political than technical.”^22There are many others in the scientific community who are unwilling to openly air their view for fear of being similarly attacked in what truly is a much more of a political than a technical debate.

The lack of consensus in the scientific community is paralleled in the Evangelical community. For example, although more than 100 religious leaders in a highly-publicized announcement signed onto the Evangelical Climate Initiative on Global Warming calling for immediate action on what they believed was man-caused Global Warming,^23more than 1,500 religious leaders signed onto the Cornwall Declaration that reached quite

different conclusions;^24yet that much larger declaration went without media notice.

Many Evangelicals, like many scientists, are skeptical on the issue of man-caused Global Warming; and in the case of Evangelicals, their skepticism is heightened by their memory of

previous politically-driven “scientific” consensuses. For example:

proven to be a complete bust.^25

Global Population Bomb would soon doom the entire planet;^26in the 1980s as population growth continued to increase, they further warned that by the year 2000, economic growth would be destroyed .^27and there would be a worldwide unemployment crisis.^28The world population has almost doubled since those predictions, but the current worldwide unemployment rate is only 6.3 percent, .^29and worldwide economic growth is and has been booming for many years.

that position; some eighty percent do not believe what “science” avows on this issue.^36

Global Warming is the fact that the scientific clamor about radical climate change has been occurring for almost a century. For example, in the 1920s, the newspapers were filled with scientists warning of a fast approaching Glacial Age; but in the 1930s, scientists reversed themselves and instead predicted serious Global Warming.^41But by 1972, Time was citing numerous scientific reports warning of imminent “runaway glaciation,”^42and in 1975,Newsweek reported overwhelming scientific evidence that proved an approaching Ice Age, with scientists warning the government to stockpile food; proposals were even advanced to melt the artic ice cap in an effort to help forestall the oncoming Ice Age.^43In fact, in 1976, the U. S. Government itself even released a study affirming that “the earth is heading into some sort of mini-ice age.”^44Now, however, just a few years later, the warning of an imminent Ice Age has been replaced with the warning of an impending Global Warming disaster. In less than a century, environmental science has completely reversed itself on this issue no less than three times.Yet, in deference to the scientific community, some of the

reversals in their predictions are completely understandable, for the

scientific community was merely responding to the changing temperature trends as measured at the Artic. For example, notice that on the chart below, the temperature did indeed fall throughout the 1920s, rise throughout the 1930s, fall throughout the 1960s, and has been rising since the 1980s. However, is the current temperature rise man-caused as environmental activists and liberals claim, or might it stem from something else? Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon has correlated the last century of temperature changes to solar activity rather than to human activity producing increased carbon-dioxide emissions.^45Those charts therefore suggest that unless Congress can pass legislation controlling the sun, it is unlikely that restricting human activity will have any significant effect in reducing the rising global temperatures.nother indication of the current volatility of the science among Global Warming proponents is the fact that they are reversing themselves even on their own recent claims. For example, just a few years ago scientists predicted that the seas would rise from 20 to 40 feet because of Global Warming,^46with “waves crashing against the steps of the U.S. Capitol” that would “launch boats from the bottom of the Capitol steps”; additionally, one-third of Florida and large parts of Texas were projected to be under water.^47Now, however, the estimates have been revised radically downward to a maximum water rise of anywhere from only a few inches to just a few feet at most.^48Clearly, the science on this issue continues to oscillate; in fact, Senator Inhofe is one of many who have tracked the number of leading scientists who, after announcing their position in support of anthropogenic Global Warming, have reversed that position upon further research. This lack of consensus, coupled with the issuing of so many forceful assertions followed by subsequent repudiations, certainly merits a very cautious and guarded approach to any proposed congressional policy on this subject. The truth is that Evangelicals and people of conservative religious faith are very comfortable with theological teachings that have been proved correct for millennia, but not with science that often reverses its own claims on the same issue. And while science is still debating the causes of Global Warming and trying to decide where the ocean waves will end up, religious conservatives rest in the many promises of the Scriptures. For example, in Genesis 8:21-22, God promised that the natural cycles would continue (“While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease”); and Psalm 104:9 declares: “You set a boundary that they [the waters] may not pass over, so that they will not return to cover the earth”; and in Jeremiah 5:22, God asks: “Will you not tremble at My presence, Who have placed the sand as the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree that it [the sea] cannot pass beyond it? And though its waves toss to and fro, yet they cannot prevail.” To date, neither science nor experience has disproved the promises of those Scriptures. Considering not only the theological beliefs of Evangelicals but also the rapidly-changing science surrounding anthropogenic Global Warming, the skepticism of religious conservatives on this issue is understandable.

The third factor affecting Evangelicals’ approach to man-caused Global Warming is how they rank that issue among other issues of importance to them, for Evangelicals are concerned about many issues, not just one. In fact, polls indicate that it is not conservative Christians who are fixated with single issues such as abortion but rather it is liberals. As a recent poll on Americans’ views toward the judiciary reported, for liberals, “no other issue rivals abortion in importance,” but among Evangelicals, “three-quarters . . .view abortion as very important, [and] nearly as many place great importance on court rulings on the rights of detained terrorist suspects (69%) and whether to permit religious displays on government property (68%).” =^49Very simply, Evangelicals tend to have many issues of importance on their list of concerns, not just one. So where does the issue of man-caused Global Warming rank on that list of concerns?

Current polling shows that Evangelicals are not cohesive about the issue;^60and while 12 percent of the nation overall ranks Global Warming as a top priority issue,^51less than 6 percent of Evangelicals do so.^52However, they do remain the most cohesive group in the nation on many other issues, including their opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and civil unions;^53in teaching teenagers to abstain from sex until marriage;^54and in support of public religious expressions.^55In fact, in this latter area, among Evangelicals, 99.5 percent support public displays of the Ten Commandments; 99 percent support keeping the phrase “In God We Trust” on the nation’s currency; 96 percent support keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance; and 86 percent support teaching Creationism in the public school classroom; additionally, 94 percent oppose allowing the use of profanity on broadcast television.^56It is unlikely that Global Warming will overshadow these other issues at anytime in the near future.

One other issue on which Evangelicals show cohesive support is in global efforts to fight extreme poverty: not only do 90 percent support such efforts,^57but 87 percent directly cite their Evangelical faith as the reason for “helping those less fortunate than [them]selves.”^58Yet, significantly, the poor will suffer most under the current “cap and trade” policy proposals for reducing man-caused Global Warming. (Under “cap & trade” programs, a “cap” is set on the total amount of emissions permitted and companies may then buy and “trade” to receive permits to release emissions). Independent analyses affirm that “cap and trade” programs definitely will be “regressive” – that is, there will definitely be higher consumer costs caused by the programs, and those higher costs will be felt most directly by the poor who least can afford to bear those costs as the price they pay for energy and utilities will soar. (See, for example, the April 27, 2007, report from the Congressional Budget Office^59or the report “A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming” from the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance.^60Given the fact that the current proposals will harshly impact the poor in developing nations and dramatically impede their hopes for a more prosperous life, it is even less likely that Evangelicals will place the theoretical needs of the environment above the actual needs of the poor.

In summary, the three primary factors influencing how Evangelicals respond to the current vigorous debate on Global Warming are: (1) their theological views of man and his relationship to nature and the environment; (2) their skepticism over scientific disputes until a clear and unambiguous consensus has emerged; and (3) their ranking of that issue within the list of the many other issues of concern to them. (Of course, the fact the climate-change agenda is being so aggressively promoted by the same groups which regularly oppose Evangelicals on core issues of faith and values further exacerbates Evangelicals’ suspicion about anthropogenic, or man-caused, Global Warming.) Currently, I do not find any substantial widespread movement in the mainstream Evangelical community to support any policy proposal on Global Warming that would significantly alter the way individuals now live, or that might inflict additional burdens on the poor and potentially confine them to a permanent state of poverty. Based on these points, I urge extreme caution in crafting any legislative policy on this issue.

Endnotes  [many]

https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/the-strange-truth-about-the-pro-slavery-origins-of-christian-nationalism-in-the-united-states/

no lnx

The strange truth about the pro-slavery origins of Christian nationalism in the United States

Written byHistory News Network March 14, 2020

Right around the time the House began its impeachment inquiry, the homepage of the U.S. Department of State featured a talk by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo titled “Being a Christian Leader.” Only a few weeks had passed since Attorney General William Barr told students at Notre Dame Law School that “secularists” are to blame for “moral chaos” and “immense suffering, wreckage, and misery,” and that “Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.” Then, at a January campaign rally at a Miami megachurch, President Donald Trump told the largely evangelical crowd that God is “on our side.”

Most of us have a sense that this kind of religious-nationalist rhetoric and behavior got its start with the revolution that Reagan brought to power. A decisive moment was in August 1980, at the Reunion Arena in Dallas, Texas, when Reagan addressed 15,000 thousand pastors and religious activists. “I know that you can’t endorse me,” but “I want you to know that I endorse you and what you are doing,” he said, to wild applause.

Reagan’s speech at the Reunion Arena marked a sea change in the role of conservative religion in American politics. But some of those who had helped organize the event were concerned that the one individual who deserved the most credit for the transformation of the interface of politics and religion was not on the podium. “We agreed that it was unfortunate that Rousas Rushdoonywas not speaking,” radical theologian Gary North later observed, recalling an exchange with Robert Billings, a Reagan campaign staffer who had previously served as executive director of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority organization. Billings responded, “If it weren’t for his books none of us would be here.”  “Nobody in the audience understands that,” North countered. “True, but we do,” Billings reportedly replied.

Howard Phillips, a former Nixon administration aide who was also present at the Reunion Arena, called Rushdoony the “most influential man of the 21st century.” As he confided to author and religious studies professor Julie Ingersoll in 2007, “The whole Christian conservative political movement had its genesis in Rush.”

Rousas John Rushdoony was born in 1916 to Armenian immigrants who had narrowly escaped the genocide, in which as many as 1.5 million Armenians were murdered by Turks of the Ottoman Empire. Rushdoony’s father, who founded the Armenian Martyrs Presbyterian Church in Kingsburg, California, ministered to a community of fellow Armenian refugees, who agonized and grieved as letters from relatives back home came to a standstill. “In Armenia, there was no neutral ground between Islam and Christianity,” Rushdoony wrote in 1997. “And I came to realize there is no neutral ground anywhere.”

Rushdoony left his family home and made his way to college at the University of California, Berkeley. He did not fit in.Advised to read the classics, Rushdoony later called this “the ugliest experience of my life.”  He pronounced the works of Shakespeare, Homer and the rest of the canon “classics of degenerate cultures. What they offer at their best is evil.”

Rushdoony emerged from Berkeley with all the distinctive features of his intellectual persona in place: a resolutely binary form of thought that classified all things into one of two absolutes; a craving for order; and a loathing of the secular world.

Rushdoony began to advocate for a return to “biblical law” in America. The Bible, Rushdoony said, commands Christians to exercise dominion over the earth and all its inhabitants. Women are destined by God to be subordinate to men; men are destined to be ruled by a spiritual aristocracy of right-thinking Christian leaders, and public education is a threat to civilization for it promotes a “secular world-view.” In over thirty books and publications, including The Messianic Character of American Education and The Institutes of Biblical Law – often hailed as his magnum opus and recommended as one of the Choice Evangelical Books of 1973 by evangelical flagship journal Christianity Today — Rushdoony laid it all out in a program he called Christian Reconstruction.

There is little mystery about the historical sources from which Rushdoony drew his own inspiration. He laid out all the details in his works. Setting aside the hardline Dutch Reformed theologians who supplied the backbone of his thought,Rushdoony drew on two traditions that would prove essential in understanding the genesis of today’s Christian nationalist movement. The first was the proslavery theology of America’s antebellum preachers. The second was the economic libertarianism that took root in reaction to the New Deal.

Among apologists for Christian nationalism today, the favored myth is that the movement represents an extension of the abolitionism of the nineteenth century and perhaps of the civil rights movement of the twentieth century, too. Many antiabortion activists self-consciously refer to themselves as the new abolitionists. Mainstream conservatives who lament that the evangelicals who form Trump’s most fervent supporters have “lost their way” suggest that they have betrayed their roots in the movements that fought for the abolition of slavery and the end of discrimination.But the truth is that today’s Christian nationalism did not emerge out of the movement that opposed such rigid hierarchies. It came from the one that endorsed them.

Rushdoony understood this well. Not long after escaping the horror of Berkeley, he took an interest in the work of Robert Lewis Dabney, a defender of slavery before the Civil War and who also supported patriarchy and the American form of apartheid after the war.

Rushdoony reprinted and disseminated some of Dabney’s works through his Vallecito, California-based Chalcedon Foundation, as well as through his publishing company, Ross House Books. He found himself agreeing with Dabney that the Union victory was a defeat for Christian orthodoxy. In Rushdoony’s mind, Dabney’s great adversaries, the abolitionists, were the archetypes of the anti-Christian rebels – liberals, communists, secularists, and advocates of women’s rights – who continued to wreak havoc on the modern world. As Rushdoony’s fellow Reconstructionist C. Gregg Singer put it, proslavery theologians including Dabney, Thornwell and their contemporaries “properly read abolitionism as a revolt against the biblical conception of society and a revolt against divine sovereignty in human affairs.” Rushdoony himself concluded, “Abolitionist leaders showed more hate than love on the whole.” The defeat of the orthodox side in the Civil War, Rushdoony asserted, paved the way for the rise of an unorthodox Social Gospel.

Rushdoony’s admiration for southern religious orthodoxy was such that he adopted a forgiving attitude toward certain forms of slavery. In books such as Politics of Guilt and Pity and The Institutes of Biblical Law, which is essentially an 890-page disquisition on “the heresy of democracy” and the first of a three-volume series under the same title, he makes the case that “the move from Africa to America was a vast increase of freedom for the Negro, materially and spiritually as well as personally.”

“Some people are by nature slaves and will always be so,” Rushdoony muses, and the law requires that a slave “recognize his position and accept it with grace.”

One of Dabney’s pet peeves was the provision of public education to Black children, whom he referred to as “the brats of black paupers,”which required unjust (in his view) taxation of “oppressed” “white bretheren.” Rushdoony sympathized with Dabney’s point of view on public education, and here began to fuse his views with a small-government ideology. “State supported and controlled education is theft,” he wrote, and called the claim of ownership to the lives of citizens by a “humanist state” slavery, too.

Rushdoony did not agitate for the literal enslavement of Black Americans in his time. But his fascination with proslavery theology was no passing fancy. The idea that the United States is a Redeemer Nation, chosen by God; that it is tasked with becoming an orthodox Christian republic in which women are subordinate to men, education is in the hands of conservative Christians, and no one pays taxes to support Black people; that at some point in the past the nation deviated horribly from its mission and fell under the control of atheist, communist, and/or liberal elites—the stuff of proslavery theology was the life of Rushdoony’s political thought.

Rushdoony soon found an even greater source of inspiration in the libertarian economic thinkers who emerged to beat back the New Deal. He was very much taken with figures like James W. Fifield as well as members of the Austrian school of economics, and began to churn out works arguing that the modern welfare state was “organized larceny” and “capitalism is supremely a product of Christianity.”

In this Christian-libertarian vision, Rushdoony saw the foundation for a thoroughly religious – or better, theocratic – understanding of the American republic. In Rushdoony’s telling, it was not the intention of America’s founders to establish a nonsectarian representative democracy. The First Amendment, he argues, aimed to establish freedom “not from religion but for religion.” “The Constitution was designed to perpetuate a Christian order,” he wrote.

The idea that the United States is a “Christian nation” – not just in the sense that its population was originally mostly Christian but that it was intended to serve as part of a Christian world order – was Rushdoony’s central contribution to the religious right.

Rushdoony had many prominent admirers, among them evangelical leader D. James Kennedy, whose ministry received millions of dollars in donations from the DeVos family. Kennedy popularized Rushdoony’s ideas through multiple sermons and publications, exhorting attendees at a 2005 conference organized by his ministry to “exercise godly dominion” over “every aspect and institution of human society.” The ultraconservative Catholic leader Richard John Neuhaus, who worked to broker a conservative evangelical and conservative Catholic alliance, pointed out that Rushdoony’s “theonomy,” or the idea of a social and political order rooted in “biblical law,” has “insinuated itself in circles where people would be not at all comfortable to think of themselves as theonomists.” He also attested, in 1990, to “increasing encounters with ideas clearly derived from Christian Reconstructionistm even among conservatives in the mainline/oldline churches.”

Today, the ideas of Rushdoony and his fellow Reconstructionists have penetrated into evangelical and conservative Catholic circles that are, quite often, unaware of their original sources. “Though we hide their books under the bed, we read them just the same,” as one observer put it to Michael J. McVicar, author of Christian Reconstruction: R.J. Rushdoony and the American Religious Conservatism.To be clear, the Christian right is large and diverse in its specific theologies.

Many of its representatives know very little about R.J. Rushdoony and others take pains to distance themselves from him. Some of his extreme positions, such as the idea that homosexuals, blasphemers and adulterers are all worthy of the death penalty, have been loudly repudiated by conservative leaders. Yet it is difficult to understand the ideological origins and structure of Christian nationalism in America today without taking into account Rushdoony’s ideas.

Rushdoony’s work is touted today by some of the leading personalities and policy groups on the Christian right. Perhaps the most telling example comes fromDavid Barton,whose efforts to reframe our constitutional republic as a Christian nationalist enterprise are at the center of so many of the movement’s cultural and legislative initiatives. Though perhaps not in a formal sense a Reconstructionist, Barton dances around many of Rushdoony’s defining ideas, even on the question of slavery.

In a paper titled “The Bible, Slavery, and America’s Founders,” posted on the WallBuilders website, Barton cites Rushdoony extensively, and argues that “in light of the Scriptures, we cannot say that slavery, in a broad and general sense, is sin. But this brief look at the Biblical slave laws does reveal how fallen man’s example of slavery has violated God’s laws.”

Where Barton strikes out on his own, it is to take a swipe at modern, liberal government as a form of slavery,a gesture that Rushdoony surely would have endorsed. “Since sinful man tends to live in bondage, different forms of slavery have replaced the more obvious system of past centuries,” Barton explains. “The state has assumed the role of master for many, providing aid and assistance, and with it more and more control, to those unable to protect themselves.” In a 2018 blog post, Watchmen on the Wall, the Family Research Council’s alliance of an estimated 25,000 pastors, praised Rushdoony as a “powerful advocate for the Christian and homeschool movements across America” who “challenged Christian leaders of his day to stand on biblical truth in the public square.” Rushdoony is a foundational thinker whose ideas continue to speak, long after he has been silenced.

For a long time now, critics have viewed America’s religious right as a social or cultural movement. They assume that it represents a reaction to modern, secular culture, and that it speaks for a large mass of disaffected conservative evangelicals and others who are preoccupied with issues of concern to the family. But that simplistic interpretation is plausible only for those who do not actually listen to what its leaders have to say or trace its ideas to their primary sources. Christian nationalism today is a political movement, and its primary goal is power. Its ultimate aim is not just to win elections but to replace our modern constitutional Republic with a “biblical” order that derives its legitimacy not from the people but from God and the Bible – or, at least, the God and the Bible that men like Rushdoony claimed to know.

Katherine Stewart is an author and journalist. Her newly published book is The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism (Bloomsbury, March 3, 2020).

Follow Katherine Stewart on Twitter: @kathsstewart.

This article was originally published at History News Network

==

> Barton Once Again Credits White People for Ending Slavery

February 21, 2020 10:47 am

https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/project-blitz-is-producing-model-legislation-for-christian-nationalists

no lnx

Project Blitz is producing model legislation for Christian Nationalists

Written by Nancy LeTourneau / Washington Monthly January 24, 2020

You may have heard about legislation passed recently in Tennessee and other states which allows adoption agencies to discriminate against gay couples or families with whom they have religious objections. The fact that bills like that are being considered and passed by red states is no coincidence. They are the product of an organized effort being led by Project Blitz.

The first thing to know about Project Blitz is that it was launched in 2015 by the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, the National Legal Foundation, and Wallbuilders. The latter is an organization founded by David Barton, the Republican operative and discredited historian who rejects the separation of church and state, claiming that the United States was founded as a Christian nation.

This project seems to have maintained a low profile until Fred Clarkson, who has been studying the Christian right for decades, came across their 116-page manual of model legislation in early 2018. As Clarkson explains, Project Blitz is to Christian nationalists what the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was to big business.

Many of the bills on [the Christian right] agenda are making news; some have passed key legislative committees or whole state legislative chambers, and some have already been signed into law. But what reporters, activists, and most legislators don’t realize is that many of these bills draw from an unusual package of 20 model bills included in a report assembled by a coalition of Christian Right groups for an initiative they call “Project Blitz.”

The bills are seemingly unrelated and range widely in content—from requiring public schools to display the national motto, “In God We Trust” (IGWT); to legalizing discrimination against LGBTQ people; to religious exemptions regarding women’s reproductive health. The model bills, the legislative strategy and the talking points reflect the theocratic vision that’s animated a meaningful portion of the Christian Right for some time. In the context of Project Blitz’s 116-page playbook, however, they also reveal a sophisticated level of coordination and strategizing that echoes the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which infamously networks probusiness state legislators, drafts sample legislation, and shares legislative ideas and strategies.

According to an analysis by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, state legislatures considered 74 bills that echoed model legislation from the Project Blitz handbook in 2018.

The strategy for this effort is built on dividing model legislation into three categories, depending on how much opposition each bill is expected to receive.

The first category, intended to appear the most innocuous, included bills to promote “In God We Trust” license plates (now offered in at least 20 states) and the display of the “In God We Trust” motto in public schools. (Some version of the display legislation has passed in at least 10 states.) The next batch of bills centered on emphasizing “Christian heritage” and “the importance of the Bible in history” to promote the notion that the U.S. is a Christian nation. The third category, which organizers noted might be “the most hotly contested,” sought to empower licensed professionals to deny health care and other services based on religious beliefs and to enable adoption agencies to reject adoptive families on religious grounds. (At least 10 states have laws that allow discrimination by child welfare agencies, most of which have been passed since Project Blitz launched in 2015.)

That is a veritable “slippery slope” approach to undermining the separation of church and state. Most people wouldn’t find it terribly objectionable to display the national motto in public schools—even though it wasn’t adopted until 1956 in response to the “red scare” of “godless communism.” But doing so opens the door to promoting religion in public institutions and paving the way for legislation in the second category.

Of course, the ultimate aim of these efforts is to arrive at legislation in the third category. Knowing that the courts will reject arguments based on “biblical principles,” Project Blitz advises a strategy that is even more offensive.

To this end, they claim that their model public policy resolutions “rely heavily on the research that demonstrates the deleterious physical and mental health effects of same-sex intercourse and gender identity ‘transformation’.”… In support of this, Project Blitz offers data they suggest shows that LGBTQ people tend to be diseased, dysfunctional or both—and that they pose a threat to children and to society.

Given that any so-called “data” they present is bogus, we need to name that kind of thing for what it is: unadulterated homophobia.

As we saw with ALEC, the best disinfectant against an initiative like this is to shine a spotlight on what is happening. Unfortunately, there still 12 states with GOP trifectas—where the Republicans control both houses of the legislature and the governorship. That is where this initiative is likely to be the most effective.

OMG

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2019/08/23/convention-states-fires-up-base-for-push-to-rewrite-u-s-constitution

david a cmd

Convention of States Action (COS) kicked off its first “Leadership Summit” in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia today. COS, a project of Mark Meckler and Eric O’Keefe’s Citizens for Self-Governance, claims that “hundreds” of activists, state directors, and coordinators from all 50 states will attend to get inspired and learn strategies for passing COS resolutions in the states calling for a constitutional convention to rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

Fifteen states have passed the group’s applications so far, with 17 more states considering the resolution this year, according to COS. Wisconsin recently introduced a COS resolution, which would bump the number up to 18.

A constitutional convention has never been held since the Constitution was adopted, and COS will need 34 states to file applications in order for it to occur. If that happens, COS plans to move an array of sweeping amendments to redefine key parts of the Constitution and radically weaken the federal government.

COS has ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the National Rifle Association, the right-wing militia group Three Percenters, and the Christian nationalist group WallBuilders.

More than 200 civil rights and public interest groups, including the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), signed a letter last year denouncing such constitutional convention calls as “a threat to every American’s constitutional rights and civil liberties.”

Right-Wing Extremists to Speak

Fox News anchor Pete Hegseth, from Trump’s beloved Fox & Friends, addressed the crowd this morning, telling them that the Left hates the Constitution, the founding fathers understood that the word of “Jesus Christ our savior” is the guiding force for our country, and that there “is no other freedom-loving bastion in the world that values the individual with God-endowed rights.”

And, referencing the Three Percenters likely in attendance, Hegseth said, “it has always been the one percent or two percent or three percent of people that get it, that are willing to buck the comfiness of their moment and the established norms that everyone is comfortable with, willing to be defiant, willing to stand — be accused of being radical about things that are not radical at all.”

Recently, Hegseth has made some radical comments himself, saying that Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (MI-D) has a “Hamas agenda,” implying that she works with a U.S. designated terrorist organization.

Hegseth has also publicly defended Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’s brother Erik Prince’s Blackwater contractors, who were convicted of murdering Iraqi citizens, and has called climate change a “religion” that Democrats use to “control” people.

David Barton warmed up the crowd with a history lecture on the Constitution’s basis in fixed moral standards based on natural law and scripture, and drew applause with his claim that the federal government has “emasculated the states.”

A Christian nationalist with strong anti-LGBT views. Barton once said,

“There’s a passage that I love in Romans 1. … [I]t talks about homosexuality and it says that they will receive in their bodies the penalties of their behavior. … The Bible [is] right every time … and that’s why AIDS has been something they haven’t discovered a cure for or a vaccine for. … And that goes to what God says, ‘Hey you’re going to bear in your body the consequences of this homosexual behavior.'”

Barton founded the group WallBuilders, which has worked with Focus on the Family and the Family Policy Alliance to influence judicial elections and selection rules in states across the country, the Center for Media and Democracy detailed.

WallBuilders also works with the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation to push out Christian-Right model legislation in the mold of ALEC to state lawmakers under the name Project Blitz.

Also in line to speak at the Summit is one of the NRA’s top attorneys, Charles Cooper. Cooper will speak on, “The Real Threat to Gun Rights.” In an email to COS activists, Cooper is quoted as saying:

“The real threat to our constitutional rights today is posed not by an Article V Convention of States, but by an out-of-control federal government, exercising powers that it does not have and abusing powers that it does.”

COS materials in recent years have argued that a constitutional convention could be used to rewrite the Second Amendment in order to make it Supreme-Court-proof.

Others on the agenda to speak include founding board member Eric O’Keefe, former professor Rob Natelson, former U.S. Senator and COS Senior Advisor Tom Coburn, and the right-wing author of Liberty Amendments Mark Levin.

But the stars of the summit are likely to be the actors COS will have play the founding fathers Patrick Henry, James Madison, and George Washington.

Stay tuned to ExposedbyCMD.org for more on the right-wing’s effort to rewrite the Constitution.

==

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/the-constitution-gives-david-barton-more-protection-than-the-rest-of-you/

Earlier this month, Religious Right pseudo-historian David Barton asserted on his “WallBuilders Live” radio program that “religious folks” are entitled to “more protection” under the First Amendment than everyone else.

Barton was praising recent Supreme Court rulings having to do with the issues of religious liberty and expression, such as the Bladensburg cross case, and hailed the Court for supposedly recognizing that the Founding Father intended for religious citizens to be granted “added, special protection” under the Constitution … three times more protection, to be exact.

“Secular speech is protected by the Constitution,” Barton said, “but religious speech has several protections in the First Amendment.”

Barton said that while everyone has a right to free speech, religious speech and expression are “protected by three clauses,” which means that his speech is entitled to “more protection, if you will, than just normal, secular speech.”

He insisted that the idea that secular speech or expression should receive the same protections as religious speech or expression is unconstitutional because “that’s not what the First Amendment gave me.”

“It gave me more protection because I get my speech but if it’s religious, I get it twice, and if it is religious with others, I get it three times,” Barton claimed. “In addition to free speech, there is also free exercise of religion, which often involves free speech. For me to exercise my faith means I will speak about it, I will live it out, I will activate it, I will do it. And, by the way, I have the right to assembly, so I can get together with other believers and we can act out our faith … While religious folks have at least three different forms of protection under the First Amendment for their speech, secular folks have their protections as well for speech and assembly, but they just don’t have the same religious motivations.”

When Barton’s son, Tim, tried to clarify that all citizens “have the exact same protections that a religious person does,” Barton disputed that assessment.

“You actually get added protection because it singles out your religious expression,” he said, “That’s a level of protection the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that religious folks had, so they singled that out to give, if you will, added protection if you’re a religious folk … The First Amendment says, ‘Hey, religion is so vitally important that you get added, special protection.’”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/david-barton-the-second-amendment-protects-your-right-to-own-a-tank

David Barton: The Second Amendment Protects Your Right to Own a Tank

By Kyle Mantyla | July 3, 2019 2:07 pm

Right-wing “comedian” Steven Crowder interviewed Religious Right pseudo-historian David Barton for a masterclass” on the meaning of the Second Amendment, during which Barton insisted that the Second Amendment grants average citizens the right to own tanks or any other weapon of war.

Barton has repeatedly insisted that the Founding Fathers intended for there to be no limits whatsoever on the Second Amendment and that citizens are therefore entitled to own any weapon they might need to fight off a foreign invasion or even their own government, including fighter jets, and he repeated this claim to Crowder.

“The deal was you have a right to defend yourself,”Barton said. “So, the biggest weapon in that day would have been a cannon—hand’s down, a cannon. You’re allowed, as a citizen, to own cannons.”

“Whatever the government had, you could have,” he added, “because we might have to take on the government some day. We hope that never happens, but in case it does, we defend ourselves from anything that comes after us; whether it’s from foreign or domestic, whether it’s a gang, whether it’s a government, whether it’s a crazy uncle, we don’t care. So, for them, there was no limitation on what you could use or how you could defend yourself.”

“They were OK with cannons and that would be our equivalent of high-capacity magazines or machine guns,” Barton insisted, “or it could be equivalent to a tank.”

==

wow th nelson

https://mytnnews.com/blog/2012/08/10/thomas-nelson-drops-jefferson-lies-book-over-historical-errors/

Nashville-based Thomas Nelson Publishers has canceled a controversial best-seller by David Barton, an influential evangelical leader, because the book contains historical errors.

Barton’s book, “The Jefferson Lies,” claims to expose liberal myths about Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and the nation’s third president.

But a group of conservative scholars says Barton’s take on Jefferson is factually untrue. And a group of ministers from Cincinnati called on Nelson to cancel the book.

Casey Francis Harrell, director of corporate communications for Thomas Nelson, said the publisher had gotten several complaints about the book and found enough errors to cancel it.

“Because of these deficiencies, we decided that it was in the best interest of our readers to cease its publication and distribution,” Harrell said.

Barton stands by his book and said Nelson never mentioned any concerns about the book, which was published in April and made the New York Times best-seller list.

“All I got was an email saying it was canceled,” he said. “It was a complete surprise.”

The book is still available for sale at Amazon. com and other retailers. But Harrell said the publisher has stopped any new shipments and is recalling the book from retailers. Online retailers have been asked to stop selling the e-book version.

‘Extremely rare’

Harrell said that to her knowledge Thomas Nelson has never before canceled publication of a New York Times best-seller.

“We carefully edit every book we publish, and we rely on the expertise of our authors concerning their subjects,” she said. “It is extremely rare that the company would have to withdraw a book from the market based on concerns about its content.”

The publisher hasn’t decided what to do with the recalled books.

Barton is president of WallBuilders, an Aledo, Texas-based conservative group that says it wants to reclaim America’s forgotten Christian history.

An early press release for the book, put out by Thomas Nelson in May, portrayed Barton as battling revisionist history to tell Jefferson’s true story.

“History books routinely teach that Jefferson was an anti-Christian secularist, rewriting the Bible to his liking, fathering a child with one of his slaves, and little more than another racist, bigoted colonist — but none of those claims are actually true,” the press release claimed.

Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College in Grove City, Pa., said it’s Barton who actually twisted the facts.

Throckmorton is co-author of “Getting Jefferson Right,” a book that criticizes Barton. It was released as an e-book in May and then later in paperback.

Throckmorton said he’d been concerned about Barton’s version of American history for several years. He and his co-author looked at Barton’s sources, “and we found they didn’t support what he wrote,” he said.

For example, Barton claims Jefferson was an investor in an early American printing of the Bible, when Throckmorton says Jefferson only bought one copy.

Barton wrote that Virginia laws banned Jefferson from freeing the more than 200 slaves he owned.

“That’s not true,” Throckmorton said. “Jefferson freed two slaves, one in 1794 and one in 1796. So you can’t say he didn’t free slaves, because he did free two slaves.”

Barton said Throckmorton is wrong. He said he has documents to back up all the claims in his book.

For example, he said the laws in Jefferson’s time fined owners who freed slaves, and Jefferson would have freed his slaves if he could have. He said Throckmorton doesn’t understand how complex the laws about freeing slaves were.

Slavery claim sparks protest

The claim about slavery caused a group of ministers from several Cincinnati churches to call for Thomas Nelson to drop the book.

“‘The Jefferson Lies’ glosses over Jefferson’s real record on slaveholding, and minimizes Jefferson’s racist views,” said the Rev. Damon Lynch of New Jerusalem Baptist Church, an African-American congregation in Cincinnati.

Lynch said he and other ministers from diverse backgrounds had contacted Nelson about their concerns. He said that if the book hadn’t been canceled, he would have boycotted Nelson.

“We love Thomas Nelson,” he said. “My library is filled with Thomas Nelson books, and I didn’t want to stop doing business with them.”

Throckmorton is not Barton’s only conservative critic.

World Magazine, run by former George W. Bush adviser Marvin Olasky, recently published an online news story about conservative historians who also think Barton made errors.

One was Glenn Moots, professor of political science at Northwood University in Michigan. He said Barton was well-intentioned but should have been more careful to get the details right.

“It doesn’t help any of us if the story isn’t told in an accurate manner,” he said.

Barton said he met with a different group of scholars recently and they approved of his work.

“I can’t tell you how many Ph.D.s were in the room,” he said. He would not give names, saying the scholars hadn’t given permission for him to do so.

He also said other publishers had made offers on his book and he hopes to sign a new contract soon.

The book’s cancellation disappointed Barton’s local fans. He was in Nashville in March to speak to about 250 people at a meeting of the 912 Project.

Janice Johnson said she’s heard Barton speak several times and bought an audio copy of “The Jefferson Lies.” She hopes the controversy won’t undermine his credibility.

“He’s usually so rock solid on history,” she said

Written by
Bob Smietana
The Tennessean

==

NEW 419

https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/the-power-of-lies-inside-the-christian-rights-plan-to-remodel-the-us/

On April 3, USA Today published an array of stories under the banner, “Copy, Paste, Legislate,” exploring the political impact of model bills on state-level legislation — more than 10,000 bills from 2010 to 2018 — based on a two-year joint investigation with the Arizona Republic and the Center for Public Integrity. The lead story headline said it all: “You elected them to write new laws. They’re letting corporations do it instead.”

OK, it wasn’t quite all. While corporate influence was the strongest, figures revealed that conservative groups weren’t far behind: There were 4,301 bills from industry and 4,012 from conservative groups, far more than the 1,602 from liberal groups or the 248 classified as “other.” The hidden origins of these bills often hides their true intent. The most notorious such group, the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, for instance combines business interests with movement conservatives.

But within the fold of “conservative groups” there’s a whole other story to be told about the organizing of extremist religious conservatives, whose political mobilization, as I’ve noted in the past, played a crucial role in electing Donald Trump. Indeed, just the day before “Copy, Past, Legislate” was published, the Texas Senate passed SB-17, a bill that would protect anti-LGBTQ discrimination by all licensed professionals who claim to act on a “sincerely held religious belief.”

“It’s time for Americans to wake up to the harsh reality that the religious right, fueled by their fear of loss of power from the changing demographics in our country and their support from the Trump administration, is emboldened and aggressively pursuing all means possible to maintain white Christian power in America,” Rachel Laser, the president of Americans United For Separation of Church and State, told Salon. “Project Blitz, for example, has already introduced over 50 bills in at least 23 states this year alone,” she added.

One spin-off story published in the Nashville Tennessean dealt specifically with an anti-LGTBQ adoption model bill. (Simultaneously, NBC reported such bills were “’snowballing’ in state legislatures.”) The Tennessee bill came from Project Blitz, which was described as “a legislative effort with the stated aim to ‘bring back God to America.’” But as Salon has reported in the past, Project Blitz is much more sinister than that.

Frederick Clarkson, senior research analyst at Political Research Associates, was the first to discover its three-tier playbook, produced by a coalition of right-wing activists he’d long been following, including Texas Republican activist and pseudo-historian David Barton, whose book, “Jefferson Lies,” which tried to remake Thomas Jefferson as an evangelical hero, was canceled by its publisher under withering criticism from conservative and evangelical scholars (followup here).

“The authors of the Project Blitz playbook are savvy purveyors of dominionism,” Clarkson told Salon at the time. “They are in it for the long haul and try not to say things that sound too alarming. ​But they live an immanent theocratic vision.” Not all their allies would go all the way with them, Clarkson told me, but the theocratic end they envision is chillingly akin to “The Handmaid’s Tale” — reason enough to warrant far more attention than they’ve gotten so far.

The first tier of Project Blitz aims at importing the Christian nationalist worldview into public schools and other aspects of the public sphere, thesecond tier aims at making government increasingly a partner in “Christianizing” America,and the third tier contains three types of proposed laws that “protect” religious beliefs and practices specifically intended to benefit bigotry.

“Although category three is divided in three parts, you could also see it as having two main underlying intentions,” Clarkson explained. “First to denigrate the LGBTQ community, and second to defend and advance the right to discriminate. This is one way that the agenda of theocratic dominionism is reframed as protecting the right of theocrats to discriminate against those deemed second-class, at best. As the late theocratic theologian R.J. Rushdoony said, ‘Only the right have rights.'”

The broader findings revealed in “Copy, Paste, Legislate” help to expand our understanding by highlighting three significant patterns shared in various ways with Project Blitz, which are used to advance their theocratic agenda, often hiding it in plain sight:

1) Misleading Language That Inverts Common SenseProject Blitz does this repeatedly with the most fundamental terms: “religious freedom,” “First Amendment,” and so on. In doing so, it mirrors what corporations and insurance companies did with “transparency” in the “Asbestos Transparency Act,” switching the roles of victims and perpetrators, casting themselves as “victims of litigation filed by people harmed by asbestos,” and requiring mesothelioma victims to seek money from an asbestos trust — a lengthy process many won’t live long enough to benefit from.  How’s that for “transparency”?

2) Goalpost Moving The entire Project Blitz concept is premised on moving the goalposts. It’s built into the very structure of its three-tiered playbook, as well as the logic of the supporting arguments. A similar strategy was involved in promoting vouchers in Arizona, beginning with a voucher for students with disabilities, then following up with bill after bill offering vouchers to more and more students, eventually all of them, with no guarantee protecting the first group of recipients from getting lost in the process.

==

ref wow th nelson

https://mytnnews.com/blog/2012/08/10/thomas-nelson-drops-jefferson-lies-book-over-historical-errors/

==

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/christian-nationalists-dominionists-set-their-sights-on-california/

The American Renewal Project, led by Christian nationalist David Lane,is holding all-expenses-paid events for pastors and their wives “up and down the state” of California during the election season, and is currently inviting pastors to attend an event being held in San Diego on September 13 and 14 and one in Costa Mesa in Orange County on September 17 and 18.

Dominionist leader Che Ahn is among the Religious Right figures who have recorded videos urging California pastors to attend Lane’s events. From Che Ahn’s video, in which he says he is sending pastors in his network to both southern California events.

The Lord has given me a strategy to really turn California around. And so we’re trying to rally pastors who would then inform their congregation, to be a transforming agent in California, to make a difference, in this upcoming midterm election but all elections down the road.

Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills is also promoting the events. His video assures pastors that they and their wives can attend for free because the event is “purely brought to you by a host of people who care about California, believers, and they believe in the pastor in the pulpit.” More from Hibbs:

California’s politicians cannot save the state, but you and I can—from the tyrannythat is being legislated against our children and against our biblical freedoms right here in the state of California. The hour has fallen to us, pastors, to stand up, and to do what God has called us to do. And that is to be watchmen on the wall as pastors, blowing the trump of warning. But we’re not alone.

Lane, who declared in 2013 that “Christians must be retrained to war for the Soul of America,” has been organizing events since the mid-1990s to encourage conservative evangelical pastors to preach more about politics, to get their congregants more politically engaged, and to run for office.Lane’s “pastors and pews” events have functioned as matchmakers between right-wing politicians and tens of thousands of pastors; and his Issachar trainings have encouraged pastors to run for office themselves.

Lane preaches that the U.S. has a divine mission to glorify God and advance the Christian faith, and he has called the separation of church and state a “lie” and a “fabricated whopper” designed to stop “Christian America—the moral majority—from imposing moral government on pagan public schools, pagan higher learning and pagan media.” He has complained that there was “not a peep from the Christian Church” in response to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, when the church “should have initiated riots, revolution, and repentance.”

Among the scheduled speakers for the California events are American Renewal Project regulars:

Many of the same speakers took part in a David Lane-sponsored event that then-candidate Donald Trump attended in Orlando in August 2016.

In addition to Ahn and Hibbs, videos promoting the California Renewal Project have been cut by Graves and several other Religious Right leaders, including Christian-nation “historian” David Barton; pastor and anti-gay activist Jim Garlow, who led the effort to get churches involved in promoting the anti-marriage-equality Prop 8; pastor Jack Hibbs, who alsopushed Prop 8 and soughtunsuccessfully to push a referendum against SB 48, legislation regarding the inclusion of LGBT and disabled figures in history. A Spanish-language version features Pastor Netz Gomez.

Below are some excerpts from videos promoting the upcoming California Renewal Project events.

Jim Garlow:

We all know that politicians are not going to save America. Wall Street’s not going to save America. Even our military might will not save America. If America is to be saved, biblical values must be returned and embraced in the public square…The future of California is at stake, and you can make a difference.

David Barton:

If California is to be saved, and if its current direction reversed, biblical values must be re-embraced in the public square, and that’s where we as Christian leaders can play a key role.

Roy McCoy, pastor of Calvary Chapel Thousand Oaks and mayor pro tem of the city, makes a reference to Seven Mountains dominionism in his video:

We’ve made a difference in our own community because we’ve stepped into the public square. In this cultural mountain of influence, we want other pastors to understand we can make a difference in this state.

Ken Graves, Calvary Chapel in Central Maine, appears on several videos, which include these snippets:

My brothers, in the state of California, you’re aware that your state is in great crisis. That crisis is not a political problem, it’s a spiritual, moral problem. You know that. But it does have components that must be addressed by the clear preaching of the word of God. A new etiquette has developed that is not biblical, an etiquette that says something about separation of church and state. Dear brothers, there isn’t anything that the word of God has ever encouraged us to not speak about, or to. We have a commission from God and I encourage you to come and be refreshed at the California Renewal Project as a preacher of God’s word …

California Renewal Project has one focus, and that is to do something about biblical ignorance. Biblical illiteracy is the root of the problem. … Political problems are the fruit of total ignorance. It is ignorance and unbelief that causes people to do down the roads that they go. It’s what causes nations, states, to go in the direction that they go …

Lane’s American Renewal Project has been funded in part by Texas fracking billionaire Dan Wilks, whose Heavenly Father’s Foundation has funneled big contributions to Lane through the American Family Association. The Thirteen Foundation, funded by Dan’s brother Farris Wilks, has also made major contributions to the AFA as well as other Religious Right groups.

Tags: Bill FedererChe AhnDavid BartonDavid BrodyDavid LaneDennis PragerKen GravesRob McCoyChristian NationChurch-StateDominionismElection 2018American Renewal ProjectCalifornia Renewal Project

==

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/here-are-5-craziest-christian-fundamentalist-sects-cults-or-movements-feel-0

5  of the Craziest Christian Fundamentalist Sects, Cults or Movements That Feel Empowered in the Trump Era

Extremist groups are coming out of the woodwork.

By Alex Henderson / AlterNet July 19, 2018, 8:30 AM GMT

Evangelist Frank Amedia, leader of POTUS Shield

Photo Credit: The Jim Bakker Show

President Donald Trump—despite his alleged sexual activity with porn star Stormy Daniels, two divorces, lack of Biblical knowledge and a reputation for having a very foul mouth at times—has, ironically, become an icon of the Christian Right in the United States. His predecessor at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Barack Obama, actually has a long history of going to church and clearly possesses a greater knowledge of the Bible. Regardless, the Christian Right considers Obama an enemy and Trump a staunch ally—and with Trump in office, extremist groups are coming out of the woodwork more and more.

Here are some of the craziest far-right sects, organizations or Christian fundamentalist movements that are feeling empowered in the Trump era.

  1. POTUS Shield

Led by television evangelist Frank Amedia, POTUS Shield is a new organization of far-right Christian fundamentalists that describes itself as “warriors, worshippers and watchmen”—and the one they are watching out for, through prayer, is Trump (POTUS stands for “President of the United States). Amedia insists that before Trump’s inauguration, God paid him a visit in the middle of the night and asked him to help form a protective shield of prayer around Trump—who the group believes was sent by God to promote a Christian fundamentalist takeover of government. Others active in POTUS Shield include Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, and Lou Engle (known for his large anti-abortion, anti-gay and pro-Republican prayer rallies).

  1. People of Praise

After Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court, one of the people on Trump’s “short list” of possible nominees for a replacement was Amy Coney Barrett—a 46-year-old federal appellate judge who, the New York Times reported in 2017, was involved in a group called People of Praise (Brett Kavanaugh, not Barrett, eventually received Trump’s nomination). And given People of Praise’s beliefs, Barrett shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the High Court.

People of Praise is a predominantly Catholic group, although it has some non-Catholic members and incorporates Pentecostal practices (speaking in tongues, for example). Considered a cult within mainstream Catholicism, People of Praise require members to swear an oath of loyalty to the group and teach that while women can have some leadership positions, they must ultimately submit to male authority. In the past, People of Praise used the terms “handmaid” and “handmaiden” to describe women—which is downright chilling if one is familiar with Margaret Atwood’s 1985 novel “The Handmaid’s Tale” or the 1990 film and 2017/2018 television that were based on the book.

  1. Quiverfull

The Christian Right’s hatred of reproductive freedom goes way beyond its opposition to abortion; some fundamentalists are equally opposed to all forms of contraception. And this anti-contraception ideology is exemplified by the looney Quiverfull movement. Quiverfull is a not a sect or denomination per se, but a movement within fundamentalist Protestant Christianity—and those who embrace it could be anything from Pentecostal to Calvinist. Quiverfull ideology asserts that it is a sin for Christian couples to do anything that might prevent a pregnancy; therefore, birth control pills and IUDs for women or condoms and vasectomies for men are considered tools of the Devil. And according to Quiverfull, Christian wives must have as many babies as possible while remaining totally submissive to their husbands. Other Quiverfull rules: wives cannot have their own bank accounts or e-mail addresses without their husbands’ permission, and they must always be sexually available to their husbands whether they’re in the mood for sex or not.

  1. Project Blitz

Project Blitz is not a Christian fundamentalist church or sect, but rather, a coalition of Christian fundamentalist activists with a political agenda: to make sure that state legislatures are flooded with as many theocratic bills as possible. Working with Republicans who are sympathetic to their dominionist views—anti gay, anti-abortion, anti-contraception—Project Blitz believes that it is important for bills to be introduced regardless of how far they get. The more bills that are introduced, Project Blitz believes, the more likely they are to achieve some home runs eventually.

5. WallBuilders

In Texas, David Barton has been very active in both Republican politics and far-right fundamentalist Christianity. In addition to being a former vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party and serving as director of Keep the Promise PAC—a political action committee that supported Sen. Ted Cruz’presidential campaign in 2016—Barton founded WallBuilders, which has taught through books and videos that the separation of church and state is not constitutional and that the government should be run according to strict Biblical law. And Barton has been active in the Providence Foundation, another group with dominionist views.

==

==

https://www.alternet.org/how-religious-right-indoctrinates-its-followers-false-version-history

...

week ago Sunday, June 24, 2018, First Baptist Church of Dallas held its annual “Freedom Sunday.” The church website described the special service this way: “Celebrate our freedom as Americans and our freedom in Christ with patriotic worship and a special message from Dr. Robert Jeffress, “America is a Christian Nation.”

Not everyone in Dallas was happy about it. Robert Wilonsky, an opinion writer at the Dallas Morning News, wrote that Jeffress and the First Baptist Church were “divisive” for claiming that America was a Christian nation. Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings agreed. Atheists protested. Eventually, the billboard company contracting with the church removed signs advertising Freedom Sunday.

This, of course, did not stop the service from going forward. The people of First Baptist Church spent the morning of the 24th waving American flags, wearing red, white, and blue shirts, singing the Star-Spangled Banner, and celebrating the United States military. Vice-president Mike Pence sent a letter of encouragement.

Was this a religious service or a celebration of nationalism? What was the object of the congregation’s worship?

Jeffress has been preaching his “America is a Christian Nation” sermon for a long time. On Sunday he stuck with his usual script. He indicted the “secularists, atheists, and infidels” for “perverting” the Constitution. He chided the federal government’s failure to acknowledge God in the public square. He told his congregation that academics, historians, and teachers have been lying to them about the religious roots of the United States.

Jeffress made one problematic historical reference after another. He made the wildly exaggerated claim that fifty-two of the original fifty-five signers of the Constitution were “orthodox conservative Christians.” He peddled the false notion that the disestablishment clause in the First Amendment was meant to apply solely to Protestant denominations. Robert Jeffress is best known as a Fox News religion commentator and one of the first evangelical leaders to support Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy. He has called Trump “the most faith-friendly president in history.”

Within two weeks following the announcement of his candidacy, several polls had Trump leading among white evangelical GOP voters. In November 2016, 81% of these evangelicals cast their vote for Donald Trump for President of the United States. The reasons for this are complex, and we probably need to wait a generation or two before historians can begin to make sense of them, but three young sociologists have published a scholarly essay that suggests the most plausible explanation.

Andrew Whitehead of Clemson University, Sam Perry of the University of Oklahoma, and Joseph O. Baker of East Tennessee State University argue that “the more someone believed the United States is—and should be—a Christian nation, the more likely they were to vote for Trump.” They conclude that “no other religious factor influenced support for or against Trump.”

These sociologists found that the average Trump voter believes the federal government should: declare the United States a Christian nation, advocate for Christian values, oppose the “strict separation of church and state,” allow the “display of religious symbols in public spaces,” and return prayer to public schools. Likewise, Trump voters believe that whatever success the United States has had over the years is “part of God’s plan.” This essay is revealing, and it confirms much of what I have written about since the 2011 release of my Was American Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction. But it does not address why and how Americans have come to believe these things. The answer to that question invites us to think historically.

Ever since the founding of the republic, a significant number of Americans have supposed that the United States is exceptional because it has a special place in God’s unfolding plan for the world. Since the early 17th century founding of the Massachusetts Bay colony by Puritans, evangelicals have relished in their perceived status as God’s new Israel—His chosen people. America, they argued, is in a covenant relationship with God. The defenders of this idea like to apply Chronicles 7:14 to the United States: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

Though dissenters have always been present, the Christian culture of the United States remained intact well into the 20th century. But since World War II, the moorings of this culture have loosened, and evangelicals have responded with fear that their Christian nation is about to collapse. Robert Jeffress is correct about this.

During the 1960s, the Supreme Court removed prayer and Bible reading from public schools, the federal government cut federal funding to Christian academies and colleges that practiced segregation, the country grew more diverse through immigration, and the sexual revolution threatened evangelical patriarchy and gave women the right to choose to have an abortion.

The fear that America’s Christian civilization was falling apart translated into political action. In the late 1970s, conservative evangelicals such as Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye (the author of the popular Left Behind novels), and a group of politicians who had been closely affiliated with the 1964 Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, developed a political playbook to win back the culture from the forces of secularization. Most of the 81% of American evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 understood, and continue to understand, the relationship between their faith and their politics through this playbook.

This playbook, which would eventual become the culture-war battle plan of the “Religious Right,” was tweaked occasionally over the years to address whatever moral issues seemed most important at the time, but it never lost its focus on “restoring,” “renewing,” and “reclaiming” America for Christ through the pursuit of political power.

When executed properly, the playbook teaches evangelicals to elect the right President and members of Congress who will pass laws privileging evangelical Christian views of the world. These elected officials will then appoint and confirm conservative Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, defend life in the womb, and uphold religious liberty for those who believe in traditional views of marriage.

The playbook rests firmly on the Religious Right’s understanding of American identity as rooted in its view of the American past. If America was not founded as a Christian nation, the Religious Right’s political agenda collapses or, at the very least, is weakened severely.

To indoctrinate its followers in the dubious claim that America was founded as a Christian nation, the Religious Right has turned to political activists, many of whom claim to be historians, to propagate the idea that the founding fathers of the United States were in the business of building a Christian nation.

The most prominent of these Christian nationalist purveyors of the past is David Barton, the founder of Wallbuilders, an organization in Aledo, Texas that claims to be “dedicated to presenting America’s forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built—a foundation which, in recent years, has been seriously attacked and undermined.” Barton and Wallbuilders were the source of most of the historical information Jeffress presented in his Freedom Sunday sermon on June 24th.

For the past thirty years, Barton has provided pastors and conservative politicians with inaccurate or misinterpreted facts used to fuel the Religious Right’s nostalgic longings for an American Christian golden age. American historians, including those who teach at the most conservative Christian colleges, have debunked Barton’s use of the past, but he continues to maintain a large following in the evangelical community.

David Barton peddles fake news about the American past. Yet, if Andrew Whitehead, Sam Perry, and Joseph Baker are correct, his work is essential to the success of the Trump presidency in a way that I imagine even Donald Trump and his staff do not fully understand or appreciate.

Trump does not talk very much about America’s supposedly Christian origins. His grasp of history is not very strong. But his evangelical supporters see him as a gift of God—a divinely appointed figure who has emerged on the scene for such a time as this. He is in the White House to preserve God’s covenant with America, to make America Christian again.

The support for the President is a sign of intellectual laziness in the evangelical community. Rather than thinking creatively about how to move forward in hope, Trump evangelicals prefer to respond to cultural change by trying to reclaim a Christian world that is rapidly disappearing, has little chance of ever coming back, and may never have existed in the first place.

The American founding fathers lived in a world that was very different from our own. In the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth century, America was a nation of Christians—mostly Protestants—who put their stamp on the culture.

Yet, amid this Christian culture, the founders differed about the relationship between Christianity and their new nation. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison defended the separation of church and state. John Adams and George Washington also opposed mixing church and state, while at the same time suggesting that Christians, because Christianity taught an ethic of selflessness, could be useful in the creation of a virtuous republic in which citizens sacrificed self-interest for the common good.

The founding fathers believed in God, but most of them did not believe that God inspired the Old and New Testaments or sent His son to die and rise from the dead as the ultimate payment for human sin. The God of the Declaration of Independence is a providential deity who created the world and the people in it, but there is nothing in this important American document that defines this God in terms of the Incarnation or the Trinity.

The United States Constitution never mentions God or Christianity but does forbid religious tests for office. The First Amendment rejects a state-sponsored church and celebrates the free-exercise of religion. This is hardly the kind of stuff by which Christian nations are made. Yet Barton and Jeffress invoke these founders and these documents to defend the idea that the United States was founded as a distinctly Christian nation.

***

If the Christian Right, and by extension the 81% of evangelical voters who use its political playbook, are operating on such a weak historical foundation, why doesn’t someone correct their faulty views and dubious claims?

We do.

We have.

But countering bad history with good history is not as easy as it sounds. David Barton and his fellow Christian nationalist purveyors of the past are well-funded by Christian conservatives who know that the views of the past they are peddling serve their political agenda. Barton has demonized Christian intellectuals and historians as sheep in wolves’ clothing. They may call themselves Christians on Sunday morning, but, according to Barton, their “world view” has been shaped by the secular universities where they earned their Ph.Ds. Thanks to Barton, many conservative evangelicals do not trust academic and professional historians—even academic and professional historians with whom they share a pew on Sunday mornings.

I know this first-hand from some of the negative emails and course evaluation forms I received after teaching a Sunday School course on the history of religion and politics at the Evangelical Free Church congregation where my family worship every Sunday. Because I was a college history professor—even a college history professor at a Christian college with strong evangelical roots—I could not be trusted.

What David Barton does not understand is that there are hundreds of evangelical historians who see their work as part of their Christian identity and vocation. These historians are women and men who pursue truth about the past wherever it leads. This pursuit of truth is a deeply Christian pursuit, as is the case with all efforts to distinguish truth from error.

When people like David Barton cherry-pick from the past to promote political agendas, they do a disservice to the past, fail to treat it with integrity, and ultimately harm their Christian witness in the world. They make evangelicals look foolish. This is not what Paul described in 1 Corinthians 1:18 as the “foolishness of the cross,” it is just good old-fashioned foolishness. It is a product of what evangelical historian Mark Noll has described as the “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.”

Many of us engaged in trying to bring good history to the evangelical church need the support of Christians who are concerned about the direction Donald Trump, the Christian Right, and the pseudo-historians who prop-up their political agenda are trying to take the country and the church. Good history is complex. It is nuanced. And it is an essential part of truly worshipping God with our minds (Luke 10:27). Unfortunately, complexity, nuance, and intellectual discipleship are not the kinds of subjects that inspire Christians to dig into their pocketbooks.

What would it take to fund evangelical historians to travel to receptive churches around the country and spend some concentrated time teaching American religious history, and American history more broadly, to lay men and women? Perhaps such visits could also include times of worship and prayer?

It is unlikely that such an effort would reach the Robert Jeffress’ of the world. but there are many evangelicals who are open and willing to listen and learn. This was another lesson I took away from my Sunday School class. In fact, the criticism I received paled in comparison with the positive comments I got from those who had never heard a fellow evangelical offer a different, more accurate, view of American history.

American evangelical political engagement is built on a very weak historical foundation. It is time that Christian philanthropists, motivated by an entrepreneurial spirit informed by the pursuit of truth and a concern for the testimony of the Gospel in the world, take the long view and invest in responsible Christian thinking about the American past. The American republic, and more importantly, the witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, depends on it.

John Fea teaches American history at Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. He is the author of the new book, Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump (Eerdmans Publishing, June 2018).

==

just beginning to dawn on folks how much Donald Trump’s presidency relies on religious support. All the scandals surrounding Trump have brought intense attention to the 81 percent support he received from evangelical Christians in the 2016 election. New research by Andrew Whitehead, meanwhile, explicates such support in the context of Christian nationalism, andhistorian John Fea has written an important new book, "Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump," to be published in June.

But the power of the presidency isn’t the only way Christian nationalism is advancing its agenda in America today. As Frederick Clarkson, senior research analyst at Political Research Associates, reported last week at Religion Dispatches, a coalition of Christian right groups — including the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, Wallbuilders, the National Legal Foundation and others — have organized a major legislative initiative called “Project Blitz.” Its goal is to pass an outwardly diverse but internally cohesive package of Christian-right bills at the state level, whose cumulative impact would be immense.

The agenda underlying these bills is not merely about Christian nationalism, a term that describes an Old Testament-based worldview fusing Christian and American identities, and meant to sharpen the divide between those who belong to those groups and those who are excluded. It’s also ultimately "dominionist," meaning that it doubles down on the historically false notion of America as a “Christian nation” to insist that a a particular sectarian view of God should control every aspect of life, through all manner of human institutions. Christian nationalists are not in a position to impose their vision now, and to be fair, many involved in the movement would never go that far. But as explained by Julie Ingersoll in "Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction" (Salon interview here), dominionist ideas have had enormous influence on the religious right, even among those who overtly disavow them.

The authors of the Project Blitz playbook are savvy purveyors of dominionism,” Clarkson told Salon. “They are in it for the long haul and try not to say things that sound too alarming. ​But they live an immanent theocratic vision, and they sometimes cannot help themselves, such as when they describe the resolutions as seeking to ‘define public policies of the state in favor of biblical values concerning marriage and sexuality.’

“Among the ways they are seeking to implement 'biblical values,'" Clarkson continued, "is by seeking religious exemptions from civil rights laws and professional licensing standards.” The two-tiered society this would create reflects the essence of Christian nationalism, as Whitehead describes it.

Whitehead told Salon: “Our work shows that believing that the United States is a ‘Christian nation’ and desiring a close, symbiotic relationship between Christianity and civil society is significantly associated with a number of stances like opposition toward same-sex marriage, antipathy toward religious minorities and a tendency toward endorsing stricter racial boundaries in romantic and family relationships." So it makes sense, he continued, "that these groups who advocate for a formal recognition of the 'Christian nation' narrative are also seeking to formalize support for particular definitions of marriage, gender identity and family structure” — definitions that elevate some people and effectively subjugate others.

So far this year, supporters of this initiative, and their allies, have introduced 71 bills nationwide (or carried them over from last year) -- and those are only the ones tracked by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. (Some of the bills counted are similar in intent, but may not directly draw on the Project Blitz playbook.)

Most of those have innocuous or feel-good names like the National Motto Display Act (23 bills), the First Amendment Defense Act (10 bills), the Child Protection Act (four bills), the Bible Literacy Act (eight bills) and the Clergy Protection Act (six bills). The goal is to come across as wholesome, apple-pie Americans, while copying the strikingly successful approach of the pro-corporate American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Nonetheless, Fea continued, Barton “is one of the most important people in American politics today.” How could that possibly be true? "If Andrew Whitehead and his colleagues are correct, evangelicals supported Trump because they believe America was founded as, and continues to be, a Christian nation," Fea said. "No one has promoted this narrative more effectively than David Barton.”The guiding vision behind Project Blitz is heavily influenced by pseudo-historian David Barton, a leading propagandist for the myth that America was founded as a “Christian nation.” John Fea, author of the aforementioned "Believe Me," told Salon: “David Barton has been discredited by every American historian I know, including evangelical historians who teach at the most conservative Christian colleges in the country, including Bob Jones University and Liberty University. He is a politician who uses the past for his own political agenda."

The war imagery conjured up by the name “Project Blitz” is no accident. This is religious war in the minds of those waging it, and they’ve got specific goals and strategies in mind. But it’s not easy for outsiders to see what’s going on here, as Clarkson explains in his story:

The bills are seemingly unrelated and range widely in content — from requiring public schools to display the national motto, “In God We Trust” (IGWT); to legalizing discrimination against LGBTQ people; to religious exemptions regarding women’s reproductive health. The model bills, the legislative strategy and the talking points reflect the theocratic vision that has animated many in the Christian Right for some time. In the context of Project Blitz’s 116-page playbook, however, they also reveal a highly sophisticated level of coordination and strategizing that echoes the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which infamously networks pro-business state legislators, drafts legislation, and shares legislative ideas and strategies.

The bills are organized into three tiers, “according to the degree of opposition they anticipate — 1 being the least,” Clarkson reports. “The general plan is to begin with the less controversial measures to get legislators comfortable with the subject matter; to seek small victories first.” The full meaning and significance of the earlier measures will not become readily apparent until later measures build on them and covert synergies are revealed.

“Category 3’s focus on religious liberty is especially relevant today," in the wake of the Supreme Court's historic Obergefell decision, said Daniel Bennett, author of "Defending Faith: The Politics of the Christian Conservative Legal Movement." With same-sex marriage a settled issue, right-wing Christian groups "will want to prioritize protection for religious liberty, defined in their specific way. The Christian legal movement is fighting these battles in the court, but these sorts of legislative proposals show how wide-ranging the broader movement’s strategy is.”The first tier, “Legislation Regarding Our Country's Religious Heritage,” aims at importing the Christian nationalist worldview (including Barton’s bogus history) into public schools and other aspects of the public sphere. It starts simply with a display of the motto “In God We Trust,” a Cold War replacement for “e pluribus unum” — out of many, one — which better reflects America’s pragmatic, pluralist foundations. The second tier, “Resolutions and Proclamations Recognizing the Importance of Religious History and Freedom,” aims at making government increasingly a partner in “Christianizing” America. The third tier, "Religious Liberty Protection Legislation," has three subcategories, one dealing with “public policy resolutions,” the other two with specifically targeted but sweepingly conceived “protections” for religious practices.

It’s a defensive fight now, but it’s also laying the groundwork for a possible future counter-offensive. “Although Category 3 is divided in three parts, you could also see it as having two main underlying intentions," said Clarkson. "First to denigrate the LGBTQ community, and second to defend and advance the right to discriminate. This is one way that the agenda of theocratic dominionism is reframed as protecting the right of theocrats to discriminate against those deemed second-class, at best. As the late theocratic theologian R.J. Rushdoony said, 'Only the right have rights.'"

Bills protecting the “right” to discriminate against the LGBTQ community are the most salient example of how Project Blitz aims to produce a radically altered “Handmaid’s Tale-style America. But even the most innocent-seeming proposal — introducing the motto “In God We Trust” into schools — has a divisive, discriminatory, damaging impact, sharply at odds with its presentation.

“To an ex-evangelical such as myself, Project Blitz is deeply concerning,” Christopher Stroop told Salon. Stroop is a scholar, writer and Twitter personality with a history and humanities Ph.D. from Stanford, who is currently senior research associate with the Postsecular Conflicts project. As he says, he spent many years in the evangelical world.

“When I was growing up in the 1980s," Stroop said, "two issues that were frequently lamented in my evangelical community were the legalization of abortion and the supposed banning of prayer in school — ‘supposed’ because the right-wing evangelicals I grew up with usually failed to note that the Supreme Court had only ended officially school-sponsored prayer, and had not outlawed private prayer in schools. Extreme exaggeration of the ostensible persecution we supposedly faced as Christians was prevalent in my childhood milieu.”

The attempt to reverse that imagined persecution can have real damaging effects, as Stroop notes. In examining the goal of requiring "In God We Trust" to be displayed in public schools, he said, "I cannot help but associate this goal with evangelical resentment over legal limitations on prayer in school, and to see it as an attempt to take a step toward the Christianization of public schools. On its own, posting the motto 'In God We Trust' in schools would already embolden Christian nationalists present in those schools, leading Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, liberal and atheist children to feel alienated and pressured to conform.”

paul r

==

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/people/david-barton/

eg

David Barton: The Fact That There Is No Mention Of God In The Constitution Is Proof It's Not A Secular Document

READ MORE

David Barton: The Same Evil Behind Nazism Is At Work Today In The Push For LGBTQ Equality

READ MORE

David Barton Says The Criticism That He Misrepresents History Is 'Fake News'

READ MORE

GOP Platform Committee Member David Barton Falsely Claims His Anti-Gay Comments Were Taken Out Of Context

READ MORE

Barton: Second Amendment Guarantees An Individual Right To Own A Tank Or Fighter Jet

==

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/david-barton

Barton’s ascendant star as a self-taught “historian” and influential leader of the evangelical far right crashed in a storm of ridicule when the world’s largest Christian publisher recalled Barton’s 2012 book,The Jefferson Lies,for too many serious whoppers — the kind of gross factual mistakes that are a death knell for any real historian. A prolific propagandist, Barton has long promoted the canard that our Founding Fathers never intended the separation of church and state but rather sought to construct a Christian nation. His Texas-based group, WallBuilders, sells an abundant bounty of books and DVDs pushing Barton’s fun-house vision of religious patriotism. And this distorted message has sold well. Anointed “one of the 25 most influential Evangelicals” by Time Magazine in 2005, Barton has been a political consultant to the Republican National Committee and served as vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party.Although even a large group of conservative Christian history scholars has meticulously refuted the claims in his Jefferson book, Barton continues to sell it and to promote his views online and in the media.

In His Own Words

“Money does not belong to the government, it belongs to individuals, and to steal money from individuals through whatever government spending program is taking private property, and you’re not supposed to do that.”   

—WallBuilders broadcast, January 2011

“Jesus says the sun shines on the just … the rain falls on the wicked. … God treats everybody exactly the same, whether you’re rich or poor you pay a ten percent tithe. … The concept of justice goes out with the progressive income tax which is why the Bible is opposed to it.”

—“Making the Constitution Obsolete: Understanding What is Happening to America’s Economic and Cultural Heritage,” an educational DVD marketed by the American Family Association, 2011

“There’s a passage that I love in Romans 1. … [I]t talks about homosexuality and it says that they will receive in their bodies the penalties of their behavior. … The Bible [is] right every time … and that’s why AIDS has been something they haven’t discovered a cure for or a vaccine for. … And that goes to what God says, ‘Hey you’re going to bear in your body the consequences of this homosexual behavior.’”

—WallBuilders broadcast, April 27, 2012

“People use Jefferson all the time and say, ‘Hey, you can’t do religious stuff at a school, Jefferson’s opposed to it.’ … He wasn’t opposed to that kind of thing.”

—“The Daily Show,” Comedy Central, May 1, 2012

Background

The self-proclaimed historian has lived most of his life in the Fort Worth, Texas, suburb of Aledo. After earning aB.A. in religious education at Oral Roberts University, Barton taught at religiously affiliated schools. Although he has no academic credentials in history, in 1987 Barton founded a company called Specialty Research Associates Inc., whose stated goal was to do historical research “relating to America’s constitutional, moral, and religious heritage.” In 1988, that company morphed into WallBuilders, a multi-purpose propaganda machine promoting Barton’s view that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and therefore ought to be ruled by biblical principles.

Barton quickly got busy revising history according to his convictions — he’s now written10 books that are sold on the WallBuilders website. He also began to host a WallBuilders-linked nationally syndicated radio program that trumpets anti-gay and antigovernment views.

Through WallBuilders, Barton branched out into public policy in 1998 by launching what he called the ProFamily Legislative Network to help “conservative, God-fearing legislators.” The group’s annual conference and regular updates still keep several hundred state and national legislators apprised of “pro-family” legislation. That includes bills to ban abortion and prevent gay marriage, support religious expression in public schools and public life, and resist gun control. The network provides expert referrals for legislation and supportive research. Its conferences also offer media training and strategy sessions to far-right lawmakers who want tips on how to succeed in getting their legislative agenda through.

As his reputation grew, Barton made political inroads into the Republican mainstream and, from 1997 to 2006, he was vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party. In 2004, the Republican National Committee hired him as a consultant during that year’s presidential campaign. Barton’s charge was to reach out to evangelical clergy, and media reports indicate he spoke to hundreds of local evangelical pastors in his drive to get George W. Bush re-elected that year.

Barton ultimately became a “go-to” man for tips on lassoing conservative Christian voters. He has served as an advisor to Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee. With his “Leave it to Beaver” looks, the silver-haired Barton has an “aw shucks,” Tom Sawyer-esque manner and is personally quite engaging as he spins historical revisions. In its 2005 piece on the nation’s most influential evangelicals, Time Magazine pictured Barton in a white cowboy hat, calling him “a hero to millions — including some powerful politicians.”

Brownback has said that Barton “provides the philosophical underpinning for a lot of the Republican effort in the country today.” Also among Barton’s most ardent fans is Huckabee, the Republican conservative from Arkansas who declared in 2011, a year before his failed presidential run, “I don’t know anyone in America who is a more effective communicator. I just wish that every single young person in America would be able to be under his tutelage and understand something about who we really are as a nation. I almost wish that there would be something like a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced, forced — at gunpoint no less — to listen to every David Barton message.”

As a regular since 2010 on Glenn Beck’s “Founders’ Fridays” radio broadcasts and a teacher in Beck’s online university, Barton’s outreach has continued to grow. But along the way, and even before the Jefferson book debacle, his nose should have been growing too, as the web of his untruths became ever denser. Some of Barton’s false claims about history and politics appear to stem from simple ignorance, but others have been exposed as flagrant omissions and distortions that bend reality to his own fact-free vision of American history.

For example, Barton has claimed that President Ronald Reagan, even after surviving an assassination attempt, opposed gun control. That’s entirely false. In fact, after being shot in 1981, Reagan voiced clear support for the Brady gun control bill in an opinion piece published in The New York Times.

Another Barton whopper is his repeated claim that John Adams supported religious control of the U.S. government. To make that point, Barton quoted the following Adams passage: “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.” But Barton conveniently omits the next part of the quote, in which Adams makes it crystal clear he is mocking those with this belief. As People for the American Way, a liberal group, concluded on its website: “He has deliberately, clearly and completely transformed Adams’ actual meaning.”

A fervent homophobe, Barton has claimed that gay people die “decades earlier” than others and have more than 500 partners apiece in their lifetimes. On his WallBuilders radio broadcast, he’s flagrantly misled listeners by saying that the “leading pediatric association in America” has cautioned educators against providing education about homosexuality. But the American College of Pediatricians that Barton referred to has only a couple of hundred members and is, in fact, a right-wing breakaway group from the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the real “leading pediatric association in America.” The group he cited split with the American Academy of Pediatrics explicitly because it had taken an official stand that there is no harm associated with same-sex parenting.

Some of Barton’s claims are mind-boggling to any reasonably well-educated person. For example, in his version of history, the founding fathers “already had the entire debate on creation and evolution,” and chose creationism. Reality check: Charles Darwin didn’t publish his theory of evolution in The Origin of Species until 1859, more than half a century after the founding fathers were active. Barton also has asserted that the American Revolution was fought to free slaves. “That’s why we said we want to separate from Britain, so we can end slavery,” Barton said. Actually, that’s ridiculous. Many of the founding fathers were slaveholders, slavery is acknowledged (although it is not named) in the constitution that they wrote, and the British Empire outlawed slavery three decades before the United States did.

Barton also has promoted the anti-immigrant cause and engaged in Muslim-bashing. He opposes immigration reform, saying that God established national borders (tell that to the Russians and the Poles, who have seen their borders changed repeatedly over the course of history), and has appeared on the radio show of hard-line nativist William Gheen. Barton cited infamous Islamophobe Robert Spencer in attacking U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the first Muslim congressman.

In 2010, Barton joined the battle to bowdlerize the Texas social studies curriculum for public schools, supporting efforts to excise Martin Luther King Jr. and 1960s farm worker activist Cesar Chavez from textbooks. As reported by Washington Monthly, Barton said King didn’t deserve to be included for advancing minority rights because “only majorities can expand political rights.”

After establishing a 25-year record of Big Lie propaganda, Barton finally got taken down in a decisive way in 2012 — and among the most effective at eviscerating his reputation were fellow Christian conservatives. Barton’s book, The Jefferson Lies, had actually made The New York Times best-seller list. But then Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute, a think tank known for it advocacy of “intelligent design,” asked 10 conservative Christian professors to evaluate Barton’s work.  They found the book riddled with errors. Professors Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter of Grove City College, a conservative Christian school in Pennsylvania, even wrote another book in 2012, Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President, that debunks Barton’s claims. The same year, Richards said that Barton’s books and videos were full of “embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims.”

The coup de grace also came in 2012, when readers of the History News Network voted Barton’s new book the “least credible history book in print.”The nonpartisan network, affiliated with George Mason University, describes its mission as putting current events in historical perspective and features articles by prominent historians.

Meanwhile, a multi-ethnic coalition of evangelical ministers, based in Cincinnati, asked Thomas Nelson, the book’s Christian publisher, to withdraw the book. The pastors said the book inaccurately portrayed Jefferson’s true views on race, his record as a slaveholder, and his negative views of Jews. “You can’t be serious about racial unity in the church, while holding up Jefferson as a civil rights hero and champion of freedom,” the Rev. Ray McMillian told Grove professor Throckmorton for an article published on the crosswalk.com website.

After all of this pressure and negative publicity, a Nelson spokesman announced in August 2012 that the publishing company had reviewed Barton’s book and found enough errors to recall copies not yet sold and stop new shipments. This came despite the book’s commercial success.

His reputation in tatters, Barton accused his critics of exaggerating his claims about Jefferson’s Christian faith. Then he reportedly bought up 17,000 remaining copies from Nelson and continued to sell them on Amazon. He also said that he would publish a new edition (it wasn’t clear where) that won’t include any substantial changes but will alter a few phrases to clear up any confusion.

Barton still retains some influence, but only in the most extreme and uneducated segments of the Christian Right. Virtually all serious conservatives have repudiated him, and his chances of making a comeback seem remote, to be kind, although he sounds just as glib and sure as himself as ever.

==

==

ref

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/glenn-beck-and-david-barton-want-to-take-their-new-museum-on-the-road-to-public-schools/

==

bs

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2012/08/13/exclusive-historian-david-barton-responds-to-critics-amid-jefferson-lies-book-controversy/

==

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/first-fake-news-now-fake-history-glenn-beck-wants-train-young-people-promote

...two characteristics that really define Trumpism, they are a total disregard for the importance of facts and a nostalgia for a mythical, vaguely defined time of American “greatness.” That makes the Trump era ripe for Glenn Beck’s ongoing project of creating and promoting his revisionist view of American history — one that valorizes straight white men as humanity’s natural leaders and grants Christian fundamentalism a centrality to American history that it did not, in reality, have.

Beck has been ramping up a program he runs with the pseudo-historian David Barton to peddle Barton’s fake history version of American history.

Barton’s history is one where the Founding Fathers’ idea of government was rooted in fundamentalist Christianity, instead of Enlightenment philosophy, and one which minimizes the contributions of people of color in service of centering Christian white men as the righteous shepherds guiding everyone else. AsKyle Mantyla at Wing Watch reports, the latest move by Barton and Beck is a two-week program, at $375 a head, that will teach high school graduates their fake version of history before heading off to college so “they can then set their ignorant professors straight on the ‘real’ history of America.”

Beck isn’t subtle about his intention to give college professors headaches by filling their classrooms with fledging right-wing nuts spewing “alternative facts” about history. “Your kids will be challenged to go and find the documents to make the cases that they’re most likely going to have to make in college with their professors,” Beck said in his announcement. “I guarantee you the professors at college will have the wrong answer.”

The “wrong” answers, in this case, being the actual facts about history.

Barton, whose historical views are the ones Beck is pushing here, is pretty shameless about making stuff up if it suits his view that our country was meant to be a Christian theocracy and not a secular democracy. “For example, in his version of history, the founding fathers ‘already had the entire debate on creation and evolution,’ and chose creationism,”explains the Southern Poverty Law Center profile of Barton. “Reality check: Charles Darwin didn’t publish his theory of evolution in The Origin of Speciesuntil 1859, more than half a century after the founding fathers were active.”

This two-week program is part of a larger effort that was first proposed by Beck and Barton in 2012 to build a museum to market this fake version of history. That hasn’t quite happened, but they’ve cobbled together a pseudo-exhibit and a curriculum, and are using those trappings to try to sneak Barton’s misinformation into high school and college courses.

If this sounds like the methods that Christian conservatives have been using to undermine the teaching of biology and to sneak their views about creationism into classrooms, then congratulations on paying attention.

As Zack Kopplin — who currently works as :{an investigator for the :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{Government Accountability Project:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: but who made his name exposing the sleazy tactics used by creationists to sneak their religious beliefs into public high schools — argued in a phone conversation, Barton’s reactionary historical revisionism and creationism share a common root. Reactionaries like Beck and Barton “view this as a continuing existential crisis, that they are under threat from the secular, real history people that don’t want to teach that the Earth is 6,000 years old or that Moses created the constitution,” Kopplin explained. 

Some conservatives need to put “straight white men” at the “top of [the food chain], top of history,” Kopplin argued. Evolutionary theory and fact-based history threaten that “hierarchical structure where they’re at the top.”

Evolution does this by threatening the view that God created man in his image, to rule over the earth (and over women). History threatens this view by suggesting that white men’s dominance is not the result of their natural superiority and inherent genius, but because systems of oppression suppressed or erased the contributions of women and people of color.

Barton’s need to believe in this world where God created white men to be benevolent dictators can lead to some stunning moments of unvarnished racism. In 2011, on the Christian TV show “Celebration”, Barton argued, “That’s why we said we want to separate from Britain, so we can end slavery.”

This comment is so flatly false that it hardly needs debunking. It is, however, revealing of the white supremacist view compelling Barton. Rather than admit that chattel slavery is an evil that white people created and perpetuated, Barton treats it like it was just some unsourced evil, and that white men were actually the great heroes who put an end to it.

Barton’s all-consuming need to believe only white men are really capable of greatness has led him to make similar arguments about the civil rights movement. In 2010, he took part in an effort to rewrite Texas history book standards to erase the contributions of Thurgood Marshall, César Chávez, and even Martin Luther King Jr.

“Only majorities can expand political rights in America’s constitutional society,” Barton argued to reporters at the time.

In 2012, Barton’s tendency to talk utter nonsense finally caught up with him after the publication his book, “The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson,” a book which should have just been called “The Jefferson Lies,” because lies, mostly to minimize Jefferson’s history of slave-holding, is what it was full of. A handful of conservative outlets finally turned on him and his publisher eventually recalled the book.

But none of this has stopped Beck from bolstering Barton’s career and trying to bamboozle as many people as possible into believing this alternative form of history. If anything, Beck has been Barton’s saving grace, as the efforts to start this museum and to indoctrinate young people started right around the time Barton Jefferson book was getting recalled.

Training young people to challenge the historical facts in the classroom isn’t quite as dangerous as earlier Barton efforts to put false information into the curriculum, but there’s still reason to be worried about it. “When you have people challenging teachers, it’s a chilling factor,” Kopplin argued. This is especially so on a high school level, where teachers can find that teaching evolution or that slavery was the reason for the Civil War — both facts that many right wingers deny — results in irate phone calls from parents that can lead a teacher to just give up.

College professors have more leverage, Kopplin pointed out, because they tend to have a more pedigreed authority and can tell students just to drop the class if they don’t like the facts. Still, Kopplin agreed that having young people spewing “alternative facts” in a college classroom setting could work to confuse other students and make it harder for them to figure out what facts were true and which were coming from someone talking nonsense.

Kopplin was more worried, however, that Beck and Barton’s trainings were about creating an army of young people who, confident in their own lies, would run for office and engage in political activism in an effort to spread their falsehoods further.

In our age of Trump, where even the president talks shit without any shame about it, the right wing alternative history movement is likely to be emboldened. Many of our political leaders have utterly abandoned the idea that facts matter, after all, so why shouldn’t their supporters feel free to believe MLK was a nobody or that Thomas Jefferson rejected the argument in a book, “The Origin of the Species”, published 33 years after his death?

Amanda Marcotte is a politics writer for Salon.

====

==

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/meet-far-rights-favorite-quack-historian

Meet the Far Right's Favorite Quack Historian

By Julie Ingersoll [1] / Salon [2]

August 23, 2015

Excerpted from "Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction" [3]

The popular dissemination of Reconstructionist ideas is evident in the framing and language used by people in the religious right, if you have an ear for it. I think of this as analogous to the way in which a New Englander can hear the difference between a Maine accent and a Boston one, or how a Southerner can tell if a speaker is from North Carolina or South Carolina; it is subtle, but it is undeniably there.

There is perhaps no better example of Christian Reconstructionist influence on the broader culture than the work of Tea Party “historian” David Barton. Barton does not explicitly identify as a Christian Reconstructionist, and Christian Reconstructionists would not claim him as one of their own.Barton does have ties to several Reconstructionist groups, including the Providence Foundation; he occasionally cites the work of Rousas Rushdoony and promotes views on race and slavery that are rooted in Rushdoony. While Barton doesn’t use the language of theonomy or postmillennialism, as we will see, he speaks of dominion, biblical law, the necessity of bringing every area of life under the lordship of Christ, and sphere sovereignty of biblically ordained institutions. He embraces the whole range of political views advocated by Reconstructionists from the right-to-life and creationism to more narrowly held positions on issues such as the history of slavery and opposition to the Federal Reserve System. As we shall see, the approach to history that has made Barton famous is rooted in Rushdoony’s biblical philosophy of history.

Barton was born in 1954, raised in Aledo, Texas, and graduated from public high school in 1972, the same year his parents started a house church with Pentecostal leanings. By 1974 the church had moved into facilities that now also house the Christian school they started in 1981, as well as Barton’s organization, Wallbuilders. After high school, Barton attended Oral Roberts University, where he received a degree in religious education in 1976. Upon returning home, he became principal of Aledo Christian School until, a decade later, as he tells it in an interview, God led him to his first book by showing him the connection between the Supreme Court decisions on prayer and Bible reading and “plummeting” academic achievement scores and “soaring” student crime and immorality.

In July 1987, God impressed me to do two things. First, I was to search the library and find the date that prayer had been prohibited in public schools. Second, I was to obtain a record of national SAT scores . . . spanning several decades. I didn’t know why, but I somehow knew that these two pieces of information would be very important.

The result was his America; to Pray or Not to Pray, which is a statistical analysis of the “volume of prayers being offered” overlaid with data on a number of social problems, to compare the “prayer years with the post prayer years.” According to Barton, the drop in prayer was so dramatic that its impact was felt not just in the schools but in every aspect of our national life. Barton seemed unaware of the notion that correlation is not causation.

A self-styled historian with no real academic credentials, Barton went on to build an extensive collection of primary source documents from America’s founding era and write several “Christian American history” books that argue that the founding fathers intended America to be a Christian nation and that argue for a Christian reading of the Constitution they wrote. This work has shaped a generation of Christian school and homeschool students.

Despite being roundly rejected by scholars, Barton claims to be a “recognized authority in American history and the role of religion in public life.” For example, an amicus brief filed by Wallbuilders in McCollum v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation claims Barton works as a consultant to national history textbook publishers. He has been appointed by the State Boards of Education in states such as California and Texas to help write the American history and government standards for students in those states. Mr. Barton also consults with Governors and State Boards of Education in several states, and he has testified in numerous state legislatures on American history.

Examples include a 1998 appointment as an advisor to the California Academic Standards Commission and a 2009 appointment as a reviewer in the Texas Board of Education’s effort to revise the state’s social science curriculum. In each case, Barton was one of three conservative “outside experts” appointed to review the curriculum to ensure that children learn that America was founded on biblical principles. As “experts” they sought changes to the curriculum to ensure that Christianity was presented “as an overall force for good—and a key reason for American Exceptionalism, the notion that the country stands above and apart.” Indeed, when Barton invoked his position as a curriculum consultant on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, Stewart asked for whom he had done this work, and Barton refused to name anyone, saying “if they don’t name names then I don’t.”

In 2005 Barton was included in Time magazine’s list of the twenty-five most influential evangelicals, but it was his association with Fox News’ Glenn Beck, who called him the most important man in America, that catapulted him into another level of influence. By 2011 Barton could boast that Republican primary presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann consulted him. Bachmann even invited him to speak to her congressional Tea Party Caucus on the history of the Constitution. Mike Huckabee infamously said that “every American should be forced to listen to Barton at gunpoint.” Barton’s presentation style makes on-the-spot critical engagement difficult. He jumps, at lightning speed, from one piece of data to another, interpreted through his “biblical” framework; he creates a barrage of information, tied to small pieces of familiar truth and rooted in an apparently vast collection of primary documents. Barton is one of the very best examples of the way in which the Tea Party is about much more than taxes, and he’s been at the center of its rise. In addition to being promoted by Glenn Beck, he travels the country presenting his Constitutional Seminars and selling materials promoting his views to churches, civic organizations, Christian schools, and Christian homeschoolers.

Barton’s work has been the subject of extensive critique by bloggers, reporters, and other critics, some of whom are scholars publishing peer-reviewed critiques, but, for the most part, scholars have not devoted a lot of attention to debunking his claims. Beginning in about 2011, two conservative Christian professors from Grove City College, Warren Throckmorton, professor of psychology, and Michael Coulter, professor of humanities and political science, published a critique of Barton’s The Jefferson Lies entitled Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President. The book was received well by scholars, and the authors’ credentials as conservative Christians undermined Barton’s defense that criticism of his work was ideological rather than factual. The Jefferson Lies was withdrawn by its publisher. One might expect under the weight of such resounding rejection, Barton would disappear into obscurity. Yet Barton’s supporters remain as devoted as before. Criticism from scholars (whether Christian or not) is dismissed as liberal, socialist, and even pagan. Discredited in the larger culture, Barton remains influential in the conservative Christian subculture.

Barton and the Constitution

In 2011, Barton’s radio program Wallbuilders Live carried a three-part series on the Constitution and “the principles of limited government” that illustrated well how he draws the conclusions he does regarding what the Constitution meant to the founders. The spectrum of activists calling themselves “constitutionalists”—including Barton but ranging from avowed Reconstructionists to Tea Partiers who claim their movement is solely about taxes and limited government—read the Constitution in the context of the Declaration of Independence to invoke the authority of the Creator in an otherwise godless document. The first of Barton’s three-part series lays out exactly how this works.

Many look at the US Constitution and see little mention of religion and wonder how conservative Christians can insist that it is a template for a Christian nation. But Barton is careful to speak, instead, of our “original national founding documents.” For Barton and his followers, the Declaration of Independence, though never ratified and carrying no legal authority, has the same status as the Constitution. Indeed, in their view, the Constitution can only be read in the context of the Declaration:

Go back to our original national document, our original founding document, the Declaration of Independence. In the first forty-six words . . . they tell us the philosophy of government that has produced America’s exceptionalism . . . two points immediately become clear in that opening statement of our first national government document. Number one, they say there is a divine creator, and number two, the divine creator gives guaranteed rights to men . . . there’s a God and God gives specific rights to men.

Barton asserts that the founders believed there were a handful of unalienable rights, the most important of which are life, liberty, and property. He occasionally acknowledges that the language in the Declaration is slightly different (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), but he argues that the pursuit of happiness is grounded in property, making the two terms interchangeable. He more often uses the term “property.” These rights are understood to come directly from God, and the purpose of government (and therefore the Constitution the founders wrote) is limited to securing those rights. According to Barton, in language that became common Tea Party rhetoric, an inalienable right is “a right to which we are entitled by our all-wise and all-beneficent creator; a right that God gave you, not government.” Any other perceived rights, not understood as coming from God, cannot be legitimately protected by the civil government.

This is the very point of criticism made of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan by Herb Titus, described earlier. Rooted in the three-part division of authority popularized by Rushdoony and the Reconstructionists, Barton argues that the Bible (which he believes the founders read in the same way he does and upon which he believes they based the Constitution) limits the jurisdiction of civil government. That life, liberty, and property are “among” the God-given rights that Barton finds in the Declaration left room for the articulation of more rights derived from God to be “incorporated” into the Constitution, most clearly in the Bill of Rights, which he calls “the capstone” to the Constitution. “They said, we’re going to name some other inalienable rights just to make sure that government does not get into these rights . . . When you look at the ten amendments that are the Bill of Rights, those are God-granted rights that government is not to intrude into.” He then offered some unique interpretations of the rights protected in the first ten amendments. The First Amendment religion clauses, for Barton, become “the right of public religious expression.” The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is, according to Barton, “what they called the biblical right of self-defense.” The Third Amendment prohibiting the coerced quartering of soldiers is the biblical and constitutional protection of the “the sanctity of the home.” Finally, all the protections against unjust prosecution in the Fifth Amendment are reduced to the protection of “the right to private property.”

While the “limited government” enshrined in the Constitution protects basic rights given by God and precludes government from doing anything not within the purview of its biblical mandate, it also, according to Barton, prohibits abortion. Barton says that, according to the founders, the first example of “God-given inalienable rights is the right to life.” Barton claims that when the founders invoked the God-given right to life they intended to prohibit abortion. He claims that “abortion was a discussed item in the founding era.” As evidence he says, “as a matter of fact we have books in our library of original documents—observations on abortion back in 1808,” and that “early legislatures in the 1790s were dealing with legislation on the right to life on the abortion issue.” But Barton gives no examples and provides no references to any evidence. After this slippery claim, he goes on at length with quotes from founders on the right to life, none of which mention abortion. “They understood back then that abortion was a bad deal and that your first guaranteed inalienable right is a right to life. Consider how many other founding fathers talked about the right to life.” In another example of slipperiness, he quotes founder James Wilson: “Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplations of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.” Realizing that this won’t do the work of banning abortion from conception, Barton redefines the question, moving the focus from the development of the fetus to what the mother “knows.”

Very simply, he [Wilson] says as soon as you know you’re pregnant, as soon as you know there’s life in the womb, that life is protected by law. That’s where the technology difference is, we can know that there’s life in the womb much earlier today than what they knew back then. But the point is the same there: as soon as you know there’s a life there, it’s protected.

But this is not what Wilson said, and Barton’s argument gets worse. In his view this understanding of the right to life is a bellwether for a number of other issues that are at the top of the religious right’s agenda: “Our philosophy of American exceptionalism is very simple: there is a God, he gives specific rights, [and] the purpose of government is to protect the rights he’s given.” If someone is “wrong” on “life issues,” they’re likely to be wrong on the right to self-defense (the right to own guns), the sanctity of the home (his interpretation of what it means to not have soldiers in your house), private property (his reading of the rights of the accused culminating in the protection against eminent domain), and “the traditional marriage issue” (for which he makes no connection to the founders or the Constitution). Barton’s interpretation doesn’t even resemble a close reading of the text with an eye toward the founders’ intentions—or any coherent application of the value of limited government—yet he successfully frames it as such in populist discourse.

In 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court rejected an appeal challenging the policy of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that allows only leaders of “five faiths” (Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, and Native American) to serve as paid chaplains (McCollum v. CDCR). The ruling had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the claim that the policy unconstitutionally favors some religions over others but rather whether McCollum (a Pagan minister) had standing to bring the case. An amicus brief filed by Wallbuilders in support of the CDCR to privilege the “five faiths” provides a glimpse into how Barton reads the Constitution.

For him the Constitution represents a consensus—as though there is a singular view that can be attributed to “the founders.” Barton’s style of reading the Constitution is modeled on his style of reading the Bible, which he also treats as a coherent document that can be read from start to finish to yield a clear, undisputed, objective meaning, instead of a collection of fragmented texts written over a very long period of time in different cultures, assembled into larger texts, then chosen from an even larger collection of texts in a political process, translated from ancient languages, and finally interpreted in different ways by different communities. Every stage of that process continues to be profoundly disputed by scholars, and there is always an interpretative framework (albeit all too often an unrecognized one) underlying any reading of it. While the US Constitution is a newer document, and it is therefore somewhat less difficult to discern its meaning(s), the fact remains that it is the product of hard-fought compromise among leaders, bound in time and culture, who profoundly disagreed with each other. There is no reason to believe they thought they were writing a sacred text to which all subsequent generations of Americans were bound by a process that amounts to divining a singular “intent.”

The argument Barton made in the brief, moreover, illustrates a second important point. He is being disingenuous when he insists he just wants everyone to have the opportunity to practice his religion freely. In his appearance on the Daily Show, he defended the practice of Christian religious observance in otherwise secular contexts when the majority wants it by saying that a Muslim-majority community should be able to make “Sharia law” the law of the land. There was a significant outcry from his anti-Muslim supporters, and he backtracked on the point in a subsequent episode of Wallbuilders Live.

In this brief, however, he argued that only those religions that fit with what he thinks the founders meant by “religion” should be protected. Protected religion is either Christianity alone or perhaps the larger category of monotheism—Barton asserts that rights of conscience don’t extend to atheists either (and by implication also not to Buddhists and Hindus): “whether this Court agrees that ‘religion’ meant monotheism or believes that it meant Christianity . . . it is clear that atheism, heathenism, and paganism were not part of the definition of ‘religion.’” Barton has argued against the free exercise of rights of Muslims, as have other religious right promoters of Islamophobia, claiming Islam is “not a religion.” Indeed, the term “religion” does have a complicated history, and it has often been used (or denied) to legitimize dominance of one group over another. Initially Africans were said to be “without religion,” legitimizing their enslavement, and, in another example, Native Americans were considered “without religion” to justify taking their land. Barton’s brief is important because it made explicit that which he often tries to deny: that only Christianity (and maybe Judaism) is protected under his reading of the Constitution.

Barton on the Free Market and Socialism

On another segment of Wallbuilders Live, Barton and co-host Rick Green discussed the effort by the Obama administration to prohibit Internet service providers from charging for service based on usage (known as Net Neutrality) because it violates biblical economics and is “socialist.” It’s easy to dismiss that charge as nothing more than demagoguery, but, in fact, the discussion illustrates what they mean by socialism and, ultimately, how they understand freedom. Both points trace directly back to Rushdoony. Most of us understand socialism as a system that limits private ownership of property and in which power (political and economic) is centralized in the state; Tea Party accusations that any policy they oppose is “socialist” seem, at best, like hyperbole. But in Barton’s view, any move away from what he sees as an unfettered free market, any regulation or involvement on the part of government, is a move toward socialism—and of course he thinks that private ownership and free markets are biblically sanctioned. Net Neutrality prohibits ISPs from charging for Internet service based on usage. This seems straightforward to Barton and Green: “what they mean is we’re not going to let you choose who you need to charge more to.” Maybe more interesting, though, is the subsequent exchange between Rick Green and his “good friend” Texas congressman Joe Barton, who was sponsoring legislation to overturn the Obama administration’s Net Neutrality regulation. Joe Barton tried to explain Net Neutrality and, in the process, revealed important aspects of how such people understand freedom in entirely economic terms. Joe Barton says that we cannot regulate the Internet, it should be open and free. Democrats’ definition of Net Neutrality is we want to give FCC the authority to tell people who actually provide the Internet what they can and can’t do with it. Now, what people like yourself and myself mean [by freedom] is no government interference; it’s pretty straightforward. Republicans and conservatives have always tried to keep the Internet totally free.

But of course they have not tried to keep it totally free, except in one very narrow economic sense. They certainly do not mean “free” in a way that includes broadly available access, because that’s socialism; “redistribution of wealth through the Internet . . . this is socialism on the Internet.” Nor do they mean free regarding content, as David Barton made explicit when he returned to the conversation at the end of the show saying, “We’re not suggesting moral license, we don’t want to have obscenity, pornography, child pornography . . . You still have moral laws to follow.” Economic freedom is nearly absolute, but it is still subordinate to moral law.

At the height of the debate over the federal budget and the Tea Party demands that Congress not raise the debt ceiling during the summer of 2011, David Barton and company tackled the question posed by the “religious left” in the budget debate: What would Jesus cut? They devoted an entire episode of Wallbuilders Live to the question: “Why Do People Think Government’s Role Is to Take Care of the Poor?” The episode is promoted with the assertion that “The role of the government is not to exercise mercy, but to exercise justice. It is improper for government to take care of the poor. That is up to us, as individuals.” With guest Michael Youseff, who had recently written on his blog about the application of the Bible to government spending and the poor, David Barton and Rick Green invoked the framework for limited biblical jurisdiction developed and promoted by Rushdoony. They claimed that the Bible has “205 verses about taking care of the poor” and asserted that “only one is directed to government,” which simply requires no more than the poor be “treated fairly in court.” Barton and Green employ Rushdoony’s framework of three God-ordained spheres of authority and the view that any action on issues outside those responsibilities is tyrannical and socialist. The responsibility to take care of the poor is limited to families and churches.

As we have seen, Rushdoony, Gary North, David Chilton, George Grant, and others have written on this topic. One of the more accessible places to find their view is in George Grant’s volume in Gary North’s Biblical Blueprints Series. Barton and Green borrow from them to assert that taking care of the poor is not the job of the government. Charity is up to individuals, families, and churches. Moreover, it should not be extended to everyone. The architects of the framework on which Barton bases his view are quite clear: biblical charity may extend to the four corners of the earth, but only to those who are in submission to biblical law as it is articulated by the Reconstructionists.

Barton on Race

David Barton is also the popularizer of a revisionist history of race in America that has become part of the Tea Party narrative. Drawn in part from the writings of Christian Reconstructionists, that narrative recasts modern-day Republicans as the racially inclusive party, and modern-day Democrats as the racists supportive of slavery and postemancipation racist policies. Barton’s website has included a “Black History” section for some time. Like Barton’s larger revisionist effort to develop and perpetuate the narrative that America is a Christian nation, the “Republicans-are-really-the-party-of-racial-equality” narrative is not entirely fictive. Some historical points Barton makes are true; but he and his biggest promoter, Glenn Beck, manipulate those points, remove all historical context, and add patently false historical claims in order to promote their political agenda. Barton appeared regularly on Beck’s show to disseminate his alternative reading of African American history, carrying with him, as he does, what he claims are original documents and artifacts that he flashes around for credibility.

In June of 2010 I traveled to central Florida to attend a Tea Party event sponsored by the Florida chapter of Beck’s “9–12 Project” held at a Baptist church (with a Christian school that was established in the late 1970s). The church sanctuary was decked in patriotic trimmings, including eight big flags on the wall, bunting all over the altar area, and a collection of small flags on the altar itself. As I waited for the event to begin, I overheard people talking about homeschooling and David Barton’s work on “America’s Christian Heritage,” all while Aaron Copland’s “Fanfare for the Common Man” played over the sound system. For those unconvinced of the religious dimensions of at the Tea Party movement, the strain of it exhibited here was indistinguishable from the church-based political organizing efforts of the religious right dating back at least to the 1980s. As each local candidate spoke, it was clear how profoundly conservative, Republican, and Christian (in the religious right sense of Christian) this gathering was.

The event was promoted as a response to charges of racism in the Tea Party movement. The banner at the entrance to the event read: “9–12 Project: not racist, not violent, just not silent anymore.” The pastor of the church introduced the meeting, the Tea Party–supported candidates for local office spoke, and all invoked “Christian American history” and the “religion of the founders.” The “9–12 Project” refers both to post-9/11 America (when “divisions didn’t matter”) and to the “nine principles and twelve values” of the group, initiated and promoted by Beck. The “principles” are a distillation of those in The Five Thousand Year Leap, a 1981 book by Cleon Skousen, which was referenced repeatedly by speakers at the event. The book has long been a favorite for Christian schools and homeschoolers and among Reconstructionists despite the fact that Skousen is a Mormon (perhaps because he is also a strong advocate of the free-market Austrian School of economics). I was surprised to learn that Skousen’s book was enjoying a resurgence in popularity as a result of Beck’s promotion and is available in a new edition with a preface by Beck. The fight over the degree to which America was “founded as a Christian nation” is important in that it is a fight over our mythic understanding of ourselves. That is, it is a fight over the narratives through which Americans construct a sense of what it means to be American and perpetuate that sense through the culture and in successive generations.

Intended to counter the charges of racism made against the Tea Party movement, the main speaker was an African American, Franz Kebreau, from the National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of all Colors (NAACPC). The event was in a more rural part of Florida than where I live, and I passed a number of Confederate flags on my way there. I expected an all-white crowd making arguments about “reverse discrimination,” libertarian arguments against violations of state sovereignty (especially with the Civil Rights Act), and maybe even some of the “slavery wasn’t as bad as people say” arguments. What I found surprised me. Kebreau gave a detailed lecture on the history of slavery and racism in America: a profoundly revisionist history. In Kebreau’s narrative, racism is a legacy of slavery, but it was a socially constructed mechanism by which people in power divided, threatened, and manipulated both blacks and whites. Many of the pieces of historical data he marshals in favor of this thesis are not unfamiliar to those who have studied this aspect of American history, but they are probably not as well known among Americans in general: some slave owners were black, not all slaves were black, black Africans played a huge role in the slave trade, and very few Southerners actually owned slaves. While at least most of these points are undeniably true, they were presented with a specific subtext: with the goal of lending credence to the view that contemporary critics of racism make too much of America’s history of slavery. In this view, it is Democrats who are primarily responsible for fostering racism to solidify power. Southern Democrats opposed civil rights laws, voting rights, integration, and so on. Northern Democrats fanned racial tensions by promoting social programs that made African Americans dependent on government. Race-baiting demagogues like Jesse Jackson and the Reverend Al Sharpton perpetuate the divisions today.

In August of 2010, Beck held his Restoring Honor Rally, bringing many Tea Party groups—Tea Party Patriots, Freedom Works, 9–12 Project, Special Operations Warrior Foundation, and others—together at the Lincoln Memorial. While Beck initially promoted the event as a nonpolitical effort to return to the values of the founders, he claims he only realized later that he scheduled it on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. He suggested that while he did not realize the significance of the date, “God might have had a hand” in the coincidence. Beck was criticized for both his timing and his crediting the Almighty. Beck fancies himself a contemporary King, “reclaiming the civil rights movement,” and while he was widely mocked for drawing this parallel, it was less recognized that he did it on a foundation laid by David Barton and his revisionist history, which relies in no small part on the work of Rushdoony.

In his essay “The Founding Fathers and Slavery,” Barton quotes extensively from the writings of the founders and claims that many of them were abolitionists. He maintains that the overwhelming majority of the founders were “sincere Christians” who thought American slavery was “unbiblical,” blamed England for imposing the institution on the colonies, and set in motion processes to end it. Scholars dispense with these claims. According to Diana Butler Bass, “It was nearly universally accepted by white Christian men that the Bible taught, supported, or promoted slavery and it was rare to find a leading American intellectual, Christian or otherwise, who questioned the practice on the basis that it was ‘unbiblical.’ Some intellectuals thought it was counter to the Enlightenment.” Historian Mark Noll argues that the reverse of Barton’s view with regard to the British is correct: evangelicals in the Church of England, not in America, argued that slavery violated the Bible. Again, according to Bass, “the American biblical argument against slavery did not develop in any substantial way until the 1830s and 1840s. Even then, the anti-slavery argument was considered liberal and not quite in line with either scripture or tradition.”

Another essay on Barton’s website, “Democrats and Republicans in Their Own Words: National Party Platforms on Specific Biblical Issues,” compares party platforms from 1840 to 1964—the period before Southern Democrats who blocked civil rights legislation began switching to the Republican Party. In Barton’s narrative, the modern Republican Party is the party more favorable to African Americans because the Republicans led the fight against slavery and for civil rights from the formation of the Republican Party as the “anti-slavery party” and the “election of Abraham Lincoln as the first Republican President,” to the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, the passage of civil rights laws during Reconstruction, and the election of blacks to office. Barton writes that while the Democratic Party platform was defending slavery, “the original Republican platform in 1856 had only nine planks— six of which were dedicated to ending slavery and securing equal rights for African-Americans.” Democrats, on the other hand, supported slavery, and they then sought to ban blacks from holding public office and to limit their right to vote via poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and general harassment and intimidation, and they established legal segregation under Jim Crow laws.

Barton takes issue with the claim that “Southerners” fought for racist policies, because “just one type of Southern whites were the cause of the problem: Southern racist whites.” Rather, he argues (missing the logical inconsistency), we should lay the responsibility for racism at the feet of Democrats:

Current writers and texts addressing the post-Civil War period often present an incomplete portrayal of that era . . . To make an accurate portrayal of black history, a distinction must be made between types of whites. Therefore, [it would be] much more historically correct— although more “politically incorrect”—were it to read: “Democratic legislatures in the South established whites-only voting in party primaries.”

Because he says very little about contemporary Democrats, it’s clear that Barton’s purpose is to connect them with racist Southern Democrats, while completely ignoring the relationship of modern-day Republicans with racism. Most glaringly, the Republican “Southern strategy” is entirely missing from Barton’s account of the parties’ political strategies with regard to race. From the Johnson administration through the Nixon and Reagan campaigns, Republican strategists effectively used race as a “wedge issue.” Southern Democrats would not support efforts by the national party to secure civil rights for African Americans. By focusing on specific racial issues (like segregation), Republicans split off voters who had traditionally voted for Democrats. The contemporary “states’ rights” battle cry at the core of the conservative movement and Tea Party rhetoric is rooted in this very tactic. Barton and Beck want to rewrite American history on race and slavery in order to cleanse the founding fathers of responsibility for slavery and, more importantly, blame it and subsequent racism on Democrats.

But Barton’s rewriting of the history of the founding era and the civil rights movement alone doesn’t quite accomplish that. He has to lower the bar even more and make slavery itself seem like it wasn’t quite as bad as we might think. And for that, he turns to Stephen McDowell of the Reconstructionist-oriented Providence Foundation. Wallbuilders’ website promotes a collection of “resources on African American History.” Much of the material is written by Barton himself, but one of the essays is McDowell’s, drawn almost entirely from Rushdoony’s work in the early 1960s. McDowell’s discussion of slavery, written in 2003, comes directly from Rushdoony’s The Institutes of Biblical Law. McDowell attributes his views to Rushdoony and uses precisely the language that Rushdoony used as early as the 1960s. Rushdoony’s writings on slavery are often cited by his critics. Rushdoony did argue that slavery is biblically permitted. While criticizing American slavery as violating a number of biblical requirements, he also defended it in his writings. By promoting McDowell, and by extension Rushdoony, Barton promotes a biblical worldview in which slavery is in some circumstances acceptable. This worldview downplays the dehumanization of slavery by explicitly arguing that God condones it in certain circumstances.

McDowell writes that, while it was not part of “God’s plan” from the beginning, “slavery, in one form or another (including spiritual, mental, and physical), is always the fruit of disobedience to God and His law/ word,” meaning that the slave is justifiably being punished for his or her disobedience. McDowell argues that slavery is tightly regulated, though not forbidden, in the Bible, and that American Southern slavery was not “biblical” slavery because it was race-based. Following Rushdoony, he argues that there are two forms of biblically permissible slavery: indentured servitude, in which “servants were well treated and when released, given generous pay,” and slavery, in which, in exchange for being taken care of, one might choose to remain a slave. Moreover, he maintains that the Bible permits two forms of involuntary slavery: criminals who could not make restitution for their crimes could be sold into slavery and “pagans, [who] could be made permanent slaves.” Of course, Rushdoony defines “pagans” as simply non-Christians. This means that slavery was/is voluntary only for Christians; non-Christians can be held in nonvoluntary perpetual slavery. Barton shares this understanding of the legal status of “pagans,” at least in terms of their rights under the First Amendment. McDowell is explicit that race-based kidnapping and enforced slavery are unbiblical. In fact, they are punishable by death. All this comes directly from The Institutes of Biblical Law. McDowell argues, as did Rushdoony in the early 1960s, that while American slavery was not biblical slavery, neither was it the cause of the Civil War. The major point of dispute between North and South, they argue, was, not slavery but “centralism,”—that is, the increasing centralization of power in the federal government, an argument frequently echoed today by the states’ rights agitators and Tenth Amendment Tea Partiers. Although in one essay Barton parts company with Rushdoony and McDowell over the significance of slavery as a cause of the Civil War (Barton argues instead that slavery was a cause, in service of his argument that the present-day Republican Party is more racially inclusive than the Democrats), he nonetheless continues to promote, on his website, their view that slavery is biblical.

The historical revisionism with regard to race in America that gained a hearing in the Tea Party (thanks to Glenn Beck and activists such as Franz Kebreau) is rooted in Barton’s and Wallbuilders’ writings, which have been deeply influenced by Rushdoony.

Excerpted from “Building God’s Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction” [3] by Julie Ingersoll. Published by Oxford University Press. Copyright 2015 by Julie Ingersoll. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. All rights reserved.

==

rww

Barton’s Bunk: Religious Right ‘Historian’ Hits the Big Time in Tea Party America

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Newt Gingrich promises to seek his advice and counsel for the 2012 presidential campaign. Mike Huckabee calls him America’s greatest historian, says he should be writing the curriculum for American students, and in fact suggested that all Americans should be “forced at gunpoint” to listen to his broadcasts. Michelle Bachmann calls him “a treasure for our nation” and invited him to teach one of her Tea Party Caucus classes on the Constitution for members of Congress. State legislators from around the country invite him to share his “wisdom” with them. Glenn Beck calls him “the most important man in America.” Who is this guy?

This guy is David Barton, a Republican Party activist and a fast-talking, self-promoting, self-taught, self-proclaimed historian who is miseducating millions of Americans about U.S. history and the Constitution.

Barton has been profitably peddling a distorted “Christian nation” version of American history to conservative religious audiences for the past two decades. His books and videos denouncing church-state separation have been repeatedly debunked by respected historians, but that hasn’t kept Barton from becoming a folk hero for many in the Religious Right. His eagerness to help elect Republicans has won him gratitude and support from national as well as state and local GOP leaders.Former senator Sam Brownback, now the governor of Kansas, has said that Barton’s research “provides the philosophical underpinning for a lot of the Republican effort in the country today – bringing God back into the public square.” Indeed, Time Magazine named him one of the nation’s 25 most influential evangelical Christians in 2005.

Barton broadened his audience when Fox News’ Glenn Beck became a fan. Last year, Beck invited Barton to appear regularly on his “Founders’ Fridays” broadcasts, sending Barton’s books up the bestseller lists. And when Beck brought his messianic road show to Washington, D.C. in August 2010, Barton shared the stage with him. At America’s Divine Destiny,the kick-off event on the eve of Beck’s Lincoln Memorial rally, Barton waved copies of old books and sermons and argued that the nation’s founding documents were essentially cribbed from colonial-era sermons.

While Barton is best known for his claims about the religious intentions of the nation’s founders, he has become a full-service pundit for the far-right in Tea Party America. He pushes predictable positions on abortion, gay rights, and the judiciary. But he is also attacking environmentalists working to combat climate change. And he is a key figure for conservative strategists who would love to forge an even stronger political mergerbetween the Tea Party and Religious Right movements between now and the 2012 elections. Barton’s contribution: claiming that a radically limited role for the federal government was God’s idea, and that Jesus and the Bible are opposed to progressive taxation, minimum wage laws, collective bargaining, and “socialist union kind of stuff.”

Why Barton Matters

Barton’s growing visibility and influence with m embers of Congress and other Republican Party officials is troubling for many reasons: he distorts history and the Constitution for political purposes; he encourages religious divisiveness and unequal treatment for religious minorities; and he feeds a toxic political climate in which one’s political opponents are not just wrong, but evil and anti-God.

Scholars have criticized Barton for presenting facts out of context or in misleading ways, but that hasn’t stopped him from promoting his theories through books, television, and, yes, the textbooks that will teach the next generation of Americans. He promotes conspiracy theories about elites hiding the truth from average Americans in order to undermine the nation from within. Last summer, he declared that liberal and media attacks on the Tea Party were just like attacks on Jesus. In February, Barton spoke at the Connect 2011 Pastors Conference, where he said that Christians needed to control the culture and media so that “guys that have a secular viewpoint cannot survive.” Said Barton, “If the press lacks moral discrimination, it’s because we haven’t been pushing our people to chop that kind of news off.”

Barton’s work is not just an academic exercise. It is meant to have a political impact. For Barton, “documenting” the divine origins of his interpretations of the Constitution gives him and his political allies a potent weapon. Barton promotes a false reality in which anyone who opposes any element of his political agenda stands in opposition to both the Founding Fathers and to God. He believes that everything in our society – government, the judiciary, the economy, the family – should be governed according to the Bible, and he promotes a view of the Bible and Jesus that many Christians would not recognize. Opponents, even Christians, who disagree with Barton about tax policy or the powers of Congress are not only wrong, they are un-American and anti-religious, enemies of America and of God.

President Obama is a particularly frequent target of Barton’s. In January, one of his WallBuilders Live radio shows was titled “Why is Obama Trying to Remove God from the United States?” In March, right-wing “news” service WND quoted Barton accusing Obama (falsely of course) of being “engaged in a pattern of ‘willfully, deliberately’ repudiating America's Christian heritage.”

Those are the kind of accusations long favored by the Religious Right, and they are destructive. Claims that political opponents are evil and are actively trying to destroy Americans’ freedoms poison the public arena, make constructive civic discourse nearly impossible, and have the potential to incite acts of violence.

Elected officials who endorse Barton give his claims credibility they do not deserve. He in turn gives cover and a veneer of legitimacy to right-wing politicians interested in putting their notions of a nation created by and for Christians into public policy. Both Barton and his backers are undermining understanding of, and respect for, vital American values and constitutional principles like separation of church and state and equal treatment under the law.

Barton 101

Barton is a largely self-educated historian whose academic credentials are a Bachelor of Arts degree from Oral Roberts Universityand an Honorary Doctorate of Letters from Pensacola Christian College. His WallBuilders enterprise, through which he publishes books and videos and travels the country to promote his ideas and campaign for Republican officials, includes both nonprofit and for-profit arms.

WallBuilders, which promotes the belief that the Founding Fathers were Christians who wanted the country ruled according to b iblical precepts, organizes religious leaders to get involved in politics, and pushes to enact education policies and laws that reflect Religious Right values and priorities. WallBuilders describes its mission as: “(1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.” A 2005 profile of Barton in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram concisely summarized his goals this way: “Barton is working toward an America where students invoke the name of Jesus in morning prayers, where the Ten Commandments occupy a place on state Capitol grounds, where so-called activist judges are impeached for their decisions.”

Barton says the Christian America he wants to create is not a theocracy, but it would clearly be an America in which religious minorities would have to settle for schools and other governmental institutions promoting Barton’s version of Christianity in every realm of life. As Barton has told Focus on the Family:

The Bible clearly teaches that the way people view their own history affects the way they behave. God wants us to know our history and learn its lessons. At WallBuilders, we present American history, and we do so with a Providential perspective. In short, history not only shows God’s workings and plans but it also demonstrates the effectiveness of biblical principles when applied to church, education, government, economics, family, entertainment, military or any other aspect of life.

:{

}:

Barton argues that the Bible and 150 years of sermons by colonial preachers inspired the nation’s founders. The constitutional form of government, he says, was based on a biblical model:early Hebrew government was a “federative republic,” with God having identified the three branches of government, and with councils of elders functioning like the Senate.

Barton, like other Religious Right leaders, has been increasingly embracing Seven Mountains Dominionism, which teaches that certain kinds of Christians are meant by God to dominate every sphere of society. Barton quotes Jesus telling his followers to “occupy till I come.”Although that quote comes from a parable, it’s a favorite ofdominionist speakers who believe it affirms their belief that Christians are meant to be running the nation and the world. Barton serves on the board of the dominionistProvidence Foundation, which claims to have trained tens of thousands of leaders on behalf of its mission, which is “to spread liberty, justice, and prosperity among the nations by instructing individuals in a Biblical worldview.” The foundation says that the notion of Divine Providence “expressed a basic link in the Founders' thinking between God and history,” and gives this definition:

"Providence" is defined as the preservation, government, guidance, and direction which God exercises over all creation, including the civil affairs of men and women. The Scriptures contain a theology of the family, the church, and the state. Principles in God's written Word that relate to civil government, politics, economics, and education are timeless and universally useful for the benefit of any culture on earth today.

Barton has been deeply involved in recent battles over the content oftextbooks in Texas and the nation. The Texas State Board of Education notoriously redesigned the state’s social studies curriculum to have it conform more closely to a right-wing view of American history, even though somechanges sought by Religious Right activists like Barton wereinaccurate and dismissive of the civil rights movement. The Religious Right activist who had chaired the Board of Education named Barton an “expert” and backed efforts by Barton and preacher Peter Marshall to purge figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Cesar Chavez from the curriculum. Barton’s involvement with the textbook controversy also provided evidence of the naked partisanship behind much of his work: he demanded that because the founders hated and feared democracy, and created a republic instead, that textbooks should not refer to “democratic values” but “republican” ones.

Sloppy Scholarship

Credible historians, writers, and even religious groups have denounced Barton’s shoddy, misleading, and politically-motivated “scholarship,” which misquotes and misleadinglyportrays historical figures and documents. Here is a sampling of Barton’s critics:

Barton is undeterred by such criticism. Instead, he insists that he is revealing to Americans the inspiring truth about their country that has been hidden by academic and media elites, who have conspired to keep Americans in the dark about the religious intentions of the nation’s founders.

In his interviews and television appearances, Barton talks fast, like a man who has so many stories to tell he doesn’t know where to start or stop. Unfortunately, a lot of the stories Barton has told about the founders and American history simply aren’t true.

Chris Rodda of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has effectively refuted one of Barton’s favorite claims — that Congress printed an official Bible for use in schools in 1782. (Barton makes the claim on one of his Capitol tours here).  Barton's version of the history is not accurate, reports Rodda.  The Bible publisher's requests to have Congress make a large purchase of his product were turned down. Congress did, at the publisher's request, ask its chaplains to vouch for the Bible's accuracy in translation and printing. Barton excitedly told his inflated version on the Glenn Beck show, as if it demonstrated an important fact about our notions of church-state separation.  But his misrepresentations say more about Barton's misuse of historical documents to make political points.

Rodda has produced a number of articles and videos tackling Barton’s claims by checking Barton’s descriptions of historical documents. (Barton has a massive collection of original documents from the founding era, which he uses to give a veneer of historical accuracy and drama to his presentations.) One of the most damning fact-checksconcerns a letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush from 1809. Barton cites a long section of the letter in which Adams says, in part, “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.” But Barton does not include the sentence which immediately follows, which is “Although this is all Artifice and Cunning in the secret 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 for it. Alas the poor weak ignorant Dupe human Nature.” In other words, Adams was mocking the very point that Barton claims he was making.

Barton and his son Tim appeared last December on Kirk Cameron’s show on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. In that interview, the younger Barton inaccurately described the correspondence in which Thomas Jefferson used the phrase “wall of separation” between church and state. Tim Barton said Jefferson told the recipients of his letter (the Danbury Baptists) to “imagine” that there was such a wall; in fact Jefferson wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” David Barton has also mischaracterized that letter, claiming (wrongly) that Jefferson described a “one-way” concept of church-state separation more to Barton’s liking. Like father, like son.

While Barton is seemingly undeterred by the evidence he knows most of his supporters will never see, Barton has not been able to simply ignore all questioning of his errors and misstatements. He edited and renamed one book (The Myth of Separation becameOriginal Intent) after critics pointed out false material. He has publicly admitted that a dozen supposed quotations about the nation’s origin and purpose that he and others have attributed to founding fathers simply can’t be verified. But those quotations continue to be used by others.

Good Timing for Bad History

Barton’s long years of promoting a vision of a non-secular American government created by and for Christians prepared him well for the current political moment, in which right-wing pundits, leaders of the Tea Party movement, and increasingly, the Republican Party, are turning the idea of a divinely ordained “American exceptionalism” into a political weapon against President Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, and liberals in general.

In the hands of Barton and his ideological compatriots, American exceptionalism is more than the idea that America plays a unique role in the world. They insist on a version of American exceptionalism that is grounded in divine inspiration of the founders and a divine blessing on the country. Barton says America’s unique commitment to individual rights is grounded in colonial pastors’ belief in individual salvation. If it weren’t for that divine origin, America would be more collectivist, like France, he argues

Barton also insists that the U.S. Constitution was not meant to be a secular document. The First Amendment prohibits an establishment of religion and the Constitution includes an explicit ban on religious tests for public office, and its authors did not include any assertion of divine origin or blessing, but Barton has a theory. At the end of the text of the Constitution, its authors write that the Constitution’s crafting was “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.” Barton claims that this passing reference to the Declaration of Independence incorporates that document and its reference to rights endowed by a Creator into the U.S. Constitution, making the Constitution a religious document that reflects and requires a national acknowledgment of God’s hand in our founding, history, and prosperity.

Barton’s Bible = Tea Party Platform

Barton is one of many Religious Right figures who are challenging socially libertarian strains within the Tea Party movement and arguing that one cannot legitimately be an economic conservative without also being a social conservative.And he is working hard to give the Tea Party movement, its view of the Constitution, and its anti-tax and anti-welfare economic policies a divine stamp of approval.

On a conference call with pastors in the wake of the November 2010 elections, Barton asserted that the Bible “absolutely” condemns the estate tax as “most immoral,” and said Jesus taught against the capital gains tax and opposed the minimum wage. Barton went even further, declaring that taxation is theft and in particular that the Bible condemns progressive taxation, which he insists is “inherently un-biblical and unfair.” He echoed those themes during a three-part broadcast on limited government in January 2011, saying “Money does not belong to the government, it belongs to individuals, and to steal money from individuals through whatever government spending program is taking private property and you’re not supposed to do that.”

In Making the Constitution Obsolete: Understanding What is Happening to America’s Economic and Cultural Heritage, a DVD marketed by the American Family Association, Barton repeats his claims for biblical opposition to progressive taxes. “ Biblically, Jesus says the sun shines on the just, the unjust, the rain falls on the wicked, the righteous, God treats everybody exactly the same, whether you’re rich or poor you pay a ten percent tithe…everyone’s treated the same, so you don’t have any kind of a class warfare, you have equality under the law.” Says Barton, “The concept of justice goes out with the progressive income tax which is why the Bible is opposed to it.”

Barton claims a biblical basis for other Tea Party notions such as a call for a return to the gold standard (floating exchange rates reflect moral relativism applied to economic policy) and opposition to welfare programs (he says the earliest American colonies survived only by enforcing the biblical injunction that if a man will not work he will not eat). The Federal Reserve System, he says, violates biblical principles of competition and transparency. He argues that the kind of government social programs undertaken by Franklin Delano Roosevelt were wrong from a biblical standpoint, because the Bible says taking care of the poor is the job of the church and the individual, not the government.

And he promotes a Tea Partier’s radical view of the Constitution, key constitutional amendments, and limitations on federal authority to address issues facing the nation.“ Congress can do 18 things and that’s all,” he says. He decries the way that post-Civil War amendments have been used to alter the relationship between state and national governments. On the DVD Making the Constitution Obsoletehe decries the “perversion of the 14th Amendment” by the courts, meaning their application to any issue other than slavery. He says the south was wrong on slavery but right on states’ rights. He complains that the courts have “abused the process” and thus “completely revolutionized America.”

Barton on Politics:GOP = God’s Own Party

Barton is an unabashed partisan. He was vice-chair of the Texas Republican Party from 1997-2006 and has recently helped Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Religious Right favorite, peddle his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington.

Barton tells pastors that the GOP is their “logical home if you’re concerned about Biblical issues” since “it’s very clear in the party platforms that one party does support traditional marriage and opposes abortion and supports school prayer —and the other opposes that.”

Barton excoriates Christians who don’t share his enthusiasm for politics, saying that Jesus’ admonition to render under Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s requires Christians to take responsibility for their government. And Barton warns that God will hold them accountable for choosing the wrong candidate,consistently telling voters that they will “answer to God” for their votes, saying “righteousness must be the issue.” In 2006, he told conservatives at a political rally in Ohio, "Take your Sunday school class to vote, and you’ve got to start breaking fingers if they don’t.”

On the other hand, Barton understands that in politics you don’t often get perfect candidates. When it comes to elective politics, Barton argues for incrementalism rather than ideological purity or third party politics. He tells voters that it makes sense to support a candidate you agree with 70 percent of the time if the alternative is someone you agree with only 20 percent. Barton claims biblical authority for this principle by quoting God telling the Israelites in Deuteronomy that he would not give them the Promised Land all at once.

National GOP leaders have in increasingly tapped his proven ability to excite conservative evangelical voters with his attacks on church-state separation, liberal judges, and the like. In 2004, Barton traveledacross the nation to help George W. Bush’s re-election bid:

"He could take a crowd that wasn't particularly political, that didn't understand how they could make a difference, that didn't understand how the issues that mattered to them played a part in politics, and motivate them to go out and work in their communities," said Blaise Hazelwood, who served as the Republican National Committee's political director during the campaign. "He's incredibly talented at doing that."

Barton also campaigned for the McCain/Palin ticket in 2008. That year, he cited four factors he considers when deciding how to vote in presidential elections in a Fire Away Friday conversation sold by the American Family Association as a DVD entitledChristianity and Politics: Do they Mix?:

  1. What are you going to do on judges?
  2. What are you going to do on right to life?
  3. Where are they on homosexuality – do they understand absolute moral rights and wrongs or put the Bible on the back shelf?
  4. Acknowledgement of God. If we keep religion at church and out of the public arena we’re going to miss blessings that come from the acknowledgment of God

Because Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had voted wrongly, in Barton’s eyes, on all those factors, and McCain had voted correctly, Barton said he wasn’t bothering to listen to any speeches because he knew who to vote for.

Before the 2010 elections, Barton said: “If we stand before God and He says ‘why did you vote for a leader who’s attempting to redefine my institution of marriage and who wills the unborn children that I knew before they were in the womb?’ If He asks us that and our answer is ‘Because that leader was good on jobs and the economy,’ He’s not going to accept that.” After the many conservative victories in the 2010 elections, Barton praisedthe number of Americans involved in Religious Right-organized prayer and fasting efforts leading up to the elections. “Historically it’s irrefutable” that those efforts had an impact on the election, he said. “There’s no way from a biblical or historical standpoint you can do that and not see God intervene or move.”

Barton’s use of political data is no more reliable than his interpretation of historical documents. Right Wing Watch’s Kyle Mantyla, in a piece aptly titled {“}_{David Barton's Utter Disregard for Fact and Accuracy,”}_ exposes and debunks Barton’s deceptive manipulation of polling data to make literally unbelievable claims about the 2010 elections, including the claim that the number of voters who considered marriage an important issue jumped from one percent in 2008 to 53 percent in 2010.

Barton on Environmentalism: Green = Evil

Barton is closely associated with a movement among conservative evangelicals to resist the rise of environmental activism in church communities and to portray the environmental movement as not only un-Christian but actively anti-Christian. He is among the many Religious Right leaders who signed the 2009 Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which asserts:

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.

The Declaration claims that efforts to reduce carbon dioxide would be economically devastating, particularly to poorer nations, and that such policies therefore fail to “comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.”

Barton was invited to testify before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2007. In that testimony, he promoted the Cornwall Alliance, a Religious Right group opposing action on climate change. An excerpt from the “Cornwall Declaration” follows:

And while science is still debating the causes of Global Warming and trying to decide where the ocean waves will end up, religious conservatives rest in the many promises of the Scriptures. For example, in Genesis 8:21-22, God promised that the natural cycles would continue (“While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease”); and Psalm 104:9 declares: “You set a boundary that they [the waters] may not pass over, so that they will not return to cover the earth”; and in Jeremiah 5:22, God asks: “Will you not tremble at My presence, Who have placed the sand as the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree that it [the sea] cannot pass beyond it? And though its waves toss to and fro, yet they cannot prevail.” To date, neither science nor experience has disproved the promises of those Scriptures.

But Cornwall and Barton go well beyond criticism of the science on man-caused climate change. Barton is actively involved in the “Resisting the Green Dragon” project, which attacks efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change, and which portraysenvironmentalism as “deadly to human prosperity, deadly to human life, deadly to human freedom, and deadly to the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Barton appeared on Glenn Beck’s October 15, 2010 television show along with Cornwall Alliance founder and spokesman Calvin Beisner. The show was largely devoted to attacking “And Let There Be … Stuff?” a pro-environment curriculum designed for use by religious congregations. Beck asserted that “environmentalists are now worshiping the ancient god of Babylon, the god of weather.” And Barton took to the blackboard to demonstrate visually his claim that, while the traditional religious view places mankind as the pinnacle of creation, the “secular religious view” actually places mankind at the bottom, as less important than plants and animals. He complained that environmentalists are therefore willing to “inconvenience man” in order to save other animal species. Beisner and Barton agreed with Beck that the environmental movement is “anti-human” and that the environmental curriculum designed for use in churches was more evidence that “the progressive left is coming for the kill on religion.”

Barton on Religious Minorities

When Rep. Keith Ellison was elected to the House of Representatives from Minnesota in 2006, Ellison—the first Muslim in Congress— chose to use a Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson for his private ceremonial swearing-in (the actual swearing-in takes place on the floor of the House of Representatives in a group). Some conservative Christians reacted with anger to that decision; Barton defended those reactions by citing 19th-century history as a reason Americans are right to be worried about a Muslim in Congress.

In January 2007, Barton penned “An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran,” which generously quoted two of Ellison’s most vocal critics. Radio show host Dennis Prager said the use of the Koran “undermined American civilization” and said, “Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book: the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.” Barton also approvingly quoted Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia, who said Ellison’s election was evidence of the need to restrict immigration.

In the article, Barton argues that the U.S. conflict with the Barbary pirates in the early 1800s provides “useful background in addressing the issue of a Muslim being sworn into Congress.” Barton refers to the Barbary pirates as “Muslim terrorists.”He wrote that Ellison’s use of a Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson was “perhaps not as noble” as Ellison portrayed, saying the reason Jefferson owned the Koran was to “learn the beliefs of the enemies he was fighting.”

Ellison may not have the same beliefs as the Muslims who openly decry and even attack America; nevertheless, their behavior reflects on him. It is therefore understandable that citizens outside his district are highly concerned. This concern was heightened by the fact that Ellison himself publicly flaunted his abrogation of American precedent by making his swearing-in on the Koran a national issue.

After a litany of historical examples of human rights abuses by Muslim leaders, Barton concludes:

Keith Ellison may be the one to break this pattern and start something new with Islam, but in the meantime, he should not be surprised that there is widespread concern over his decision to publicly flaunt American tradition and values and replace them with Islamic ones.

In the article Barton also promotes the books of Robert Spencer, a right-wing author whose vehemently anti-Muslim books have been criticized by scholars of religion and civil rights advocates.

In September 2010, Barton devoted several WallBuilders Live broadcasts to critics of the cultural center that opponents describe inaccurately as the “Ground Zero Mosque.” Barton criticized media coverage of the issue, saying, “When they’re claiming it’s a freedom of religion issue, and that’s all they’re talking about, that’s great proof that’s not the issue.”

Debra Burlingame, the sister of a pilot killed in the 9-11 attacks, was a guest one day. She said promoters of the cultural center want to build a Muslim presence at a site of conquest that would “be seen in the Muslim world as the hand of Allah basically ratifying what happened on 9-11.”She called it “an overt and audacious history grab.”Barton co-host Rick Green agreed that it would be “a beachhead for Sharia law.” Barton referred to Feisel Abdul Rauf, the imam promoting the cultural center, as “this nut” and argued that he is “trying to provoke a nuclear incident with Israel and with Iran.”

The next day, WallBuilders continued the conversation with Walid Shoebat, a self-described former PLO terrorist and convert to evangelical Christianity, who said that Rauf wants to do the same thing Osama bin Laden wants to do, which is to see America subjugated to Sharia law. Shoebat said that liberals are supporting the project because “liberals always agree with Muslims,” an “insight” that Rick Green called “brilliant.” Barton and Green agreed that the worldviews of liberals and Islamicists “fit together.”

Barton also complained when a Hindu priest was invited to give the invocation before Congress that “the prayer will be completely outside the American paradigm, flying in the face of the American motto ‘One Nation Under God.’”

Not surprisingly, Barton is seemingly unconcerned about the impact on religious minorities of his efforts to re-install Christian prayers in public school classrooms. The Star Telegram writes:

Barton's views on school prayer illustrate one of the tenets of his belief system: an abiding faith in majority rule.

Students of all religions should be able to pray in the classroom, during graduation or at football games if the majority of a community wants it, Barton argues.

"I fully understand if New York City doesn't want prayer in schools, but Pampa, Texas, may," he said.

Barton says other faiths should be able to pray, too, but only according to their representation in a given community. Christian prayers, then, would dominate in most places.

Smaller faiths are owed no more by the majority, he believes. Above all else, Barton believes that America was founded on Christianity.

He has written and spoken approvingly of early state constitutions that required officeholders to profess "faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son."

But secularists still top the list of Barton’s enemies. For all his criticism of Islam, and his defense of those concerned about the election of Muslim public officials, Barton saysnonreligious public officials would be even worse:

From a societal standpoint, there should be more concern over elected officials who are secularists and will swear an oath on no religious book, than for Muslims who swear on the Koran. After all, secularism presents a greater threat to American traditions and values than does Islam.

Immigration

Barton brings his trademark style – claiming God’s blessing for all the Religious Right’s political positions—to the issue of immigration as well. Last summer, Barton arguedagainst immigration reform, saying,

…it is God and not man who establishes the borders of nations. National boundaries are set by God. If God didn't want boundaries, he would have put everyone in the same world and there would have been no nations; we would have all been living together as one group and one people. That didn't happen. From the Tower of Babel, he sent them out with different languages, different cultures. God's the one who drew up the lines for the nations, so to say open borders is to say ‘God, you goofed it all up and when you had borders, you shouldn't have done it’ ... And so, from a Christian standpoint, you cannot do that. God's the one who establishes the boundaries of nations.

Barton and WallBuilders Live co-host Rick Green have also featured William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, whom Right Wight Watch has described as “ the viciously anti-immigrant activist” who made news when he “demanded that Sen. Lindsey Graham admit that he is gay, saying that his refusal to do so was allowing President Obama and others to blackmail him into supporting immigration reform.”Gheen said of the Department of Homeland Security, “they don't care about the death and suffering illegal immigration is causing the American public” and called immigrants’ advocates enemies of America.

Racial History

As part of his tireless efforts to promote the Republican Party, Barton has peddled a one-sided “documentary” called *Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White*, which is designed to help the GOP reach out to black voters by blaming the Democratic Party for slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow. That documentary was a focus of People For the American Way Foundation’s 2006 report on Barton, Propaganda Masquerading as History. Barton’s film credits the GOP with the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s. Not so surprisingly, his history stops there, ignoring the decades of GOP power-building in the south based on fanning racial resentment among conservative white voters. Barton continues to promote his ideologically blinkered history of race in America, devoting his WallBuilders Live radio show in the first week of March 2011 to a recap of Setting the Record Straight.

Barton also offers a revisionist take on the history of slavery in America, which among other things portrays the Constitution’s treatment of slaves as three-fifths of a person as evidence of the Christian founders’ anti-slavery sentiments.“ Barton accuses historians of hiding the truth about slavery and racism from the American people, a charge that fits the larger conspiracy-oriented worldview of Beck and other leading conservatives,” saysreligion scholar Julie Ingersoll, an associate professor of religious studies at the University of North Florida, who notes that Barton’s revisionist view is now showing up in Tea Partiers’ talking points.

Ingersoll summarizes Barton’s strategic revisionism:

David Barton, Glenn Beck’s favorite history “professor,” is the creator and purveyor of a revisionist history of race in America that is rapidly gaining traction in conservative and Tea Party circles. That history, drawn in part from the writings of Christian Reconstructionists, recasts modern-day Republicans as the racially inclusive party, and modern-day Democrats as the racists supportive of slavery and post-Emancipation racist policies.

Barton frames the details for maximum impact on contemporary politics, to an increasingly growing audience. Like Barton’s larger revisionist effort to develop and perpetuate the narrative that America is a “Christian nation,” the “Republicans-are-really-the-party-of-racial-equality” narrative is not entirely fictive. Some historical points Barton makes are true; but he and his star pupil Beck manipulate those points along with false historical claims in order to promote their political agenda.

Barton’s involvement in recent controversies over the treatment of American history in Texas textbooks was another outlet for his efforts to shape the next generation’s understanding of American History. As Mariah Blake of the Washington Monthlywrote of Barton and Marshall:

They have since resorted to a more subtle tack; while they concede that people like Martin Luther King Jr. deserve a place in history, they argue that they shouldn’t be given credit for advancing the rights of minorities. As Barton put it, “Only majorities can expand political rights in America’s constitutional society.” Ergo, any rights people of color have were handed to them by whites—in his view, mostly white Republican men.

The Courts

Barton has been an active participant in the long-running Religious Right campaign to impose ideological domination on the federal judiciary. He has published Restraining Judicial Activism, a book calling for the impeachment of federal judges who don’t interpret the Constitution the same way he does. And he has argued that members of Congress should use the threat of impeachment as a way to intimidate federal judges into falling in line. Barton has celebrated Iowa voters’ rejection of pro-equality state Supreme Court justices last November as a signal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In fact, Barton says judges are his number one voting issue when it comes to electing a president, citing the prophet Isaiah saying that the righteousness of a land will be based on its judges. Before the 2008 election, hepraised the progress that conservatives had made with Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court and urged people to “just think what we could do with all aspects of the culture war” if they got a fifth or sixth justice. Looking ahead to 2012, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are a powerful motivator for Barton.

Gay Equality

Barton believes the government should regulate gay sex, relying on bogus claims about gay people to make his case, such as “homosexuals die decades earlier than heterosexuals.” Barton has also maintained that countries that “rejected sexual regulation” have inevitably collapsed. He has griped that “if there’s a group in America that is hypersensitive, it is homosexuals. I mean, they got a short fuse on everything.” Not surprisingly, Barton opposes marriage equality and hascampaigned for state restrictions on legal equality.

In an article defending exclusion of gay servicemembers from the military, Barton happily cites a litany of harsh condemnations of homosexual “sodomy” from the 18th and 19th centuries, including state laws calling for the death penalty. Among those he cites is an author who in 1814 “outlined why homosexuality must be more strenuously addressed and much less tolerated than virtually any other moral vice in society.” Barton’s quotes include this section:

If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread, we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe…. Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much more secrecy . . . and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and that after some hundred years it will no longer be the same . . . powerful country it is at present.

Barton also made inaccurate statements about the Hide/Seek exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery, which aroused the ire of Religious Right groups. On his radio show Barton falsely suggested that Hide/Seek, which examined through portraiture the visibility of gay and lesbian Americans and their impact on modern art, was actually a “Christmas exhibit” designed to lure children into seeing shocking images. Barton and his co-host Rick Green wrongly maintained that the exhibit was “taxpayer funded,” even thoughHide/Seek only used private funds and did not receive any taxpayer money.

Enlisting Jesus in the War on Unions

Religious Right activist David Barton promotes his version of American exceptionalism (America was created by its divinely inspired founders as a country of, by, and for evangelical Christians) and b iblical capitalism (Jesus and the Bible oppose progressive taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and minimum wage laws). Claiming divine backing is a long-standing Religious Right technique with a powerful political edge: if God supports radically limited government, then progressive policies are not only wrong but evil, and liberals are not only political opponents but enemies of God.

On a conference call with pastors two days after the November 2010 elections to celebrate conservative victories,Barton asserted a biblical underpinning for far-right economic policies: Taxation and deficit spending amount to theft, a violation of the Ten Commandments. The estate tax is “absolutely condemned” by the Bible as the “most immoral” of taxes. Jesus had “teachings” condemning the capital gains tax and minimum wage.

Barton also enlists Jesus in the war against unions and collective bargaining.According to Barton, a parable from the 20th chapter of the book of Matthew about the owner of a vineyard making different arrangements with workers was about “the right of private contract” – in other words, the right of employers to come to individual agreements with each employee. Jesus’ parable, he said, is “anti-minimum wage” and “anti-socialist-union kind of stuff.”

Conclusion

David Barton is in many ways emblematic of politics in Fox News - Tea Party America, in which facts are distorted in service of a right-wing ideological agenda, and in which political opponents are denigrated as enemies of faith and freedom. Barton’s work has repeatedly been debunked by historians and scholars, yet conservative political leaders and pundits continue to promote his manipulations in order to help Republicans get elected and in order to advance the Religious Right’s – and now the Tea Party’s – political agenda. It is urgently important for scholars, public officials, and responsible media outlets to vigorously challenge efforts by Barton, his supporters, and the movements they represent to miseducate current and future generations of Americans on the Constitution and the abiding American values of religious liberty, equal opportunity, and equality under the law.

Additional Resources