God of Our Fathers

Not since the medieval church baptized, as it were, Aristotle as some sort of early — very early — church father has there been an intellectual hijacking as audacious as the attempt to present America’s principal founders as devout Christians. Such an attempt is now in high gear among people who argue that the founders were kindred spirits with today’s evangelicals, and that they founded a “Christian nation.”

This irritates Brooke Allen, an author and critic who has distilled her annoyance into “Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers.” It is a wonderfully high-spirited and informative polemic that, as polemics often do, occasionally goes too far. Her thesis is that the six most important founders — Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton — subscribed, in different ways, to the watery and undemanding Enlightenment faith called deism. That doctrine appealed to rationalists by being explanatory but not inciting: it made the universe intelligible without arousing dangerous zeal.

My point? I don't know, maybe that David Barton is a less than reliable source? That the "Christian Nation" project is a bunch of hooey? That you presented as authoritative a collection of cites from David Barton without including David Barton's own retraction of the phony quotes he fobbed off in his prior claims? That not much is left of David Barton's credibility? You choose.

None of this actually seems to be substantiated by the link. Were all (or most) of his original quotes unsupported?

Can you send me a link to any article that covers the retraction of previous quotes. Perhaps it is a sign of integrity that retracts previous quotations when he discovered there were inaccurate.

You are seeking to besmirch the reputation of a man that I know to be of the highest integrity. And his work has been shown to be of the highest quality.

So as I asked above, please send me links to these alleged "refutation" articles, and I will consider them.

I have done research on the "Questionable Quotes" issue on Barton's web site. Have you seen it? He has a very reasoned response to the controversy. As, I mentioned before, his answer demonstrates the highest level of integrity.

In a nutshell, many of his quotes were from academics, PhD's, and historians. Discovering a weakness in some of their scholarship, he made the decision to withdraw quotes from any secondary sources, and use only primary, original sources. Having made that decision, previous quotes were withdrawn, not because they were false, necessarily, but because they couldn't be substantiated by the original, primary sources.

As I said, contra to your assertions, this seems to raise Barton's level of integrity, not lower it. My next entry will give you some links to his web site were he explains his rationale. [NB: good scholarship demands you check both sides of an issue, and not simply the side that substantiates your pre-judged position.]

I have done research on the "Questionable Quotes" issue on Barton's web site. Have you seen it?

I gave you a link to it.

My next entry will give you some links to his web site were he explains his rationale.

Thank-you, but I already have those links. Which explains why I was able to give them to you.

I have found your link, but I would not characterize it as "mealy-mouthed."

Again, I gave you a link to it. Point, click. Why is this so difficult?

Barton sought to raise the academic standard, not weasel out of a position previously held.

I don't know. I just don't view it as "raising the academic standard" when you concede that your prior "scholarship" was bogus, and do so only after others have pointed out its marked deficiencies.

You are seeking to besmirch the reputation of a man that I know to be of the highest integrity. And his work has been shown to be of the highest quality.

His work has been shown to be shoddy at best.

So as I asked above, please send me links to these alleged "refutation" articles, and I will consider them.

Right. Consider, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And please note that additional links are embedded within these links.

I'm sure you will find the critiques of Mr. Barton's scholarship unsatisfactory, but note that it was in direct response to these critiques that Mr. Barton belatedly decided that revision of his previous historical revisionism was necessary. And you will also note that Mr. Barton has only partially addressed the issues raised in these critiques.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.