David Barton: Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin

[lakhota]

The Right's Favorite Historian: Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin

Talk to a prominent social conservative these day and the odds are pretty good that he or she is a fan of David Barton. Perhaps more than any other person, the Texas-based amateur historian has provided grist for the idea of American Exceptionalism—the argument that America's unique success in the world is divinely caused and due to its committment to core Judeo-Christian principles. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, the tea party champion and likely 2012 presidential contender, invited him to teach members of Congress about the Constitution; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says he learns something new every time he listens to Barton.

He's a pretty influential guy. So what, exactly, does he teach? On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn't even published until 1859. Barton declared, "As far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, they'd already had the entire debate over creation and evolution, and you get Thomas Paine, who is the least religious Founding Father, saying you've got to teach Creation science in the classroom. Scientific method demands that!" Paine died in 1809, the same year Darwin was born. Here's the clip:


It's been said that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were ahead of their times. But perhaps not that prescient.

In the same interview, Barton explains that one of the main reasons that the colonies wanted to break away from England was because it would then become easier to abolish slavery. Anybody who has studied the basics of the American Revolution knows that the issue of slavery was tabled in order to secure approval of the Declaration of Independence. (For the record, Britain abolished slavery in 1833—32 years before the United States.)

This is kind of nuts, but also illuminating. Barton has emerged as a force by bridging two sometimes disparate strains of conservatism—the Chamber of Commerce crowd with the Christian Coalition crowd. In his lectures, they become one: Jesus opposed the minimum wage; Jesus opposed the progressive income tax; etc. You can only imagine the fervor with which Jesus would have endorsed the Paul Ryan budget. When someone like Bachmann says, as she famously did earlier this year, that the Founding Fathers worked to abolish slavery, Barton is where it starts. When Texas Gov. Rick Perry, another potential GOP presidential candidate, says we need to return to our Biblical principles to escape from our current system of economic slavery (yes, he really said this), he's channeling Barton.

When it comes to the conservatives' alternative reality—from Jesus to the Founders to the HMS Beagle—Barton is the right's historian-in-chief.

motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/gops-favorite-historian-founding-fathers-opposed-evolution

[lakhota]

It's strange to watch people who appear sane to be so insane.

[lakhota]

David Barton Outlines His Plan for an American Theocracy

Given Mike Huckabee’s support for historical revisionist David Barton, it is important that Americans understand exactly what it is they’re getting when they consider a vote for Huckabee or any other conservative attaching his or her name to Barton. Barton is not simply a right-wing nutjob (though he is that too) but he is, as Right Wing Watch points out, “a Seven Mountains Dominionist who believes that every – every – element of our government and society ought to be structured in accordance with the Bible so that those who hold a ‘secular viewpoint cannot survive.’”

David Barton is proposing a Taliban-like regime in control of the United States, as you will see below. Why is this so bad? Most people know the Taliban took over Afghanistan and ran it into the ground. Perhaps not as many have thought about what a Taliban-like regime would mean for America and for Americans. Let’s take a look at Peter Bergen’s description of Kabul under the Taliban. This could be your town:

Kabul under the Taliban was simultaneously quiet, grim, and boring. Black-turbaned vigilantes roamed its streets like wraiths dispensing their ferocious brand of “Islamic” justice. Curfew started at 9 P.M. and by 8 P.M. the streets were deserted except for the young Taliban soldiers in turbans who stood at every traffic circle, carefully checking passing vehicles. Some wore kohl, a black eyeliner that gave them a look both feline and foreboding. The Taliban had banned pretty much any form of diversion and entertainment and had presided over the total collapse of the economy. A doctor earned only six dollars a month. Government ministries worked without computers, their offices unheated in the brutal Kabul winter. There were no banks and the treasury of the country consisted of a box from which the Taliban leader Mullah Omar distributed wads of cash; the Taliban had pulled Afghanistan back into the Middle Ages (The Longest War, 2011: 174-75).

Clearly this was a place in which those who hold “a secular viewpoint cannot survive.”

According to Right Wing Watch, “Seven Mountains dominionism seeks to place Christians in control over the seven forces that shape and control our culture.” Or, as David Barton puts it, “Anything the Bible talks about should not be considered secular.” Obviously, that’s pretty much everything.

As you can see from the description of Kabul above this is truly frightening stuff and it’s no longer an extreme fringe point of view with people like Glenn Beck and Mike Huckabee endorsing it. This is a man, remember, who was listed by Time magazine as one of the nation’s 25 most influential evangelicals. Right Wing Watch explains the dominionist motive:

The reason for this, as Lance Wallnau, the leading advocate for Seven Mountains theology, explained is that Jesus “doesn’t come back until He’s accomplished the dominion of nations.” And the way “dominion of nations” is accomplished is by having Christians gain control of these “seven mountains” in order to install a “virtual theocracy” overseen by “true apostles” who will fight Satan and his Antichrist agenda.

In case you’re wondering, these are the seven mountains:

(1) Business;

(2) Government;

(3) Media;

(4) Arts and Entertainment;

(5) Education;

(6) Family; and

(7) Religion.

www.politicususa.com/en/david-barton-outlines-his-plan-for-an-american-theocracy

[NoMoreLunacy]

What an idiot. This is the problem with today's Republicans. They focus way too much on the social agenda and not enough on the economic agenda. They tax and spend just like Democrats. People still vote for them because they are against abortion. For shame. To me, a candidate who would give me super tax breaks but would go out and pay for a million abortions out of his own pocket is perfectly acceptable. Any time wasted in stupid nonsense like the above is time taken away from cutting spending and lowering taxes.

[lakhota]

GOP's Favorite Fake Historian Spins The New York Times

Last week, Mother Jones took a hard look at the words and influence of pseudo-historian David Barton, a Republican activist and minister who's devoted his life to bringing religion into politics. The separation of church and state, Barton claims, is a perversion of the Founding Fathers' intention to create a Christian nation.

As we reported, Barton's enduring popularity among the evangelical community is the secret sauce that endears him to the Republican Party's heavy hitters, including possible presidential contenders Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Michele Bachmann. But Barton's message (among other things, he has said that Jesus would oppose the capital gains tax and the minimum wage; that global warming is "self-correcting"; and that the nation's homeland security apparatus has been infiltrated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood) is built on a foundation of distortions. Barton is not a student of history, but a manipulator of it.

But today's front page story on Barton by Erick Eckholm in The New York Times almost makes it sound like there's a legitimate debate over his view of history. Eckholm makes only fleeting mention of the fact that Barton has zero formal training in history, referring to him only as "self-taught," and his "research" as merely "disputed" and considered "flawed" by historians.

In lieu of any careful examination of Barton's record are laudatory passages about Barton's drive. "Keeping an exhaustive schedule, he is also immersed in the nuts and bolts of politics and maintains a network of 700 anti-abortion state legislators," Eckholm writes. And there's this:

It is hard to know when Mr. Barton finds the time to pore over documents and write, let alone ride the horses he keeps on a small ranch. Beyond his hundreds of speeches, he tapes a daily radio program, manages a staff of 25 and keeps in touch with his national network.

"He doesn’t sleep much," said his wife, Cheryl, who stayed near through an interview and helped him recall key dates in his improbable career.

Meanwhile, Barton's no spring chicken in the conservative crackpot coop; he's a formidable political player, the man picked by George W. Bush to sell his message to pastors around the country in 2004. Eckholm notes some of this history, but fails to explore how, as Barton's political influence has deepened, he has increasingly distorted history (and the bible) to fit GOP talking points.

If The New York Times isn't going to take Barton to task, at least Jon Stewart is. Barton appeared on the show last night.

And check out Right Wing Watch's point-by-point take down of the arguments Barton made last night.

Includes Videos: motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/david-barton-new-york-times-huckabee

[lakhota]

David Barton Lies To Jon Stewart

As Miranda noted yesterday, David Barton raised eyebrows when he told The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart that religious law, including Sharia law, is compatible with the Constitution if a locality or state wanted to implement it, as he has a long track record of promoting vehement anti-Muslim views. Julie Ingersoll of Religion Dispatches also pointed out that Barton has consistently criticized “the threat of Islam taking over the country by imposing ‘Sharia Law.’”

Much More: www.rightwingwatch.org/category/individuals/david-barton

[lakhota]

David Barton's Tax Records Boast Expertise In Black History

WASHINGTON -- David Barton, the Republican establishment’s favorite amateur historian, claims in tax records reviewed by HuffPost to be something of an expert on African-American history.

In filings with the Internal Revenue Service, Barton’s nonprofit, Wallbuilder Presentations, Inc., justified its tax-exempt status by highlighting among its "accomplishments" a video project “of the moral heritage and political history of African Americans."

It’s a curious claim for the Tea Party favorite, who has twice given speeches in front of white supremacist groups -- protesting later that he was ignorant of the groups' professed racist ideology.

But Barton can’t boast ignorance of his more controversial lobbying. The Texas-based former school principal once advocated that Thurgood Marshall be removed from the state’s text books and that Martin Luther King, Jr. got too much credit as a civil rights leader.

Barton has claimed that Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower was the powerful influence of the civil-rights movement. He argued that African-Americans couldn’t have had much impact since they weren’t the majority. “Only majorities can expand political rights in America’s constitutional society,” Barton has said.

“I call it historical creationism,” said Rob Boston, senior policy analyst with Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “All I can tell you is everything that Barton does is to promote ultra conservative politics and to persuade people to vote for extreme conservative Republicans.” It’s a strategy that has worked.

More: www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/david-barton-tax-records-gop-history_n_863758.html

[fairlycrazy23]

I'm not really surprised that the founding fathers, or anybody for that matter in the 1700's rejected Darwin