Reading The Constitution In Context: A Critique of Rick Santorum


studiodekadent

Recommended Posts

Ghs wrote: Madison goes on to criticize a "day of thanksgiving" proclaimed by Washington, as well as one by John Adams ("which called for Xn worship"). end quote Excellent post George, but what is “Xn worship?” Peter

Xn=Christian

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One argument of the Barton school is that Christian morality profoundly influenced the Founders. Well, if this was true in some cases, it was not true in the case of Thomas Jefferson.

In 1785, Jefferson wrote a letter to Peter Carr (one of his favorite nephews). This letter recommended various books that Carr should read in the course of his education. The Bible nowhere appears on his list of recommendations, nor is any Christian moral philosopher mentioned. Jefferson wrote: "In morality, read Epictetus, Xenphontis [i.e., Xenophon's] Memorabilia [an account of Socrates], Plato's Socratic dialogues, Cicero's philosophies, Antoninus, and Seneca." These are pagan authors, one and all.

In various letters, Jefferson described himself as an "Epicurean" and a "materialist."

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George’s abbreviation “Xn” for Christian got me wondering about words that have “Christ” in them so I typed it in, and one of the first hits was the following book announcement:

“Peter Thomas Senese and Pacifica TWST are pleased to announce that the author's best-selling theological thriller titled Cloning Christ will be released in several foreign languages beginning May 15th, 2012, including Spanish, Italian, and French. Senese's novel, presently available in hardcover, audio book, and in e-book format, evolves around the discovery of what appears to be the True Cross of Jesus of Nazareth by a now-faithless genomic scientist.”

end quote

I thought it said gnomic scientist when I read that last sentence. Sounds like an extension of “The DaVinci Code.” If only that could be done, we would see Anthropologists, Psychiatrists, The Amazing Randi and Penn and Teller going after the clone with scientific precision. Would they discover a genetic predisposition towards megalomania, psychosis, delusions, etc.

Poor cloned guy. What a mess he would be in. The religious crazies, Muslim and Christian, would be after him with chainsaws. He might be kidnapped by Jesuits and put in a dungeon at the Vatican. I might just read the book to see how this author handles the idea.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, to "say" is not the same thing as to "imply," so I will rephrase my point: What reputable historian has ever implied that "Christianity did not influence in any manner the political thinking back then"?

George,

Who the hell knows or cares?

I'm far more interested in the mobs of people behind them. The ones who vote, for instance.

I suspect that historians you would call reputable do not influence those mobs. But I also suspect that when such historians' works are used by such mobs to do their respective mob stuff, if the mob falls on the side of the historian's cherished bent, he kinda overlooks the exaggerations and likes being quoted by those folks.

But go to any forum (online or off) where people discuss these things (usually in VERY LOUD voices and hyperbole) and you will see--in abundance--the two attitudes I mentioned.

Please note the term "attitude." In other words, in the phrase of mine you objected to and thought I claimed people "said," I was (and am) making a normative characterization, not a cognitive one. The way I found to convey that was by being a little more concrete and less abstract. For example, instead of using the abstract form and saying "people exaggerate," which has a zilch emotional load, I went concrete and stated outright absurd exaggerations that correctly convey the emotional approaches I observe--and the funny part is you don't seem to have any cognitive-level trouble with my exaggeration for the religious side... :smile:

I would look this stuff up and give you some links, but it's like looking up proof that people lie about Sarah Palin or that your views in ATCAG have been grossly misrepresented by religious people. I'm not interested in researching and bickering over master of the obvious stuff.

I greatly enjoy your arguments, though. I learn from them.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, to "say" is not the same thing as to "imply," so I will rephrase my point: What reputable historian has ever implied that "Christianity did not influence in any manner the political thinking back then"?

George,

Who the hell knows or cares?

I'm far more interested in the mobs of people behind them. The ones who vote, for instance.

I suspect that historians you would call reputable do not influence those mobs. But I also suspect that when such historians' works are used by such mobs to do their respective mob stuff, if the mob falls on the side of the historian's cherished bent, he kinda overlooks the exaggerations and likes being quoted by those folks.

But go to any forum (online or off) where people discuss these things (usually in VERY LOUD voices and hyperbole) and you will see--in abundance--the two attitudes I mentioned.

Please note the term "attitude." In other words, in the phrase of mine you objected to and thought I claimed people "said," I was (and am) making a normative characterization, not a cognitive one. The way I found to convey that was by being a little more concrete and less abstract. For example, instead of using the abstract form and saying "people exaggerate," which has a zilch emotional load, I went concrete and stated outright absurd exaggerations that correctly convey the emotional approaches I observe--and the funny part is you don't seem to have any cognitive-level trouble with my exaggeration for the religious side... :smile:

I would look this stuff up and give you some links, but it's like looking up proof that people lie about Sarah Palin or that your views in ATCAG have been grossly misrepresented by religious people. I'm not interested in researching and bickering over master of the obvious stuff.

I greatly enjoy your arguments, though. I learn from them.

Michael

We were discussing Barton's interpretation of the Treaty of Tripoli, after which you mentioned what each side in the controversy supposedly "pushes and shoves to imply." I took you to be referring to historians on the extremes of this controversy.

You may be interested in what "mobs of people" believe, but I am not. My only concern here is with historical accuracy.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any one who doubts that David Barton -- whom Beck, Palin and others have praised as a great historian -- is pushing propaganda in the name of history should watch some of these videos. :

(This video in particular shows outright deceptions by Barton, as stated on Beck's TV show.)

There are other excellent videos by Chris Rodda on Youtube, which may be accessed in the right-hand column. Rodda is the author of Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History. Whether Barton is an outright liar or an incredibly incompetent historian is open to debate on some issues, but that he has perpetrated inexcusable deceptions in at least some cases is beyond reasonable doubt.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

I've said this above but I'll repeat it here. The only historical accuracy I have granted Barton is that (1) he has a huge collection of original sources and he knows them well, and (2) he makes us examine questions we otherwise might not examine.

I only brought up Barton because Andrew was promoting the standard Founders were Deists and not Christians line, which I think is a huge oversimplification. I think Barton argues a good case for not being so black-and-white on this, especially since he makes the original sources so easily available. So I suggested Andrew look at him-with the caveat that he goes too far the other way.

You have stated that Barton's collection means zip and he is not to be trusted. Your tone suggests you think looking even at his questions is a waste of time. If historical accuracy is your only concern, OK.

But Andrew started his article like this: "The perpetually frothy-brained Rick Santorum..." That does not suggest he was only interested in historical accuracy, but instead on making a case to convince people.

Within that frame, I believe it is extremely important to examine Barton.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This video by Chris Rodda discusses the same topic that Barton discussed on Jon Stewart's program. With the Adams letter, perhaps more than in any other case, Barton engages in outright deception.

On Jon Stewart's show, Barton also lied about -- or completely misrepresented, if you will -- the position of Unitarians at the time Adams wrote the letter in question. Contrary to Barton, Anti-Trinitarianism had long been a key doctrine of Unitarianism. And Adams, far from being a Trinitarian, called the Trinty a "fabrication" in one of his letters to Jefferson.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

I've said this above but I'll repeat it here. The only historical accuracy I have granted Barton is that (1) he has a huge collection of original sources and he knows them well, and (2) he makes us examine questions we otherwise might not examine.

Neither of the points you mentioned has anything to do with historical accuracy. Either Barton does not know his historical sources, or he is a flagrant liar. Time and again he misquotes documents or quotes them out of context.

The only question that Barton makes me want to "examine" is why anyone takes him seriously. If you want to read incompetents and/or liars in order to stimulate your interest in a point of view, be my guest. But don't call it "history."

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Chris Rodda is or was (if I remember correctly) one of the contributors of an excellent site God Discussion and related God Discussion Show on Blog Talk Radio. (Some people in other places have been very surprised to see me recommend those sites.) I looked just now, though, to provide a link and I didn't see her name listed as contributor any longer. I wonder if she is still affiliated with them. I distinctly recalling her listed as one of the head honchos.

I have already seen the videos you posted (and some others by her). Rodda didn't convince me that Barton is scum. I found her to be knit-picking and nasty in a smearing-at-all-costs way very typical of liberal places like MSNBC. Except she is very, very, very, very dull. From what I remember, some of her arguments were good and I felt needed to be said, but they were couched in among a lot of boring and snarky yawp. And I distinctly remember hearing some things that sounded stretched way out of shape.

In other words, the prejudice you display against anyone looking at Barton, I feel about her. I simply don't know what to trust in her arguments and don't feel like wasting hours running down all the gotcha utterances of her James Valliant-like presentation. (I'm certainly not interested in defending David Barton against attack as a life mission.)

But I still say to everyone, go ahead and look and listen. I'm actually glad you posted those videos. I was mulling over looking for them. People should see her stuff. See Barton's stuff. See other stuff.

Frankly, I haven't been able to reconcile the difference between the quality of the sites I linked and the quality of what Rodda put forth in those videos.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, the prejudice you display against anyone looking at Barton, I feel about her. I simply don't know what to trust in her arguments and don't feel like wasting hours running down all the gotcha utterances of her James Valliant-like presentation. (I'm certainly not interested in defending David Barton against attack as a life mission.)

I just watched the 14+ minute long one about Adams letter, and the Valliant-like utterances seem to all be coming from Barton. This lady comes across as his Neil Parille. Granted, to really come to a conclusion I'd need to see the letter for myself, and I just can't get interested enough in all this Founding Fathers minutiae, unlike George.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already seen the videos you posted (and some others by her). Rodda didn't convince me that Barton is scum. I found her to be knit-picking and nasty in a smearing-at-all-costs way very typical of liberal places like MSNBC. Except she is very, very, very, very dull. From what I remember, some of her arguments were good and I felt needed to be said, but they were couched in among a lot of boring and snarky yawp. And I distinctly remember hearing some things that sounded stretched way out of shape.

Rodda's analyses are spot on. You say you find her dull. Well, if you want to be entertained, watch a cartoon, and then tell us how it has given you a different perspective. That would be preferable to reading Barton.

You accuse Rhodda of nit-picking. This is called doing history carefully and interpreting it accurately. If you don't care for history, fine -- it is not everyone's cup of tea. But neither should you be recommending historians, least of all a quack like Barton. I don't care for the details of anatomy and medicine, and I don't recommend quack cures for diseases I know nothing about.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only question that Barton makes me want to "examine" is why anyone takes him seriously.
George, I don't think you want to examine that question at all. I haven't seen any sign of you wanting to. But I do. I think it is critical to understand that. Michael

Barton appeals to Christian Fundies because he tells them what they want to hear, while whitewashing his hoakum in a veneer of historical scholarship. He does the same thing, in essence, as Creationists who drape their bogus claims in a mantle of science.

I suspect you tolerate Barton because you like Beck (as I do on some issues), and Beck has praised Barton to the skies.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Sorry,

You will not teach me to hate, nor goad me into it.

If you think I should watch cartoons, I don't care. I am interested in historical accuracy, not as a fetish, but in general, and I stand by my evaluations. Snark about what I should or shouldn't do isn't going to change my mind.

I do make my recommendations based on the best thinking I can muster.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodda didn't convince me that Barton is scum. I found her to be knit-picking and nasty in a smearing-at-all-costs way very typical of liberal places like MSNBC.

I doubt if Rodda has called Barton "scum." She has called him a liar, however. I don't know if I would go this far in all cases discussed by her. That Barton egregiously misrepresents his sources is beyond doubt. This can sometimes happen as a result of extreme incompetence, as when a historian is unfamiliar with the broader context of a remark or incident.

Rodda presents carefully reasoned rebuttals to some of Barton's outrageous claims, and she calls Barton a "liar" as a result of these rebuttals, some of which leave precious little room for supposing that Barton made innocent errors. In no way is this a smear.

Your comment about people who appear on MSNBC -- now that was a true smear. MSNBC is to the political left what Fox News is to the political right. Facts and falsehoods abound on both networks.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect you tolerate Barton because you like Beck (as I do on some issues), and Beck has praised Barton to the skies.

George,

You suspect wrong. I don't "tolerate" Barton. I study the way he does things and think he makes a compelling case of his view to the public--which far exceeds fundamentalist Christians. (Don't forget that Beck himself is a Mormon who openly professes admiration for atheist, Penn Jillette.)

I have learned from Barton that some of the things I have been taught about the Founding Fathers were dead wrong--facts and narrative.

I haven't adopted his views or narratives, but I have found value in them. I would tell you what that value is, but I don't feel like getting ridicule in response. You're starting to get on a roll and I know I will get pissed from the goading and off we will go.

I am familiar with Barton because of Beck, but I don't make allowances because of that. Why do you think I look at his critics?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Sorry,

You will not teach me to hate, nor goad me into it.

If you think I should watch cartoons, I don't care. I am interested in historical accuracy, not as a fetish, but in general, and I stand by my evaluations. Snark about what I should or shouldn't do isn't going to change my mind.

I do make my recommendations based on the best thinking I can muster.

Michael

A concern for historical accuracy is not a bad fetish to have.

If you wish advance beyond Barton and still be entertained, you should watch some episodes of "Peabody's Improbable History," from the old Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. In this episode you will learn that Cornwallis nearly did not surrender at Yorktown because he lost his sword.

Of course, I am not suggesting that you should accept this account at face value. It has value has an alternative point of view, and, as you have pointed out, we should examine various points of view before making up our minds.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comment about people who appear on MSNBC -- now that was a true smear.

George,

Bull,

Rodda appeared on MSNBC often enough. Not just a random comment here and there, either. She was (and probably still is) big buds with Keith Olbermann. Google it if you don't believe me.

And she appeared in just about every left-wing media and blog out there when she started her campaign against Barton.

Rodda is a darling of the left.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comment about people who appear on MSNBC -- now that was a true smear.

George,

Bull,

Rodda appeared on MSNBC often enough. Not just a random comment here and there, either. She was (and probably still is) big buds with Keith Olbermann.

And she appeared in just about every left-wing media and blog out there when she started her campaign against Barton.

Rodda is a darling of the left.

Michael

So what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect you tolerate Barton because you like Beck (as I do on some issues), and Beck has praised Barton to the skies.

George,

You suspect wrong. I don't "tolerate" Barton. I study the way he does things and think he makes a compelling case of his view to the public--which far exceeds fundamentalist Christians. (Don't forget that Beck himself is a Mormon who openly professes admiration for atheist, Penn Jillette.)

I have learned from Barton that some of the things I have been taught about the Founding Fathers were dead wrong--facts and narrative.

I haven't adopted his views or narratives, but I have found value in them. I would tell you what that value is, but I don't feel like getting ridicule in response. You're starting to get on a roll and I know I will get pissed from the goading and off we will go.

I am familiar with Barton because of Beck, but I don't make allowances because of that. Why do you think I look at his critics?

Michael

Why you would take any historian seriously who repeatedly misstates and misrepresents historical documents is something I do not understand. Barton does not make a "compelling case" in any historical or scholarly sense. The fact that he can hoodwink many Christians means nothing, except that he is a good snake-oil salesman.

Does this mean that everything that Barton says is wrong? No, of course not. He probably believes that the Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia in 1787, for example -- though, like Beck, he may also believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired. But the point is this: When a "historian" is repeatedly caught in egregious misrepresentations while pushing a religious/political agenda, then he is not to be trusted, period. Every historian makes innocent errors from time to time, but Barton goes far beyond this. Consider his effort to make his audience believe that Jefferson somehow believed in the divinity of Jesus. This is demonstrably absurd and qualifies as an outright lie. All you need to verify this is to go through Jefferson's numerous letters on the subject.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's not a smear.

Michael

Technically, your comments are a type of guilt by association. They qualify as a "smear" in this sense.

Rodda could be a commie, for all I care in this context. That wouldn't make her wrong, any more than the fact that Barton is a right-wing Fundie has any relevance to the accuracy of his claims or to his lack of ethics as a historian. Many first-rate accounts of the topics currently being discussed have been written by Christians. Some of my favorite historians, such as Lord Acton, were (and are) Christians.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, your comments are a type of guilt by association. They qualify as a "smear" in this sense.

George,

Guilt for what?

If we are going to play guess the guilt, I could say your comments qualify as a cover-up.

Now it's your turn to ask, cover-up for what?

I said I don't like her approach because it reminded me of the way they do at MSNBC. That is not a smear. I said that because that's what she does. And I've even seen her on MSNBC doing it. With Keith Olbermann.

I don't like her approach and I don't trust people who use that form of presentation.

It may be fine for you so knock yourself out.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now