Barton Lies. Film at 11.

Barton Lies. Film at 11. December 23, 2011

When Right Wing Watch puts up a video and says it contains “one of the most absurdly false statements we have ever seen Barton make,” it’s probably worth watching. Did you know that hate crime laws were designed to put pastors in prison? I didn’t either.


This is a flat-out lie. The federal hate crimes law is now two years old; not a single minister has been charged under it for anything, much less for preaching against homosexuality. If the law was designed to do that, why hasn’t it happened? Many states have had similar laws for far longer, and yet there isn’t a single case of this happening. He needs to read about the boy who cried wolf.

He’s also lying about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, claiming that if a church refuses to hire a gay youth minister they are violating the law. Churches are explicitly exempted both under that statute and under innumerable court rulings.

"I don't think lying is intrinsically impeachable, but most parliamentary bodies have some sort of ..."

Trump Admits to Being Guilty of ..."
"A friend of mine went to Lourdes, where one of the tests of faith was ..."

Trump’s Mileage Standard Claims Contradicted by ..."
"Well the NRA will probably be glad that traffic deaths will outstrip gun deaths once ..."

Trump’s Mileage Standard Claims Contradicted by ..."
"Nun kicking? You're after the Catholic vote? You realise most of the president's little religious ..."

Fox Anchor: How Can Democrats Get ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • d cwilson

    This is actually an old canard of the right. Apparently, some people don’t know the difference between increasing the penalties for things that are already illegal (like murder and assault) because of motivation and criminalizing stuff that is legal (like speech).

  • frankb

    Barton: “We like to hate. We like to read hateful things out of our book of hate. We like to listen to our hateful friends reading hateful things out of our book of hate. Why can’t we have our hateful friends read hateful things out of our book of hate in front of a congregation?”

    The Law: “You can.”

    Barton: “FOUL! Why are you discriminating against us?”

  • cottonnero

    Huh. I’d heard of David Barton, and read some stupid things he’s written or said, but this is the first time I’ve seen what he looks like. I guess I was expecting a Hagee/Falwell/Limbaugh type in a suit and tie.

    The accent’s exactly what I was expecting, though.

  • MikeMa

    Barton seems to get worse at this as time goes on. Either he expects his ‘cash for crazy’ receipts to go up a lot or he just doesn’t care anymore.

    He used to wrap his lies up in neat puzzle knots that non-historians had to work at unraveling. Shoddy.

  • raven

    Did you know that hate crime laws were designed to put pastors in prison? I didn’t either.

    Here Barton is admitting that his cult’s pastors are haters for jesus. Which we already knew.

    Hate per se is legal. It just isn’t very admirable in most circles.

    No hate = no fundie xianity.

    It does seem that Barton is dialing up the crazy and lies. After all there is a lot of competition among the xian lunatic fringes for who can say the dumbest, craziest, and hatiest things. Since there is no upper bound on this escalation, I suppose they will get weirder and more malevolent as time goes on until no one with even pretensions of a normal personality will care anymore.

  • Aquaria

    Did you know that hate crime laws were designed to put pastors in prison? I didn’t either.

    It’s easy to avoid this, David: Don’t commit any crimes for hateful reasons.

    Sheesh. Isn’t that what you personal responsibility turds would be saying about laws that disproportionately affect people you hate?

  • dan4

    “…if a church refuses to hire a gay youth minister they are violating the law.”

    Hah, why would a gay person want to have any church-related job in the first place? That’s like a Jew wanting to work for an anti-Semitic organization.

  • ambulocetacean

    why would a gay person want to have any church-related job in the first place?

    People fucking well need jobs, that’s why.

    There might not be many drag queens who want to spend their days typing up an archbishop’s memos, but there are plenty of LBGT gardeners, IT specialists, receptionists, bookkeepers and whatever who need and/or want the jobs that are available in religious schools, charities and other organisations (which combined make a not inconsiderable sector of the employment market).

    For churches (or mosques, or temples) to deny them employment on the base of their sexual orientation is the same as denying them employment based on the colour of their skin. Yet it’s perfectly legal because US law protects religious bigotry ahead of equal rights.

    It’s the same here in Australia, where in at least the states of Victoria and New South Wales (combined pop. 13 million) religious groups can legally deny you employment if you’re gay, if you have the wrong religion or no religion, and even if you are living with a partner to whom you’re not married.

    No other employer in the country is allowed to do this. There’s one law for religious organisations and another for everyone else. It’s immoral, it’s pernicious and it needs to end.

  • balurker

    Personally, whenever I hear someone relating a story and it includes someone using the phrase “let me ask you a question,” the credibility of that story instantly plunges to near zero. I’m not even exactly sure why I feel that way.

  • Pinky

    “He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.”


    Or as Mr. Barton would relate the same quote:

    “He who permits himself to say this country was not a Christian country tells lies without attending to it. This falsehood of me, Thomas Jefferson, not being fundamentally a good Christian will ignite your dungarees aflame and in time will lead to Socialism, Communism and all sorts of evil isms.

    Oh and by the way; the bible is my book and god spoke with me and said a fast talking man named Berton or Baffoon or something like that will appear in the future and tell you all sorts of wild things; god said to believe the fast talker. God also said women should throw themselves at the fast talking man and agree with all his desires.”

  • dan4

    @6: The entirety of your post here gives credibility and legitimacy to Barton’s mendacious “hate crime laws were designed to put pastors in prison” claim. Good going.

  • dingojack

    ambulocetacean – “There might not be many drag queens who want to spend their days typing up an archbishop’s memos… ”

    Some other possible reasons for this:

    + Because you can only have one guy in a dress per office…

    + Because drag queens have better taste in dresses…

    + Because parishioners might confuse the two…


    Although it did make me think of an archbishop in full regalia with (the late, great) Devine in her most outrageous outfit, eagerly sitting with a shorthand book ready to take down the archbishop’s mundane thoughts on the problem with the cathedral’s roof (or something), in a drab little office.

    Very Monty Python.

  • dingojack

    Dan (#11) – are you reading the same thread as everyone else is, or the one running in your own head?

    Curiously, Dingo.

  • dan4

    @13: What have I specifically written that (to you, at least) indicates that I am not “reading the same thread as everyone else is?”

  • dingojack

    Dan4 – Do you always answer a question with a question? 🙂

    I see nothing in the post you’re complaining about that even remotely resembles the substance of your complaint.


  • dingojack

    Wasn’t there a thread, just a few weeks ago, about the Salvation Army discriminating against LGBT people?

    I guess, David, the whole of the SA are tuckd up in cells (or ‘FEMA camps’) by now, right?


  • carolw

    I’m disappointed that the clip didn’t pan down far enough to see if he had on the matching leather pants to go with that smashing jacket. Ooh, Mr. Barton, you look so naughty!

  • ambulocetacean

    Dingo #12. Divine would be cool. I tend to imagine Prue Lapse from Talking Poofy. =)

  • dingojack

    Carol – Never thought of that. For one so afeered of the ‘American Gestapo’ he sure picked a neato disguise.


  • dingojack

    ambulocetacean – Or how about Kenny Everett or maybe Freddie Mercury in ‘I want to Break Free’ mode? Oh the possiblities!



    See: here!

  • dan4 wrote:

    @6: The entirety of your post here gives credibility and legitimacy to Barton’s mendacious “hate crime laws were designed to put pastors in prison” claim. Good going.

    I have to agree with Dingojack. Are you reading the same post everyone else is? How does a post explicitly denying that hate crimes laws were designed to put pastors in prison somehow manage to “give credibility and legitimacy” to that claim?

  • dan4

    “How does a post explicitly denying that hate crime laws were designed to put pastors in prison…”

    Huh? Aquaria’s post at @6 doesn’t deny Barton’s claim, but CONFIRMS it. His/her (no, I don’t know Aquaria’s gender) first sentence there is “It’s easy to avoid this, David:…” Uh, how exactly does one avoid a designation (“…designed to put pastors in prison.”) that doesn’t exist in the first place? If I say, “Here’s how to avoid x,” that obviously implies that x exists.

  • dingojack

    Dan4 (#20) – Just two thoughts:

    a) Did you read the whole comment or just the first few words?

    b) Have you seen someone about your (undiagnosed?) Aspergers?*



    * I thought I was literal but sheesh.

  • dingojack

    Oops I meant #22. Sorry about that Chief!


  • raven

    dan4 the illiterate:

    “It’s easy to avoid this, David:…” Uh, how exactly does one avoid a designation>

    It’s easy to avoid being arrested for hate crimes. Don’t commit hate crimes.

    I realize dan4 is a near illiterate so I will try to make this simple.

    You are a Southern Baptist minister. You see what looks like an atheist walking down the street. You hate him. That is OK, hate is legal. It is mandatory for fundie xian pastors and their sheep.

    You draw your Colt 45 pistol “jesuslovesme” and empty the clip into the atheist. That is a hate crime. If you don’t commit a hate crime, you won’t be arrested for committing hate crimes.

    PS: Dan4, the general principle holds. If you don’t want to be considered a near illiterate idiot, learn to read for comprehension.

  • Dan, since Aquaria isn’t on to explain how you’re misreading her, I’ll take a shot at it. (Also as an aside, when everyone else tells you you’re misunderstanding something, do a careful doublecheck and see if they’re right.)

    When she says that you can avoid being prosecuted under hate crimes protection legislation by not committing any crimes with hate as a motivation, she’s displaying understanding of the function and purpose of hate crimes legislation.

    Hate crimes are not about what you say. Full stop.

    Hate crimes are just that, crimes (meaning assault, rape, murder, robbery, intimidation, etc.) that are already illegal, but these crimes are committed not because of a random or personal target. They are committed because of hatred of another’s class (be it race, religion, gender, and now sexual orientation). Acting in such a way because of hate of another is treated as an aggravating factor under the law, making one subject to greater potential penalties.

    So you see, so long as you don’t commit actual crimes, it doesn’t matter if you say all manner of hateful things, which is what Aquaria was talking about.

    Related, but the reason for hate crimes protections is that hate crimes are arguably more dangerous to a peaceful society because they’re random and unpredictable. Most crimes are committed with a more personal motive, but someone who is willing to beat, attack, vandalize, commit arson or murder based on animus could potentially strike at any time. Moreover, there is often an intent to terrorize and oppress the target’s group, so these acts are particularly disruptive to a peaceful society.

  • @cottonnero,

    Hold on there – please don’t equate a southern accent with ignorant, bigoted stupidity. There actually are intelligent, rational people who share Mr. Barton’s accent – we just don’t share his hatred, irrational belief in an imaginary friend and propensity for outright lies. Please don’t perpetuate the stereotype – we have enough to overcome as it is.


  • Pingback: ul standards()