My parents were always big fans of David Barton<\/a> and his organization, Wallbuilders<\/a>. We actually had a lot of his materials, both videos and books. From the website<\/a>:<\/p>\n WallBuilders is an organization dedicated to presenting America\u2019s forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built \u2013 a foundation which, in recent years, has been seriously attacked and undermined. In accord with what was so accurately stated by George Washington, we believe that \u201cthe propitious [favorable] smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation which disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained.\u201d Basically, Wallbuilders is all about how America was built upon a Christian foundation, and about how the founding fathers never intended to found a secular nation or a secular government. Barton explains that secular historians have hidden America\u2019s religious past and obscured the religious views of the founding fathers, creating the myth that America was founded with the intention to have a separation between church and state.<\/p>\n This post is not at all meant to be a comprehensive investigation of Barton. If you\u2019re a die hard Barton fan, I\u2019m not going to change your mind, and if you\u2019re on the fence, I\u2019d suggest that you check out Liars for Jesus<\/a> <\/em>or any of a number <\/a>of sites<\/a> that have taken on Barton\u2019s pseudo-history. I will, however, make a couple of quick points before going on to explain why Barton matters.<\/p>\n First, Barton is known for getting his facts wrong and even making up quotes. But then, that\u2019s nor surprising: David Barton is not simply a bad historian, he\u2019s not a historian at all. You want to know what historical training David Barton has? None. Nada. Zip. Yes, I\u2019m serious. He has a BA in religious education from Oral Roberts University, and that is it<\/em>. But then, you don\u2019t see him mentioning that when he portrays himself as a historical expert.<\/p>\n Second, historical debates take place within the academy, or, more specifically, within academic journals, not <\/em>in the court of public opinion. Historians absolutely do have historical debates: What exactly caused the Civil War? What effect did the New Deal really have on the U.S. economy during the Depression? What exactly caused the rise of conservatism over the past fifty years? The thing is, historians debate these things within the academy<\/em> by writing books and articles that must stand up to rigorous standards of proof and review. When an academic takes his case to the public, that\u2019s a sure sign he\u2019s lost already. And that, quite simply, is what Barton is doing \u2013 rather than working within the academy by writing good historical articles proving his points, he\u2019s taking his case to the people, who have no way of knowing good history from bad history.<\/p>\n Having said all that, let\u2019s take a look at two problems with the story Barton is taking to the public.<\/p>\n First, Barton builds a strawman of \u201csecular historians.\u201d I have taken a good number of American history classes in college, and I have never <\/em>seen the role of religion in American history ignored, especially <\/em>not its role in colonial history and the history of early America. Secular historians don\u2019t deny that most of the founding fathers were Christian, or that there were Christian influences in the Revolution or the founding of the United States, or that Christianity was incredibly important to the history of early America. No secular historian will deny that the first amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to establish official denominations if they so chose (as some states did until the 1830s). These things are not secrets hidden away by secular historians<\/em>, as Barton implies.<\/p>\n This brings us to the second point. Barton\u2019s view of American history is just as wrong as the strawman view he incorrectly claims secular historians hold. The founding fathers were influenced by religion, but they were also influenced by other ideas and philosophies, such as the enlightenment and John Locke, something Barton ignores. While some of the founding fathers were orthodox Christians, many were far from it (some were deists, some Unitarians, and others questioned the veracity of Jesus\u2019 miracles). Finally, while religion did play an important role in colonial America, by the time the Revolution took place church attendance was actually at an all time low (16%. Church attendance then grew dramatically during the antebellum period, benefiting from America\u2019s greater religious freedom, and continued to grow after that, peaking in the 1950s and remaining quite high today.). Barton distorts all this, cherry picks quotes, and ignores things like historical context.<\/p>\n One of the hallmarks of the historical profession is that historians are supposed to approach materials in as unbiased a manner as possible, and see what the sources say and where they lead. Historians come up with hypotheses, then look at the evidence, then adjust their hypotheses. I\u2019m not saying this always works perfectly. Gay historians of gender will want very much to find evidence of homosexuality among ancient people groups, and Marxist historians of labor will be predisposed to looking for signs of class struggle. But most historians work to fight against their biases, and those who fail to live up to the ideal don\u2019t change the reality that the ideal of the historical profession is an unbiased examination of the facts. Barton does none of this, and actually starts out with predetermined conclusions, something a historian should never <\/em>do.<\/span><\/p>\n By now you may be wondering, why should I care?<\/em> I mean, people are free to say and believe as they like! Well yes, but the problem is that Barton doesn\u2019t just think these things, he\u2019s spreading his propaganda with surprising alacrity. For one thing, many homeschooled students, like I myself, are today being raised on Barton\u2019s twisted version of American history. But it\u2019s not just homeschooled students. Wallbuilders states its goal as following<\/a>:<\/p>\n WallBuilders\u2019 goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Believe it or not, Barton was called up as a historical expert at the most recent Texas State Board of Education social studies standards revision. Texas is very important in the textbook market with its large number of children, and its standards therefore exert a lot of control over the textbooks of the nation. And Barton had a very real influence<\/a> on those standards.<\/p>\n But it\u2019s even more than that. All of the leading Republican contenders for presidential nominee have cited Barton as a historical expert, and as someone who has had a lot of influence on their thinking. When Barton talks, Republican presidential candidates listen and believe<\/a>. This would be less scary if Barton wasn\u2019t calling the separation of church and state bullshit.<\/p>\n But the whole reason I started this post is that I just came upon <\/span>this<\/a>. It is a detailed rebuttal of Barton\u2019s Foundations of Character program by an actual historian. Here are some quotes: <\/span><\/p>\n The presentation also fails to explore the other influences in the Founders\u2019 lives that affected their worldviews and personal character. The members of the founding generation were widely read and drew their ideas for republican government from many sources: the common law, Whig political theories, classical republicanism, and Calvinism. Without question, however, the most influential ideological source was Enlightenment rationalism. The Founders were most influenced by the Enlightenment political writers of the previous two generations: John Locke, Baron Montesquieu, Hugo Grotius, Henry St. John, Lord Bolingbroke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, among others. Most of these writers were religious nonconformists or skeptics. Also influential were those writers of the so-called Scottish Enlightenment \u2013 Frances Hutcheson, David Hume, and Thomas Reid \u2013 whose \u201ccommon sense\u201d rationalism influenced many of the Founders including James Madison, John Adams, and James Wilson. Secular theories were more influential in forming the Founders\u2019 ideas about natural law and civic virtue than was religion\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Second, the curriculum engages in \u201cproof-texting,\u201d a practice refuted by professional historians. The writers extract selected religious quotations of the various figures without explaining the larger context of the statements (and usually without providing a citation to authority). The curriculum then uses the statement as \u201cproof\u201d of the speaker\u2019s sentiments, disregarding or omitting other likely influences. It fails to account for the sincerity of the speaker\u2019s statement (such as whether the speaker was using irony or pandering to his audience) or whether the speaker likely intended that<\/em> particular statement on the subject to represent his views, as opposed to other possible statements on the subject\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The additional problem with religious proof-texting is that it fails to explain the role of religious discourse during the founding period and early nineteenth century. As stated, religious rhetoric and imagery were ubiquitous in speeches and other writings because the Bible was one of the few generally available books. The narratives and allegories of the Bible were the stories that were most familiar to people. Unlike today, a person\u2019s use of religious rhetoric during the eighteenth century tells little about his or her own religious devotion. That religiously heterodox figures such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine employed religious language should warn against drawing conclusions about a Founder\u2019s personal piety from his statements.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here are some specific examples of Barton\u2019s factual errors:<\/p>\n Contrary to the impression created in Drive Thru History, Franklin\u2019s religious beliefs were unconventional and non-doctrinaire. Franklin was raised Presbyterian, not Quaker as claimed in Drive Thru History (p. 15), but rejected his Calvinist upbringing as a teenager. From that time on, Franklin was a religious skeptic.32 He rejected the divinity of Jesus, miracles and the Bible as divinely inspired. Franklin, like Thomas Jefferson, set out to revise the Bible, removing material he believed to be inaccurate and superstitious superstitious, such as accounts of miracles. His motivation was to demystify the Bible by making it consistent with Enlightenment rationalism and more accessible to the average person. Historians disagree over whether Franklin was an atheist, a deist (and then, whether he was a \u201cwarm\u201d or \u201ccold\u201d deist, with the former believing in an active providence), a polytheist, or simply a rationalist-theist. Historians agree, however, that he was not \u201ca Christian, orthodox or otherwise.\u201d Franklin did believe in the existence of a deity, and that he governed the world by his providence. Belief in God\u2019s providence was common for deists, as it suggested a general \u201cdivine\u201d plan for humankind. But deists and many others viewed such providential influences as being indirect, not as representing the presence of a god who was an active agent in human affairs. According to biographer Gordon Wood, Franklin \u201ccame to believe that the only important thing about religion was morality, and the only basis for that morality was utility.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Also, while Franklin was familiar with the Bible and no doubt had read Romans 14:7 (as had all educated people of the era), there is no evidence that that passage inspired or directed his scientific endeavors (p. 18). Because Franklin completely rejected his Calvinist upbringing, it is unlikely that he would have seen any early instruction in the Bible as determinative of his philosophy or worldview.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Franklin\u2019s appeal for prayer at the Constitutional Convention is attributed to his frustration with the divisions and intransigence among the delegates and his belief that it would be helpful to appeal \u201cto the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings.\u201d Too much can be read into this statement, as Franklin wrote frequently about providence, often in contradictory ways. (Franklin was infamous for using satire and irony to make a point.) The statement was a strategic move to embarrass the delegates to action rather than a declaration of faith. Contrary to the assertion in Drive Thru History (p. 26), the delegates did not respond favorably to the proposal. According to Madison\u2019s Notes, which are considered the authoritative source, delegates expressed concern that resorting to prayer would \u201clead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissensions within the Convention had suggested this measure\u201d and \u201cbring on it some disagreeable animadversions.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Also, the assertion in Drive Thru History (p. 26) that Franklin\u2019s speech \u201cseemed to change the tone of the convention\u201d and a \u201cthree-day recess was called, during which time many of the delegates attended church together\u201d is outright fiction. Franklin\u2019s proposal occurred on Thursday, June 28. According to Madison\u2019s Notes, the Convention did not adjourn but met the following day (Friday, June 29) and again on Saturday (June 30), continuing with their rancorous debate over representation. As historian John Murrin has remarked, \u201cBeyond any doubt, the Founding Fathers empathically refused to pray together while they were drafting the fundamental charter of the new nation. . . . The Constitution\u2019s failure to invoke God was no mere oversight. In that respect the document faithfully mirrored the attitudes of the delegates who wrote it.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If you\u2019re interested, here\u2019s another <\/span>interesting link <\/a>on a specific claim by Barton.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n