Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View David Barton on the Daily Show
3 years ago  ::  May 05, 2011 - 7:08AM #1
DGMelby
Posts: 968

David Barton, founder and president of Wallbuilders, was on The Daily Show last night... and as usual with controversial people, the interview went long.

For those of you who don't know, Wallbuilder's considers the separation of Chuch and State a bad thing... the name refers to those who build the walls of Jerusalem, not Thomas Jefferson's letter to a Baptist Church.


You can find the beginning of the interview here:  www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-201...
You can find the first part of the extended interview can be found here:  www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-201...

(BTW... I'm watching it now, and I'll have to go to work after that, so I may not have time to comment right away.)

Comments?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 06, 2011 - 1:28AM #2
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

I DVRed it and watched it later


 


IMP.  Jon was uncharacteristically outmatched with Barton-mostly because he was ill-prepared


 


David what are you: a constitutional scholar? an evangelist? an historian? a glorified librarian?


an administrative educator? or a political activist? choose one


during this time that you set the standards for history and social sciences in Texas; were you not the vice-president of the Republican Party of Texas and in charge of recruitment and expansion?


how does a one-way wall work? is it like A lobster trap? site one document that describes the wall of seperation as one way


 


and finally, you claim you have the originals of all these documents that contradict-what is generally taught in our schools about the relationship between church and state?  Isn't that just the debate fallacy of appeal to authority?

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 06, 2011 - 7:33AM #3
DGMelby
Posts: 968

(grr... why is it that I seem to have free time only in the morning these days?)


Yeah... Jon Stewart did seem to be uncharacteristicly unprepared in that interview, didn't he?


There were three things that David Barton said that really stood out, though:


1)  Like many "states rights" advocates, he seems to ignore the 14th Amendment, which protects the rights of citizens protected in the Constitution from being violated by the States.  Yes, the First Amendment does indeed say "Congress shall pass no law...," but the 14th says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."


2)  The Treaty of Tripoli just meant that the US wasn't a European Christian state?  Really?  He really thinks this -- "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -- somehow meant that not only was the US founded upon Christianity, but a version of 18th Century Christianity that wasn't hostile to other religions... despite the fact that most versions of Christianity in the US were quite hostile to other versions of Christianity in the US in the 18th century, and many versions are still hostile to other religions today?  Does he have a bridge in Manhatten to sell us as well?


3)  He really has no problem with using government power wedded to peer pressure to coerce school aged children to pledge allegiance to his god when they pledge allegiance to our country?  Seriously?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 06, 2011 - 9:46AM #4
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

1) the 14th does not have to be read as changing congress to all government in the 1st


the 1st has a restriction on Federal action its not a priviledge or immunity


2) a treaty cannot over ride the USC (plus that language is only a translation or interpretation that is lacking in the original)


3) not his God; the construct of the founders- Deius Americanus

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 09, 2011 - 7:26AM #5
DGMelby
Posts: 968

May 6, 2011 -- 9:46AM, davelaw40 wrote:


1) the 14th does not have to be read as changing congress to all government in the 1st


the 1st has a restriction on Federal action its not a priviledge or immunity



So... states and local governments can violate our rights that are guaranteed by the USC, if they aren't explicitly described as a priviledge or an immunity?


May 6, 2011 -- 9:46AM, davelaw40 wrote:

2) a treaty cannot over ride the USC (plus that language is only a translation or interpretation that is lacking in the original)



You missed my point.  I'm not saying that a treaty can override the USC.  I'm saying that I find David Barton's interpretation of that particular part of the treaty to be incredibly dubious.


May 6, 2011 -- 9:46AM, davelaw40 wrote:

3) not his God; the construct of the founders- Deius Americanus




I've never heard about this deity that the founders apparently created.  What are its aspects?  Where are its temples?  Where can I find its scriptures?


And why on earth would any Christian, let alone a conservative Christian like David Barton who clearly wants to establish conservative Evangelical Christianity as the official religion of the United States, wish to pledge allegience to it, rather than to Christ?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2011 - 1:45AM #6
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

May 9, 2011 -- 7:26AM, DGMelby wrote:


 


I've never heard about this deity that the founders apparently created.  What are its aspects?  Where are its temples?  Where can I find its scriptures?


And why on earth would any Christian, let alone a conservative Christian like David Barton who clearly wants to establish conservative Evangelical Christianity as the official religion of the United States, wish to pledge allegience to it, rather than to Christ?




 If you don't get the concept of civil religion - google Robert Bellah


every Capitol building and courthouse is a temple


its scriptures are the DOI and the USC 


hymns are Star Spangeled Banner, God Bless Ameica, America the Beautiful


Prayer is the Pledge


Icon is the Flag


Holy Day  is the Fourth/ Feast day Thanksgiving


creation Myth- the Pilgrims


Saint- Washington and Martyr Lincoln

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2011 - 7:21AM #7
DGMelby
Posts: 968

May 10, 2011 -- 1:45AM, davelaw40 wrote:


If you don't get the concept of civil religion - google Robert Bellah


every Capitol building and courthouse is a temple


its scriptures are the DOI and the USC 


hymns are Star Spangeled Banner, God Bless Ameica, America the Beautiful


Prayer is the Pledge


Icon is the Flag


Holy Day  is the Fourth/ Feast day Thanksgiving


creation Myth- the Pilgrims


Saint- Washington and Martyr Lincoln




Sorry... I forgot my [sarcasm] tags there.


Although I do find your interpretation of the nation as deity rather dubious, especially given the "one nation under god" thing.


I'm pretty sure that people like David Barton have only one God in mind, and it isn't this, IMO mythical, civil religion of the USA.


I'm pretty sure that the people who started this whole "one nation under god" thing had only one God in mind, and it wasn't this civil religion of the USA.


I'm pretty sure that the millions of atheist, Buddhist, Wiccan, Hindu, and other religious minority parents who are faced with the choice of telling their children to either pledge themselves to a god they don't believe in, or single themselves out for bullying, have only one god in mind, and it isn't theirs (if any).


And I'm pretty sure that if I was ever convinced that this god we're told, by our government, we're under was, indeed, this mythical civil religion, I'd tell my (hypothetical) children not to pledge allegience to it, for they should reserve their allegience to Christ.  And I'd still want it removed from our pledge, the country's seal, and our currency.


For our government has no right to establish any religion... even vague, monotheistic civil religions, in this country.  It is only when the government is truly secular can all religions flourish.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2011 - 9:16AM #8
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

May 10, 2011 -- 7:21AM, DGMelby wrote:


 


I'm pretty sure that people like David Barton have only one God in mind, and it isn't this, IMO mythical, civil religion of the USA.




Barton will use whatever to get the government he wants: Julia Ward Howe blended the God of War with the trappings of Christianity to create a Hymn people could march and die to


 


May 10, 2011 -- 7:21AM, DGMelby wrote:


I'm pretty sure that the people who started this whole "one nation under god" thing had only one God in mind, and it wasn't this civil religion of the USA.


I'm pretty sure that the millions of atheist, Buddhist, Wiccan, Hindu, and other religious minority parents who are faced with the choice of telling their children to either pledge themselves to a god they don't believe in, or single themselves out for bullying, have only one god in mind, and it isn't theirs (if any).


And I'm pretty sure that if I was ever convinced that this god we're told, by our government, we're under was, indeed, this mythical civil religion, I'd tell my (hypothetical) children not to pledge allegience to it, for they should reserve their allegience to Christ.  And I'd still want it removed from our pledge, the country's seal, and our currency.


For our government has no right to establish any religion... even vague, monotheistic civil religions, in this country.  It is only when the government is truly secular can all religions flourish.





the 9th circuit says the "under God", "in God we trust", and " Annuit Coeptus"  Phrases are the trappings of Civil Government and are religiously nuetral -that people repeat them-without assigning them a specific religious value


 


every Government has the right create their own civil religion-its how Nations manufacture and manipulate Patriotism examples the "gott mit uns" of Both Sweden during the 30 years war and Imperial Germany are prime examples


execpt for the very real danger of co-mingling terms and phrases with the majority religion of the land-(again the Battle Hymn of the Republic comes to mind) Civil religion has very little relation to true religion


 


Finally, Deius Americanus is the "God" of "God Bless America"; the "God" of "Manifest Destiny" and the "Providence" of  " Annuit Coeptus"

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 16, 2011 - 12:34AM #9
LeahOne
Posts: 15,717

"Finally, Deius Americanus is the "God" of "God Bless America"; the "God" of "Manifest Destiny" and the "Providence" of  " Annuit Coeptus"" -


And there's no reaosn this can't be understood as meaning the Great Spirit, or the Triune Goddess or the Great Mother....it's akin to the 'higher power' of AA and such.  The classical figure of 'Liberty' is another obvious choice. 


I would imagine that atheists could treat this as a 'personification' of  the ideals of America.


Back at Girls'(212) we knew it as our 'intangible spirit'  : ))  Vincet qui se vincet.....

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 16, 2011 - 10:23PM #10
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

Welcome, Leah

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook