Talk:David Barton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Comments

I think it is important to note the distortions and incorrect information, or at least address those criticisms about him, that David Barton propagates in his works.

Unfortunately, I don't believe I should be the one to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.249.20 (talk • contribs)

This is interesting: [1] maybe someone could check the claims and update the article if appropriate. Phr (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very biased.

Very biased information, as well as very biased sources that mostly try to smear him. A lot citations missing and no supporters views or sources presented. Distrustful.

Sorry, but it seems like almost all of the "smear"-ing facts are cited and referenced. When the facts don't say what you want them to, that's not bias. That's reality. Dave 16:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the particulars of Barton's historical work, so I don't dispute or support the claim that they are revisionist. I do, however, take issue with the claim that he's not a historian because he doesn't have a degree in history. Take a walk through the history section of your local Borders or Barnes and Noble. If you were to stack all the history books not written by people with BAs or advanced degrees in history, most of which are accepted historical accounts and critically acclaimed, you will probably empty out a large part of the history section. IT seems to me a lot of history professors are trying to counter the claim Barton makes about the founding fathers' religious inclinations by attacking his credentials. Unlike nuclear physics, for example, you don't need a PhD in history to write a good history. I've read great history books by both history PhDs/students as well as those educated in other fields, and I've read terrible history books by people from both areas.

It would appear that the only basis for describing David Barton as a 'historian' would be to claim that he is a writer of 'history books.' But can his books be legitimately be described as 'history'? They do not appear to narrate important historical events or lives, as one would normally expect from a history book. Rather they appear to employ quotations from historic figures in order tojustify a political viewpoint. This could be argued to be 'political advocacy' rather than 'history.' As such these books, on their own, would appear to be inadequate substantiation for a claim that Barton is a 'historian.' I would therefore suggest that further substantiation of this description be sought, and if it cannot be found then the word 'historian' be removed or qualified (e.g. "self-described historian" or similar).Hrafn42 17:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Further to my earlier comments, it seems strange that, for a supposed 'historian,' it is his praise by a politician (rather than by fellow historians) that is included, and that he is described as a powerful "Evangelical Leader." This would all indicate that he is notable in the field of politics rather than in historical research. I am therefore increasingly of the opinion that the first sentence should read: "David Barton (born 1954) is an author, a conservative political advocate and a self-described historian." ("Self-described" because that is how he has himself described on his Wallbuilders biography.)Hrafn42 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I support your analysis above. Wjhonson 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Common dictionary definition of “historian” 1. an expert in history; authority on history; 2. a writer of history; chronicler (most dictionaries are similar). David Barton has written books that even fit your narrower definition (e.g., Benjamin Rush, Bulletproof George Washington) Regardless of the fact his critics would like to contest the description because they disagree with him; he irrefutably fits the commonly understood definition of a historian.--Attenuator 21:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I looked up Benjamin Rush on Amazon, one reviewer described it as:

In fact, I can't even call it a biography; it devotes only a few pages to an "overview" of the man's life. Thereafter, it turns into what I can only describe as Christian propaganda -- apparently, the author believes that Christianity should dominate every aspect of modern life, both public and private, and seeks to use the writings of Benjamin Rush to prove his position.

Whilst such a book review is not a reliable source, it does raise questions, and even the Editorial 'Book Description' emphasises the book's quotations of Rush over biography of him.
Likewise, the Editorial 'Book Description' of Bulletproof George Washington describes it as:

This thrilling account of God's care of George Washington during the French and Indian War is a story that once appeared in many history textbooks but has since disappeared. You'll learn of Washington's character, God's miraculous protection of him in battle, and of Washington's open gratitude for God's intervention on his behalf.

This is clearly rather fanciful Christian propaganda rather than serious historical research.
I would conclude that, absent substantiation of their historical merits, neither should be considered to be serious historical biographies, and that they should be discounted as evidence that David Barton is a 'historian.'
Further, Attenuator has presented no evidence that David Barton can legitimately be considered "an expert in history" or an "authority on history," nor does the article provide any substantiation of this point beyond the claim, by Barton's own organisation that he has carried out "exhaustive research (from original writings) on the Founding Era [that] has rendered him an expert in this field." I would question if this is a reliable source for Barton's research and expertise. Hrafn42 07:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Or a better word would be "apologist". A historian does not set out to prove a pre-conceived notion, they allow the sources to speak for themselves. Barton however has admitted that some of his quotations are made up. Wjhonson 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have personally looked up many of his quotes used in Original Intent using primary sources in university and other libraries – they are accurate. (You will have to show me where he “admitted making up” quotes.) The quotes he uses from the Founders DO speak for themselves and are easily verified using his footnote citations. I challenge you to look them up for yourself.--Attenuator 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh I'm sure you've "personally looked up many of his quotes". It's highly likely Attenuator is another sock-puppet of Barton's. All his postings are to this page Attenuator contributions. Wjhonson 08:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
And you have babysat this page to ensure that it reflects your own personal antagonisms and biases. Anything that mentions "God" or Christianity in a positive light is obviously suspect in your world of "respected scholars" (i.e., those with your viewpoint). It’s not surprising that sources you cite all seem to come from the same perspective - hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia article (but certainly good copy if this was a liberal blog). --Attenuator 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence that Barton isn't seriously regarded as a 'Historian':

Respected scholars, regardless of their position on this matter, cite the works of other scholars and primary sources, etc in their footnotes and end notes. Perhaps, the biggest condemnation of Barton and his work is that rarely, if ever, do respected scholars cite any of his publications as any kind of source. Even those respected scholars who basically agree with his position rarely, if ever, cite any of his publications. They don't want to connect their names to his, because of his reputation for shoddy research, inaccuracies, misrepresentations, etc.[2]

Anybody who wishes to dispute the above assertion is welcome to present a substantial list of citations of his work by respected historians to refute it (there are plenty of online citation-search-engines about). Failure to do so will be taken as admission that historians do not consider him to be one of their own. Hrafn42 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glorification

Any claim that seems overly positive is going to need a specific, quoted, citation. Wjhonson 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are Barton's Angel Awards worthy of note? All they indicate is the following:

The recipients of the Gold and Silver Angels are people in any form of the media who have successfully contributed to the advancement of quality in life without the unnecessary need for violence, profanity and sexual content to sell to their audience. Today, the highly visible Angel Awards--while not the only project of this organization-- are, by far, the largest undertaking of EIM. Excellence in Media stresses that it is a non-profit, non-political, non-sectarian volunteer organization cutting across all demographic strata and all forms of media.[3]

Hardly a prestigious or notable award. Hrafn42 13:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely, it's notable that entries submitted by Barton's production company have won media awards given out by an organization that is (according to the page about it at IMDb) "...primarily financed by media award entries." Surely, it's notable that his biography on his website takes the trouble to point out that he has received these awards. Let the man speak for himself! His words and actions will reveal who he truly is. Whyaduck 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the whole thing is distinctly Rimmeresque[4], but feel that it may mislead readers who are unaware of the actual stature of Angel Awards. Would it be appropriate to to modify the sentence to say:

Barton has been given two Angel Awards from the group "Excellence in Media"[5], which are awarded to "people in any form of the media who have successfully contributed to the advancement of quality in life without the unnecessary need for violence, profanity and sexual content to sell to their audience."[6]

Hrafn42 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Your suggested addition wouldn't harm the article, but I think Wikipedia needs a short article about the organization Excellence in Media, to which this article (and any other articles which mention Angel Awards) could link. I understand your concern that some readers may be misled if too little information is included in an article, but I have some hope that a word to the wise remains sufficient—and the merely ignorant may be less likely than would be, say, the prejudiced, to find some things lightly touched upon to be obscure beyond understanding. Taking this tack does of course run the risk that some innocent but none-too-bright folk could be misled, but I suspect these to be fewer than you might fear. Our main concern is those who come to the page pre-misled and thus choose to remove factual information they perceive as unfair or to add erroneous content they truly but mistakenly believe to be accurate and just. The article may eventually need official Wikipedia protection, but I think quite a bit could be accomplished short of that. Whyaduck 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I've inserted the description. If anybody ever gets around to creating an article on Excellence in Media (assuming they're considered to be 'notable'), the description can be replaced by a link to it. Hrafn42 13:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

I reverted the recent changes which introduc, but added some of them back in. So for example, Wallbuilders was previously described as a "historical revisionism" group, which I think is overkill, as they and many of their supports wouldn't summarize the group that way. Instead the group had haracterized as "pro-family", is an unverifiable opinion. Instead, I summmarized it quoting from the group in a way that gets across the gist that the group exists to promote Barton's political POV. You get the idea.

In general, the article needs to be better sourced, particularly using sources from mainstream media (cnn/nytimes/fox/bbc/etc). It seems like we should also exhibit a fair amount of healthy skepticism to positive aspect of Barton's own bio. For example, it claims he got the DAR's highest award, the George Washington Honor Medal. I left it in, but I can't find any reference to the DAR even having a "George Washington Honor Medal". I similarly can't find any sources that talk about the DAR giving him a medal (aside from websites that basically seem to be just reiterating his own bio). --Alecmconroy 02:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that Barton appears to get little attention (and almost no direct discussion) from the mainstream media. His work seems to get attention and discussion (applause or criticism) mainly in the blogosphere. Hrafn42 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Scratching around on Google in an idle moment, I turned up that most 'George Washington Honor Medals' mentioned appear to be awarded by the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. Could his Wallbuilders biographer have gotten them confused with the DAR (they're both historical/patriotic groups)? Hrafn42 12:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The last paragraph

I've marked the article for weasel words mostly based on the last paragraph, which makes very liberal use of them. The paragraph needs to be rewritten to remove them and should also have sources to back up its claims. I note this paragraph was only added recently so it might be better to just delete it. I've also added a note to the talk page of the contributor who added the paragraph. Inexorability 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Regarding the last revision (11:05 8 March 2007): First, this update added two citations and changed a few sentences to the last paragraph. I looked at the citations and, quite honestly, I'm really not sure why they're there. The first (currently numbered 10) is a link to a list of quotes from historical figures on David Barton's organization's page, which is irrelevant to what it claims to cite (and probably inappropriate given the fact that Barton's quotes are disputed). The second (numbered 11) is a link to an opinion piece which makes no mention of the book or its authors which the citation appears after. The closest connection I can find is that it is a response to an article (written by a different author) which shares a similar name with the book after the citation.

Second, I looked up the two books mentioned and both seem to be books about the topic of separation of church and state rather than responses to Barton. For this reason I don't think they are relevant to this article. The Amazon.com listing for The Godless Constitution has a list of capitalized phrases available, which does not include David Barton's name (see the "Inside This Book" section).

Also, the fact that The Godless Constitution does not use footnotes seems to be highly misleading. The fact that a book does not use footnotes in no way means that it does not use sources at all as the article heavily implies.

Interestingly, when I was looking these things up, I came across a page on David Barton's WallBuilders site. Section 4 seems suspiciously similar to the recent additions.

In conclusion(s): First, I really don't want to get into an edit war (which is why I'm hesitant to revert it), but I honestly don't think the last revision added much that contributed to the article. Second, I've tried to think how the last paragraph could be rewritten and improved, I'm not sure how it can be. It's still peppered with weasel words and seems to be inherently POV. I think the best course of action would probably be to just delete the paragraph. Discussion? Inexorability 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is fairly hopeless in my opinion. Barton or his hired assistants revert every change that portrays the actuality of the situation. Until we have *more* editors willing to restore the original article from a few months ago, I don't see how we can fix it at all. Wjhonson 01:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is 'owned' by Bwallace07 & Attenuator

This article is 'owned' by Bwallace07 & Attenuator. Do not bother trying to make any contributions that are not sympathetic to Barton, as they will simply immediately revert them without discussion.

And most importantly, do not contribute anything that even tangentially alludes to the rather obvious point that Barton's primary motivation is political activism, not historical scholarship -- they really don't like that.

This section has been created so that others don't make the same mistake I did, and waste time discussing and making contributions that have zero chance of getting by the 'owners.'

Those who this section makes uncomfortable have two options: (a) they can take Bwallace07 & Attenuator's route and simply make this section disappear (I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find some Wikipedia rule that you could claim it violates); or (b) prove me wrong (by showing that well-sourced unsympathetic material has a chance of surviving). Hrafn42 14:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that Bwallace07 and Attenuator are the same person. Wjhonson 05:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To put it simply, what is occurring is your long-term use of this article to vent your personal political antagonisms and religious prejudices is being challenged. Your biases and arrogance are clearly evident from your user profile. Your “well sourced” contributions all come from one perspective (blatantly negative) with the obvious purpose of casting Mr. Barton in the worst possible light. The last time I checked, Wikipedia was still listed as an encyclopedia and not your personal blog.--Attenuator 06:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Attenuator: you and Bwallace07 aren't "challenging" anything. You both are simply reverting anything unflattering to Barton (which isn't hard to find, given the low opinion that respectable Historians have of him) and anything that reveals his blatant political motivation. I would note that you have not even attempted to rebut my earlier (substantiated) assertion that Benjamin Rush & Bulletproof George Washington are both blatant pieces of Christian propaganda of negligible scholarly historical value. So much for "challenging." Hrafn42 10:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wjhonson: I suspect that Bwallace07 & Attenuator aren't the same person. Their objectives are identical, yes (but such objectives are typical of most Right Wing Authoritarian followers) -- but their methods differ & complement each other only imperfectly (if they are sockpuppets of the same person, that person has gone out of their way to be an incompetent puppeteer). Hrafn42 10:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

Now that people have stopped reflexively reverting anything new (at least for the moment), could I suggest taking advantage of the lull consolidating the existing content into some section headings, e.g.:

  • Biography (education, school-teacher, family)
  • Historical research (Specialty Research Associates, Wallbuilders)
  • Criticism
  • Other activities (Republican Party, Providence Foundation)

Hrafn42 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Monthly on Barton's mischaracterisation of Jefferson (and denial that he had done it)

I'm summarising this in the main article, but thought it worth while to put the relevant two paragraphs here to show that my summary actually waters down the negative press that Barton received in it (in case anybody wants to argue POV).

Perhaps the most embarrassing gaffe Barton has been accused of is an egregious mischaracterization of Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists. Barton allegedly said that Jefferson referred to the wall of separation between church and state as "one-directional"--that is, it was meant to restrain government from infringing on the church's domain but not the other way around. There is no such language in the letter. This mistaken quote does not appear on Barton's list of retractions, however, and when I asked Barton about it, he denied ever having misquoted Jefferson's letter in any of his publications. He claimed instead that unspecified critics had merely heard him mention the "one-directional wall" in a speech and that he had in fact been summarizing Jefferson's general views on the First Amendment, not purporting to paraphrase or quote from the Danbury Letter. In other words, his critics had dishonestly taken his words out of context to make him look bad.

For whatever reason, Barton is not telling the truth. The mistake in question comes from a 1990 version of Barton's video America's Godly Heritage. Here are Barton's exact words from the tape: "On January 1,1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them--he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government." Ina later version of the video, Barton carefully fixed this mistake, so it's not something be could have forgotten. He has admitted to making other mistakes, so why not acknowledge this one? It may be that the Danbury gaffe--like his first book, now out of print, in which he claimed that God spoke to him--is something that the new Barton, the Time-approved Barton, can no longer afford.

[7] Hrafn42 17:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should he be listed as a Pseudohistorian?

According to the current state of this article and the criteria at the Pseudohistory article, Barton clearly meets the first 3 of the 5 criteria. "That the work has a political, religious or other ideological agenda." This is obvious, as his work clearly has a religious agenda (it tries to change the religion of the founders of the USA from Deist/Unitarian to Christian and to write the Separation of Church and State out of the Constitution). "That a work is not published in an academic journal or is otherwise not adequately peer reviewed." Obviously, his work is not peer reviewed. "That the evidence for key facts supporting the work's thesis is: speculative, controversial, not correctly or adequately sourced, interpreted in an unjustifiable way given undue weight, taken out of context, or distorted, either innocently, accidentally, or fraudulently." His use of unsourced and likely fake Founder quotes meets the first 3. He takes Jefferson out of context (afterall, Jefferson was a lifelong opponent of organized religion and was frequently accused by the Christians of his time of being an Atheist). The other 2 criteria are "That competing (and simpler) explanations or interpretations for the same set of facts, which have been peer reviewed and have been adequately sourced, have not been addressed." and "That the work relies on one or more conspiracy theories or hidden hand explanations, when the principle of Occam's razor would recommend a simpler, more prosaic and more plausible explanation of the same fact pattern." For what its worth, he is listed as a Pseudohistorian over at the Pseudohistory article and he does seem to be a pretty good fit, so I've edited the article to correct this (I assume the policies regarding pseudohistory are similar to the ones regarding pseudoscience, right?). Life, Liberty, Property (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think an argument could be made for the fourth criteria as well: that the commonly held hypothesis, that the framers of the constitution did in fact intend separation of church and state, is a simpler competing "explanation[] or interpretation[] for the same set of facts, which [has] been peer reviewed and [has] been adequately sourced, [has] not been addressed." I would have no problem with Barton being listed as a pseudohistorian. HrafnTalkStalk 14:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Barton could meet every single criterion from the Pseudohistory article, but it would not mean this article should list him as a pseudohistorian, and the reasons are several.
(1) Wikipedia articles cannot be used as source material for other Wikipedia article. This immediately kills the idea of using the term as it has been in this article.
(2) Pseudohistorian is an admittedly pejorative term, automatically making it inappropriate in a biographical sketch in any but the most extreme cases (and Barton is not the most extreme case).
(3) Pseudohistorian is an ad hoc, invented word.
(4) Claims that David Barton is a pseudohistorian are unsourced (except from another Wikipedia article, which is explicitly forbidden by Wiki rules).
(5) Self-published works are permissible in cases in which the author has received significant recognition of his work from authorities. Maybe that only begs the question, but Barton is praised by those whom I respect, and vilified by those who I don't.
(6) The list of examples given in the Pseudohistory article are not cited, and look like original research (or POV).
(7) David Barton is not on the list in the Pseudohistory article; I took him off. His inclusion was unsourced, and the term "pseudohistory" is dubious, anyway. Pooua (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


I've noticed this discussion only after I removed the word and category. Unless Barton is cited as a pseudohistorian in reliable sources, please do not restore either. Relata refero (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Specter quote

The myth of the "Myth of Separation".

David Barton and his adherents begin their argument that the principle of church/state separation is a made-up doctrine foisted on America by an unprincipled Supreme Court[11] by pointing out the fact that those words do not appear in the text of the First Amendment. Indeed, Barton's book repeatedly states that most people believe those words are in the Constitution, as if to suggest that some grand conspiracy is preventing Americans from discovering what their Constitution actually says.

Howvever, the absence of those words from the text of the Constitution is hardly proof that the doctrine of church-state separation is not constitutionally grounded. The Constitution doesn't use the words "fair trial" either, yet we certainly view that right as protected by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ."[12] The text establishes two sharp demarcations between government and religion: government cannot establish religion, indeed it cannot even pass any law "respecting" (i.e., having anything to do with) an establishment of religion (the "establishment" clause); and government cannot interfere with anybody's practice of their religion (the "free exercise" clause). These two restrictions on government -- not to create, or establish, religion and not to interfere with individual religious freedom -- are appropriately summarized by the phrase "separation of church and state."

Many conservative scholars argue that constitutional text must be interpreted in accordance with the "original intent" of the founders. While I have some problem with "original intent" as an exclusive vehicle of constitutional interpretation, even "original intent" jurisprudence provides an unambiguous basis for viewing absolute church/state separation as the intended operative effect of the First Amendment.

The immediate historical genesis of the First Amendment was the battle which raged in the 1785-86 session of the Virginia legislature over whether to continue a tax levy for the support of the clergy. The leaders of the successful fight against the levy were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Madison argued eloquently in his classic "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments" that true religion did not require the state's support, and that society's interests demanded freedom for all in matters of belief:

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence that has convinced us.[13]

Heeding Madison and Jefferson, the Virginia legislature not only abolished the religious levy, it even adopted the Bill for Religious Liberty which Jefferson authored.[14 Jefferson's Bill was unambiguous in its disavowal of state established religion, providing that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever . . . . "[15] As the Virginia legislative battle makes clear, Jefferson's Bill meant, literally no use of tax dollars in support of "any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever."[16]

After the Constitution was drafted and ratified over the next two years, part of the first order of business for the Congress was fashioning a Bill of Rights, including a provision for religious freedom. Jefferson was absent in Europe and thus did not participate in the drafting of the Constitution, but he wrote back that his main disappointment with the document was its lack of a provision to secure religious liberty. The task of drafting that provision fell to Jefferson's Virginian ally, James Madison, who was the principal draftsman of the Constitution.

On June 8, 1789, Madison offered this proposal for a constitutional amendment on religious liberty: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."[17] This language was changed several times before it coalesced into the form adopted by the Congress and ultimately ratified as the First Amendment. But it is clear that Madison's intent, as expressed in his "Memorial and Remonstrance," was an amendment that made clear that "religion," or the "duty towards the Creator," must be "wholly exempt from [the] cognizance" of civil society.[18]

Madison's later writings leave little doubt that he viewed the First Amendment as embodying the doctrine of church/state separation. In an undated essay probably written during Jefferson's presidency, Madison spoke of the "strongly guarded. . .separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." And in a letter dated March 2, 1819, Madison commented on the strength that American religion derived from "the total separation of the church from the state." [19]

Perhaps the best known expression of the "original intent" of the First Amendment is contained in Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association. Addressing this religious group, Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.[20]

Jefferson has always been viewed as the single most important source of the meaning of the First Amendment; a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court more than a hundred years ago described him as "the acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure" and described his Danbury letter as "an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."[21]

The framers' writings leave no room for doubting that church/state separation was very much a part of their original intent. The Supreme Court noted this again nearly fifty years ago in reaffirming thE validity of Jefferson's metaphoric 'wall of separation:'

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. . . . No tax in any amount, large or small can be levied to support any activities or institutions whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.[22]

Interestingly, it is Everson--which allowed state supported payments for busing to religious schools--that David Barton and his adherents excoriated for its role in fixing the concept of a wall of church/state separation in American jurisprudence.[23] But consider what the four Supreme Court Justices who dissented in Ever-son had to say about the First Amendment: "It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion."[24]

In 1947 it was the view of every justice of the Supreme Court (and this was not the "liberal" Warren Court of the 1960s) that the First Amendment establishes a firm policy of separation between government and religion--a view firmly grounded in the text of the First Amendment itself, in its historical circumstances, in the many contemporaneous writings of its framers, and in earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. The pronouncement in Everson that the constitution establishes a "wall of separation" between church and state was not new doctrine; it was an expression of what the First Amendment meant when it was adopted, and what it always had been understood to mean.

Going beyond text and history, a variety of other arguments are advanced by Barton against the validity of the church/state separation doctrine. These arguments range from the technical[25] to the absurd.[26] It is not my purpose here to dissect or discredit each of those arguments, but they all proceed from flawed and highly selective readings of both text and history. For example, when Barton argues that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be read to extend the applicability of the First Amendment to state governments, his book omits the critical text of the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that makes most of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, applicable to the states.[27]

Barton's great concern over text apparently also does not make him wonder why the founders of this nation, most of them religious Christians, made no reference to Christianity in any of the nation's three seminal documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Could it be that those men of faith were wise enough to recognize that both the nation and their own institutions of faith would best flourish if their affairs were kept separate?

Probably the best refutation of Barton's argument simply is to quote his own exegesis of the First Amendment: "Today," Barton says, "we would best understand the actual context of the First Amendment by saying, 'Congress shall make no law establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination.' "[28] In keeping with Barton's restated First Amendment, Congress could presumably make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion, and each state could pass a law establishing a particular Christian church as its official religion.

All of this pseudoscholarship would hardly be worth discussing, let alone disproving, wre it not for the fact that it is taken so very seriously by so many people. I was booed in Iowa when I mentioned church/state separation because I touched a raw nerve. Led by the firebrands of the "far right," millions apparently believe that a conspiracy involving some combination of the left, modern U.S. Supreme Courts, the Jewish element in the ACLU, homosexuals, non-believers, enemies of God, atheistic secular humanists, the antifamily movement, non-Christian people and atheistic people, and infidels has been unleashed to rape the Constitution and rape the churches by misinterpreting the First Amendment.

There is, of course, no conspiracy--only a Constitution that provides, as it has for more than 200 years, that our government can neither establish religion nor interfere with its free exercise. But the virulent assault mounted today against that principle requires its defense not only on historical terms but also on utilitarian ones. Even as we are satisfied that church/state separation is well grounded in the text and intent of the First Amendment, an adequate defense of the principle requires us to refamiliarize ourselves with how we benefit as a nation--a nation of religious people--from the maintenance of the wall which separates church and state.

HrafnTalkStalk 03:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The lead

WP:LEAD states:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any.

That Barton's work is controversial, criticised by a number of historians and is viewed by a number of people across the political spectrum as pseudohistory is a "notable controversy" and belongs in the lead. The 'Publications and critics' section is for the details of these criticisms. HrafnTalkStalk 08:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I just wrote a explanation on this talk page of why I added a POV tag to this article. My comments were not posted due to the wiki having maintenance work.

I would like this article to be checked for POV.

My main points were that Americans United for Separation of Church and State should be cited less or removed entirely and that I removed the Arlen Specter reference from the first paragraph, due to the fact that he is not a historian, as far as I know.

I think Americans United is not a historical organization.

Also, perhaps some of the boxed quotes could be merged into the text or removed.

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And Sam Brownback is a historian and Time (magazine) is a historical journal? An objection was made to the bald (but most probably true) statement that Barton is a pseudohistorian, so the language was changed to notable commentators describing him as such. The Specter comments was in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, so is certainly WP:RS. Given that Barton has no qualifications as a historian whatsoever, I believe WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources applies. HrafnTalkStalk 10:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you said that Specter is a prominent commentator. That is true. So is Anne Coulter. She has called Hillary Clinton a "congenital liar." Does that mean we should mention that in the lead of the Clinton article? "Clinton has been described by journalist and author Anne Coulter as a congenital liar." JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Coulter may be notable, but she's a chronically extremist and unreliable (in that her factual statements have been repeatedly proved inaccurate) source. Additionally, I doubt if the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, or even any respectable newspaper (even a conservative one), would publish her work these days. Her shrill hysteria has been relegated to the lunatic fringe. HrafnTalkStalk 03:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a source for all of that? Incidentally, WorldNetDaily, does publish her work. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You can find this documented in her article. WorldNetDaily is the very epitome of the unreliable, extremist, lunatic fringe. I would doubt if anybody associated with it would be considered a reliable source. HrafnTalkStalk 02:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn is attempting to marginalize anyone, including David Barton, that he disagrees with. Most biographies on wikipedia try to set a neutral or slightly positive tone, especially in the lead. This includes controversial people, with many detractors. An example is Timothy Leary. No critical opinions about him are anywhere near the lead. Yet he could easily and honestly be called a drug addicted quack, with references to "prove" it. Hrafn even insists that Pseudohistorian (a pejorative opinion) be placed in front of any reference to Mr Barton's influence or popularity. I do not intend to be intellectually bullied by his multiple sourcing or his quoting WP guidelines that do not apply to what he is actually doing. Is it necessary to analyze & debate everything Barton has ever written and said, in this wikipedia article and talk section to arrive at an approximately accurate article? Would it be readable? Walkingcod —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkingcod (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Walkingcod: read WP:DUE & WP:V. To paraphrase an old legal adage: "if the sources are on your side pound the sources, if policy is on your side pound the policy, when neither is on your side pound the table." You have admitted that I have sources and policy on my side, so this rant of yours is simply you 'pounding the table'. HrafnTalkStalk 05:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn: You are attempting to marginalize me by stating that I have admitted to having no substance. This is your typical presumption. I have a life, But if you want pounding of sources, and of policy, I will give it. It will not be done quickly, but as my time permits. In the end, this will probably not satisfy you, as you stated earlier only unsympathetic material will be acceptable, and you will deem anything, including the writings of the Founding Fathers as sympathetic and biased. Yours is a minority view WP:DUE as Mr Barton has far more supporters than detractors, but if you are living in a cloistered world you might not know that. Walkingcod p.s. I readily admit that Barton, like everyone who has done significant amount of writing, has had factual errors, and I disagree with some of his opinions, but perfection is not the standard for a reliable source. If it was, everyone is a fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkingcod (talk • contribs) 22:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. I never stated that "only unsympathetic material will be acceptable, and [I] will deem anything, including the writings of the Founding Fathers as sympathetic and biased."
  2. WP:DUE weights by WP:RS opinion (and thus gives weight to expert scholarly opinion), not the adulation of the ignorant masses.
  3. Barton's misdeeds go well beyond a few "factual errors". An egregious example is given in the article: he lied about what Jefferson said in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, then LIED ABOUT LYING ABOUT IT.

HrafnTalkStalk 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship and Bias POV

This article is extremely biased and has been repeatedly censored by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hrafn. Has anyone gone through Wiki arbitration for this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.47.136 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cutting the "Confirmed Quotes" section

Here's the relevant section removed:

Confirmed quotes

Following are several quotations, which have been confirmed and represent the Biblical foundation of the United States of America.

John Adams, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."[1]

John Quincy Adams, SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE.

"In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity."[2]

First off, the title sounds like a POINTy response to the "Unconfirmed quotes" section following. That's in addition to the section being original research on what these quotes represent. If it's to be included at all (that is, if it's normal to argue for a biographical subject's work on a biography page, a point of which I'm not entirely convinced) it should be written to make clear that it's Barton's take on the subject, not Wikipedia's. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)