Is Confronting Fake History Worth It?

103 thoughts on “Is Confronting Fake History Worth It?”

1. Even if you never get a concession from the other side, it’s worth it. People who want to examine multiple points of view can at least find them articulated. I do think these debates tend to be reductive and pedantic, and often miss the larger point. For example, you can bash someone living in an echo chamber who believes the Founders were all Protestant Christians, you can prove them wrong, and they’ll probably argue with you about it anyway. But in the end, it’s not the particulars that concern them, it’s the trend. Warren buys into the total hoax about Trump saying Nazis are good people, and will defend it to the death despite all evidence to the contrary. But he’s correct about the big picture: our President is not a nice person and he continually lies about almost everything.

   1. If you look into the context of what Trump said regarding Unite the Right rally in Virginia, that besides neo-Nazis and white supremacists who was there, there were also people who simply wanted to preserve history and who encountered violence from the leftists for that, which was as bad as being a white supremacist. Weren’t all of our Presidents, in general, lying? The only difference is that were all nice, except for Trump.

   2. If you look into the context of what Trump said regarding Unite the Right rally in Virginia, that besides neo-Nazis and white supremacists who was there, there were also people who simply wanted to preserve history and who encountered violence from the leftists for that, which was as bad as being a white supremacist. Weren’t all of our Presidents, in general, lying? The only difference is that they were all nice, except for Trump.

      1. Oh, I agree. I am AMAZED at how many Americans were apparently very happy to be continually lied to in the most horrific, consequential ways, as long as politicians were polite about it. I guess they will be happy again when we get a less obvious, more meticulously dishonest sociopath in office, screwing the living daylights out of us but being nicer to reporters like we’re used to.

         1. Trying to claim Trump’s lies are the same as other political lies is just covering up for Trump. What Trump does isn’t even close to what other politicians have done. Do you understand what the term “gaslighting” means?

            1. I do, indeed. And understand, I am no fan of Donald Trump. He says a lot of ridiculous things. I just don’t like getting lied to by any politician, and I don’t care how slick or articulate they are.

            2. Then why were you supporting sam80’s implication that what Trump is doing is the same as every other president?

            3. Ken, does it really matter which politician tell more or less outrageous lies? I am not saying that Trump’s lies are exactly the same as let’s say Obama’s but they are still lies in general

            4. It matters WHAT the lies are and WHY they are told. The fact that you don’t understand the difference between Trump’s lies and the lies of other politicians says more about you than them.

            5. It matters WHAT the lies are and WHY they are told. The fact that you don’t understand the difference between Trump’s lies and the lies of other politicians says more about you than them.

            6. “Same” doesn’t enter into it. Is Trump more corrosive? Probably in some ways. But I believe Bill Clinton is a rapist. Period. His wife might be worse. Listening to the likes of a criminally dishonest man like James Clapper talking about integrity and criticizing Trump is comedic. The CIA and FBI have long histories of acting against Americans in appalling ways. But now we are supposed to regard them as a bunch of Sheriff Andy Taylors? I just don’t buy it. Bill Kristol is going to get sanctimonious about things after the foolish, arrogant neo-conservative furnace he’d been stoking from the sidelines, and which cost so many thousands and thousands of lives? I find myself incapable of having so much contempt for Trump that I can take these jackasses seriously.

            7. None of the other people you mentioned in this post have ability to launch a nuclear strike to assuage their egos. None of them are hurting the integrity of the US because their lies make them look like buffoons.

            8. Yeah, I get it. I’m just not as worked up about Trump as you are. The country elected Donald Trump, and he’s acting like Donald Trump. I don’t see the purpose of the perpetual apoplexy over the fact that he behaves precisely like one would expect, and I suspect that it is actually very useful to his cause. Truthfully, I am more concerned for the psychological well being of some friends in the event that he is re-elected, which is not at all unlikely. They are already in a toxic spiral.

            9. My problem is with people like you and sam80, who keep making excuses for Trump and trying to say he is just like all the other politicians when clearly he is not.

               In much the same way that sam80 was trying to equate Barton and D’Souza with Zinn and Chomsky. Trying to obfuscate the glaring and salient differences by focusing on the similarities that aren’t relevant to the topic.

2. I think it’s time to turn up the heat on D’Souza’s profession of Christianity.

   1) He cheated on his wife and subsequently divorced.

   2) He was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions and lying to the Federal Government.

   Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. – Galatians 5.19-21

   1. The problem is that the Christians who like D’Souza message — that liberals are evil and will destroy America — don’t care. Anything short of a major felony, and they will forgive and forget as long as he continues to demonize liberals.

      1. Just because D’Souza may be a Christian in the name only, or pseudo-Christian, which I personally believe he is so, it doesn’t mean that his work is not beneficial to Christians when it comes to defending our liberties. I think it is. Likewise, many Christians find benefits from the works of David Horowitz and Dennis Prager, who are Jewish, but work on the same project as D’Souza. Do I personally believe that these people put together are living as sinners, especially those who reject Jesus as the messiah? Absolutely. Is it my job to judge them and impose punishment on them? Absolutely not, because I am also a sinner doing my best by always not pleasing God, so I let him do that. Meanwhile, I consider people who advocate on my behalf, regardless of their personal beliefs on religion, politics, and sexuality, as my friends.

         1. His work isn’t beneficial to Christians, he’s just preaching to the right-wing conservative choir, telling them what they want to hear. The only possible benefit would be getting them so riled up by their fake outrage that they are more likely to vote next election.

            As for Prager and Horowitz, well, as I said, this is all about politics, not religion.

            As for your unbending support for them — again, just tribal politics. You hate liberals so you’re willing to accept any type of support in opposing them, no matter how disreputable and dishonest they are. That’s fine, I guess, though not exactly a shining example for others to look up to.

            1. I don’t hate liberals but I hate how liberals treat conservatives, and D’Souza, Barton, Horowitz, and Prager are saying that in democratic societies it is not acceptable. This is what I like. Personally, I don’t care if all people here are liberals, as I long as they don’t want me to be persecuted because I disagree with them, I can be friends with them, as well.

            2. I see, you “hate how liberals treat conservatives” but your fine with how conservatives treat liberals.

            3. It depends on the types of venues where people are at, but I like I said earlier I think that in general, I can be friends with them.

            4. The point I was making, was that you were (over) generalizing about liberals (“they treat conservatives badly”) and then use that generalization to justify how Barton and D’Souza (and other conservatives) treat liberals.

            5. The point I was making, was that you were (over) generalizing about liberals (“they treat conservatives badly”) and then use that generalization to justify how Barton and D’Souza (and other conservatives) treat liberals.

3. Yes, it is worth it to confront fake history. And thank you for doing that.

   I’m sure it gets tedious, with the amount of fake that we are seeing. But it important that false history be exposed as false.

4. Good evening everyone,

   Warren – Do you have a special bottle of antacid in your laptop when these nuggets pop up? I can tell they bug you (as they should to anyone paying attention)

   Could someone please post or point me to the list of 5 -7 things people do when they can’t give you a real explanation for what they stated. It is something that keeps popping up and it should be a instant response to any one who has to deal with these clowns. I saw it several times during the Mars Hill debacle.

   Warren thanks for all your work. I don’t know how this is done between bloggers, but I saw an entry on Julie’s Roy’s call ‘Translations’. The person broke down how the first couple hundred works (<200) in reply was more of a character assassination from Christians that an reply.

   Thanks
   CJ.

5. Regarding Barton above:
   “He came up with his approved list of schools where the history departments apparently approve of him….One, Ecclesia College in Arkansas, became embroiled in a fraud and kickback scandal leading to the jailing of the president.”

   That would be the same Ecclesia College that, coincidentally, has on its Board of Regents a Mr. David Barton and a Mr. Eric Metexas.

6. I know the problems with Barton’s book/history, but I’m not up to speed where D’Souza’s is off. To be compared with Barton it must be substantial.

   Can someone give me a few facts where D’Souza’s is wrong?

   1. just search “Kevin Kruse Dinesh D’Souza” and you’ll find plenty of info on that.

      Ex. Here is a twitter thread where Kruse debunks D’Souza argument that the racist democrats didn’t flee to the republican party in the 50s/60s

      https://twitter.com/kevinmkruse/status/1013981446615322624?lang=en

      1. Thanks ken, it seems more about Politics than History to me.

         1. The main difference between D’Souza and Barton is that D’Souza doesn’t pretend to be a historian. He’s a political commentator and propagandist for right wing American conservatives.

         2. yes, it is about them twisting history to support their political objectives.

      2. Thanks ken, it seems more about Politics than History to me.

7. Is confronting fake history worth it? Absolutely. The weird thing is, good history isn’t necessarily true. It amounts to a narrative that covers all the known facts about something at the time it is written. Further discoveries may uncover new information, which may mean that old theories and narratives need to be revised. It is the writing of history that distorts or omits available facts, or fails to account for new information, that makes for bad historians. Dinesh D’Souza and David Barton are among their number.

   1. Howard Zinn has been also omitting facts numerous times to support his liberal political agenda, yet anti-Christian pro-socialism bigots don’t seem to have a problem with it, yet they are so eager to pummel D’Souza and Barton who either might have made honest mistakes or simply write something that hurts these leftists’ feelings. How hypocritical.

      1. This is where again you are exaggerating. When the History News Network polled historians about the worst book of history in print, David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies won but in a very close second place was Zinn’s book. Fitting indeed. https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/and-the-worst-book-of-history-is/

         1. I have not seen a single legitimate counter-argument from sam80 in response to anything you’ve posted. Nothing from sam80 but willful misrepresentation and attempts to obfuscate and derail with false equivalencies and other fallacies. Not sure such sophistry belongs here.

            1. Is this the best you can do to win your argument by doing the character assassination of the people you disagree with ? Does your desire to silence me also prove that , maybe, you are admitting that you have already lost your argument?

            2. Um, your ‘argument’ was convincingly refuted in the post just prior to the one you respond to here.

      2. Two points here:-
         1. this post is not about Howard Zinn (who died nearly a decade ago, in case you hadn’t realised);
         2. the critics of Barton cited by Warren are not “anti-Christian pro-Socialist bigots”.

         You are making the same ‘mistake’ as before: seeking to excuse the wrongdoing of the far right by pointing out the wrongdoing of the far left!

         This time I will not enter into a prolonged dialogue with you, but I felt the need to at least ‘call you out’!

         PS. By all means set up a blog to challenge the claims of those you regard as having a “liberal political agenda”. You could send me a link and I might even comment! 😉

      3. Why is it that the only people who ever talk about Howard Zinn and Saul Alinsky are conservatives? I can honestly say that, having been a liberal Democrat for literally decades and decades, and having grown up in the ’50s and ’60s, I never heard a single Democrat, or liberal, mention Zinn or Alinsky ever. Conservatives have this fantasy that liberals pore over these authors and take marching orders from them, which is fantastical and bizarre.

         You comment continues this tradition of pillorying people no one on the left cares about very much at all.

      4. How can one make hundreds of honest mistakes in a row? Indeed, write book after book composed of honest mistakes and then honestly mistake to correct the record after one’s sincerely made claims have been shown to be false? Then unfailingly mistakenly attack the messenger and dismiss their criticism because they are not from your tribe, literally committing the most basic of logical fallacies.

         But more than that, going by who you support, I would assume you would profess to believe in objective morality and personal responsibility? How do those things square with the “But whatabout….” you just threw out there. Either D’Souza is right or he’s wrong (Spoiler: He’s wrong). It has precisely 0 to do with Howard Zinn or whether his book is equally inaccurate. No one should say “Well, this D’Souza claim is total bullshit, but Zinn got it wrong the other way, so I’m going to let this slide.” No, two wrongs don’t make a right. We teach grade school kids this. But here you are, “But Howard Zinn…”

         I honestly don’t understand how people can complain about “Anti-Christian” bias and then defend the use of dishonesty by Christians. I mean, isn’t that the whole point? You don’t need to tell lies because you have Truth on your side?

      5. A significant difference between Zinn and Barton,D’Souza is that Zinn would face his critics, not run and hide (or just respond with insults) the way Barton and D’Souza do.

         I attended a lecture by Zinn were he did acknowledge “differing opinions” on his book and actively engaged with those who disagreed with them.

         1. Well, I would say that liberal writers like Howard Zinn, Cornel West, and Noam Chomsky in general, engage themselves in public debates as much as David Barton, Dinesh D’Souza, and Jordan Peterson do.

            1. I strongly disagree. Both Zinn and Chomsky (not that familiar with West) where both academics who faced their critics. Certainly they had their biases. However, they didn’t run and hide from their critics the way Barton (and D’Souza – again not familiar with Peterson) did.

               how many cases can you show me where Zinn and Chomsky avoided criticism of their ideas by engaging in ad hominen attacks? or lied/mislead about the facts that were presented to them?

               While it is fair to say Zinn and Chomsky had a liberal bias, it is NOT fair to claim they engaged in the same sort of tactics as Barton and D’Souza.

            2. ken, sam80 likely doesn’t even know the number of books published by Chomsky, let alone the content of just one of those books. Why bother with such obvious childish sophistry?

            3. Does it matter how many books Chomsky wrote? The point is that many liberals do not like when somebody criticizes him, or West, or Naomi Klein, but they are eager to criticize Barton and D’Souza. I think it’s unfair. As for ad hominem attacks, it is people’s perceptions who attacked who, so just like there are people who felt being attacked by conservative writers, there are those who felt being attacked by liberal writers. In my experience, it is liberals like you who are whining like little children when they can’t logically defend their arguments.

            4. Come on Sam, you can’t even tell the difference between democratic socialism and communism. Just admit it, you are thoroughly outclassed intellectually in this company.

            5. There is a difference between democratic socialism and communism. There are more individual freedoms under the former but not under the latter. But still, under both systems, you are a slave of the state. Sweden tried democratic socialism during the 1970s and it led to an economic depression, hence since the 1990s, Swedes have been choosing more conservative governments. I doubt that in general, neither communism, nor democratic socialism, would ever be successful.

            6. Sophistry … yes, it does seem to be a speciality of some people! And it is great pity, as sophistry (which in some hands has a serpent-like subtly) is one of the greatest enemies of truth.

      6. Two points here:-
         1. this post is not about Howard Zinn (who died nearly a decade ago, in case you hadn’t realised);
         2. the critics of Barton cited by Warren are not “anti-Christian pro-Socialist bigots”.

         You are making the same ‘mistake’ as before: seeking to excuse the wrongdoing of the far right by pointing out the wrongdoing of the far left!

         This time I will not enter into a prolonged dialogue with you, but I felt the need to at least ‘call you out’!

         PS. By all means set up a blog to challenge the claims of those you regard as having a “liberal political agenda”. You could send me a link and I might even comment! 😉

         1. I never said that everybody who criticizes Barton and D’Souza are anti-Christian pro-Socialist bigots, but there are those among such who criticize them. I used Howard Zinn, rather his book as an example. Perhaps, Cornel West or Noam Chomsky would be better. Personally, I don’t consider Barton or D’Souza to be on the far right, but they are indeed staunch conservative pundits. I agree with Barton that biblical Christianity played an important role in shaping the USA both culturally and politically but I find it questionable his claim about the extent of biblical Christianity influencing America. I read D’Souza’s 2 books about higher education and about racism and to me, it resonated with my personal experiences. Like I said before, he is reasoning based on how he was personally raised without empathy for people whose experiences were different. Still, D’Souza’s intentions are overall good. This was the point of my main argument: I was trying to get everybody to the root cause of the problem, not make excuse for either liberal or conservative activists, left and right, far, near, or between. The problem is that for the past 60 years or so, there has been an extreme hostility towards biblical Christianity in western nations, and for this reason, there is a counterattack shown through people like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ralph Drollinger, and Dinesh D’Souza. I personally think that the way they counterattack may not always be the best, but despite this, it is the reaction to this anti-biblical Christianity hostility that is the root cause, which keeps on happening.

            1. I agree that you did not say that “everybody who criticizes Barton and D’Souza are anti-Christian pro-Socialist bigots”.

               I do not agree that “for the past 60 years or so, there has been an extreme hostility towards biblical Christianity in western nations”. There has never, in “the last 60 years or so”, been a concerted campaign in any western country to kill or imprison its adherents, or deprive them of their basic human rights. In communist or other dictatorships it might well be different, of course …

               I, along with many other people, think that some things that biblical literalists say amount to crazy nonsense, but I, along with many others, have no wish to deprive such people of the right to say what they believe. I will, of course, argue against what these people say, and work to oppose any damaging effects of their utterances. But that is not “extreme hostility”; it is merely part of the cut-and-thrust of competing ideas in a free society.

               As I see it, the essential problem is that religious extremists want everyone to agree with them, and regard themselves as victims when that doesn’t happen!

            2. It was true that in western nations, nobody tried to imprison Christians for preaching from the Bible (at least those who tried, have failed so far) but for example, since the late 1950s early 1960s, it has been a successful attempt to remove Christian values from public education. Why?

            3. Again, you mischaracterize the situation. Christian values, like a sense of community, caring for others, treating people with respect, kindness, etc. are still being taught in school. What’s not being taught is that Christianity is the one true religion or that everyone should be required to pray or else feel left out if they don’t comply. Government imposition of religion is not an American value.

               Also, you should be careful what you wish for. Much of public education in the UK is still run by Christian churches and typically hold daily prayers and services for all children unless they’re opted out by their parents. I attended over 2,000 such services while in public education as a child. I can tell you first hand that my classmates hated them with a passion.

               You need only look at the sorry state of Christianity in the UK to know that government mandated Christianity hasn’t been a kind taskmaster.

            4. Interesting. From time to time, I in fact lead what we term “collective worship” *which is clearly Christian in its form) in a primary school in London. The children seem to enjoy it and very few, if any, of them are required to ‘opt out’ by their parents. However, what goes on in that worship must be in line with legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, which would prohibit anything that interferes with equality of opportunity for both children and staff. I find no difficulty with this, because, as you suggest, it is perfectly possible to proclaim Christian values without making those who are not Christians feel inferior or bashing those whose beliefs (theological or social) are at variance with the formal teachings of the Church. Be rooted the central message of the Gospel (God [as revealed in Christ] loves everyone) and one really cannot go wrong …

               These days the ‘government mandate’ of Anglicanism (not, please note, Christianity in general – other denominations or churches are not ‘state churches’, which may well be why some of them are doing rather better than the poor ole C of E) is essentially a formality, and, again as you suggest, an often burdensome one.

            5. Thanks for the reply, Richard. I was really hearkening back to my teenage years in Secondary School, when I would be one of the few kids in my class singing along to the hymns…

               Younger kids, of course, are likely to enjoy it more — the songs were livelier and the services less serious, plus at that age, most kids just want to feel part of what’s going on. I still remember singing “All things Bright and Beautiful” back when I must have only been five or six.

               I was at school in the 1970s and no doubt there have been changes since then, but my religious education was in a Scottish school, so it was the Church of Scotland in charge of that, and there was a publicly funded Catholic school down the road, so they get in on the act too.

               As for the rules established under the Equality Act 2010 — sure, but people like Sam80 would absolutely hate regulation like that, claiming it would be a total betrayal of the far-right version of Christianity he adheres to.

            6. I would be interested to know what Sam really believes. I sometimes get the feeling that he is adopting positions that he has been made to feel he ought to adopt …

               I wouldn’t say that the Equality Act imposes ‘rules’, but I know there would be trouble if collective worship were used to project or impose an idea of some ‘superior [pseudo-]christian culture’. And rightly so, of course.

               There is nothing ‘liberal’ (and in ‘sloppy’ or ‘soft-focus’) about focusing on God’s love. It is actually very challenging, because it makes all too clear to us our lack of love. In our worship sessions there is definitely ‘challenge’ and the children (and even the staff … and I as well!) often leave those services with something serious and profound to consider.

               Back to Sam and those who have a similar perspective on what Christianity is for … There have been many attempts both in history and in our times to us religion to control society. Past experience shows us (as it showed the Founding Fathers?) that it doesn’t work. We (the Church) have ‘been there, done that and got the (blood-stained) tee-shirt!’ Pope Francis put it very well a few years ago, I think: “States must be secular; single-religion states end badly. Yes, Europe has Christian roots and it is
               Christianity’s responsibility to water those roots. But this must be
               done in a spirit of service as in the washing of the feet.
               Christianity’s duty to Europe is one of service. Christianity’s contribution to a culture is that of Christ in the washing of the feet. In other words, service and the gift of life. It must not become a colonial enterprise.”

            7. I don’t live in the UK, but I am curious if under the stipulation of Equality Act 2010 would Russ Vought (remember that thread about him and Bernie Sanders?) be breaking the law for saying that Muslims and all those rejecting Jesus as the messiah stand condemned?

            8. Almost certainly not, although there are other laws against saying things that might reasonably be deemed potentially to incite hatred against individuals or groups, though even then I highly doubt that a court would convict simply on the basis of a statement like Vought’s, as such a statement in isolation does not IMO imply the potential to incite hatred.

               Would I, whether teaching about the faith in a church or a school, ever say something like “all … stand condemned before God”? Certainly not – because would be is profoundly untruthful for two reasons:-
               1. I, like everyone else, am not qualified to make such a statement;
               2. such a statement serves no positive purpose.
               I know many evangelicals here in Britain who would agree with both points above.

               Would someone who publically ‘stood by’ such a statement lead others (and not just on the Left) to question their fitness for public office here in the UK? I think so … at least I hope so!

            9. Well, in the US, there was some instances where children in public schools were required to pray, but in most cases, we had voluntary courses on Bible studies. However, our Supreme Court got done away with it 60 years ago. I understand that forcing somebody to pray in public schools was problematic but it does not make any sense to me to deny people a choice to study the Bible if they want to. Currently, in Ukraine, there are voluntary courses in high school and colleges called Christian Ethics which study the Bible, and so far, there have been positive feedbacks from students and parents. As far as I understand, it is the Church of England/Anglican Church that runs public schools in the UK, am I correct? Is that also true that the AC in the UK is adopting more liberal theology, seriously deviating from traditional biblical interpretation?

            10. Yes, you would hate the mainstream-like Christianity taught in British schools, but there is absolutely no way you could have your version of Biblical Christianity taught in American public schools without it running afoul of the Constitution. After all, more than half the Ten Commandments would be unconstitutional if they were enacted as laws.

            11. I am wondering if radical leftists who are repulsed by any Judeo-Christian symbols and influences would think that laws against murder, theft, robbery, burglary, and rape are unconstitutional since they all come from the Ten Commandments.

            12. Again, telling all religions that they cannot practice their rites in public schools does not constitute “extreme hostility” to Christians.

            13. Sure. I further addressed this issue in a post below.

            14. Because things like misogyny, slavery, bigotry, genocide, etc are not really the kind of values people want to teach their kids.

                further, because the US (and many western nations) are secular countries and the people do not want the government pushing any particular religion onto their children. Religion is something best taught at home or mosque/synagogue/church/temple/etc.

            15. Ken, remember the key point about religion being taught public schools voluntarily. Please, see my post below about Ukraine. It appears fine by me.

            16. My response was to your post about “removing christian values from public education” not to the post you later made about “voluntary bible classes.”

                As to your post about “voluntary bible classes.” Again, if parents want to teach their children about the bible the appropriate place to do that is in (church) sunday school, not public schools. Even if the classes are voluntary, it means public school resources are being used to promote a particular religious view.

      7. At that particular issue, D’Souza was already separated from his ex-wife and in the process of finalizing his divorce, thus, he was not having a mistress per se. By honest mistakes, I meant writing historical accounts, but if you want to apply it to how people live their lives in general, then I’d say that we all tend to make honest mistakes, thus it makes us all morons, but God is graceful and forgiving.

      8. At that particular issue, D’Souza was already separated from his ex-wife and in the process of finalizing his divorce, thus, he was not having a mistress per se. By honest mistakes, I meant writing historical accounts, but if you want to apply it to how people live their lives in general, then I’d say that we all tend to make honest mistakes, thus it makes us all morons, but God is graceful and forgiving.

      9. Moron.

         1. Are you an adulterer too?

         2. Were you trying to address me? Yes, but I’m not going to go in the details, it’s too personal. Pretty much, I did a lot of bad things I’m not proud of before I got saved.

8. A “Ministry of Truth” amongst conservatives? How can this brand of Christian faith be from above if it must be supported by lies and distortions? And is Trump to take the role of Big Brother?

   1. I don’t think that conservatives are lying but I think they are promoting their agenda. Just because somebody claims to be Christian, it does not mean they don’t ever make mistakes. It’s obvious that all people do wrong in their lives since we are all sinners, and not perfect like God.

      1. They’re not “mistakes”. They are falsehoods that D’Souza and Barton have been called on for years. Falsehoods refuted by the historical record. Any honest historian (or, really, anyone sincerely interested in truth) recognizes when they are wrong, when new evidence demonstrates prior beliefs and understandings are in error. And they acknowledge their error, publicly.

         So are D’Souza and Barton lying? Why yes, yes they are. Liars for Jesus are still, in the end, just liars.

         1. I think that D’Souza and Barton truly believe in what they are writing and they also believe that whoever criticizes them is a liar or has some sort of malice. I was saying that, in general, many people tend to believe that what they are saying and writing is truthful and are unwilling to question their beliefs for a very long time. I am myself guilty of that, as well.

            1. I certainly agree that we are all unwilling to question our beliefs, but that’s a habit serious people grow out of. And what we’re talking about here is something very different.

               Barton cannot “believe” what he is writing is “truthful”. The historical record, though open to interpretation in many instances, is nonetheless a record. Barton cannot explain his invented quotes and deceptive editing as belief. Jefferson said what he said. Madison said what he said. The record contains their own words, and no one can justify fabricating quotes or misrepresenting quotes based on belief. Any more than I can point at the sun and say it’s the moon. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of fact. And Barton has been confronted, over and over again, with his errors and distortions. He can look at the words of those he quotes and know whether he quoted them correctly, or even if the quote exists at all. This isn’t a matter of belief: It’s either the sun or it’s the moon. It’s not the sun to the rest of the world but the moon to him.

               D’Souza is a different beast. He is a flat out propagandist. His misrepresentations of historical fact have been called out over and over by actual historians, and he ignores them or responds by changing the subject or otherwise squirting ink in hopes no one can see him swimming away. He was a conservative darling when he was younger, but now he’s really a joke. And since his conviction, he has been struggling to get anyone to care what he says.

               Right now we are in a very dangerous and unprecedented time. Where Republicans once insisted on moral absolutes, they are now abandoning reality altogether and cynically betting it won’t matter. People like Alex Jones, who spout paranoid fantasies as if they were established fact, and who were once consigned to the far edges of the public square and ignored by everyone, now command large audiences and sway opinion. Truth matters. This can’t persist, if we are to survive.

            2. I certainly agree that we are all unwilling to question our beliefs, but that’s a habit serious people grow out of. And what we’re talking about here is something very different.

               Barton cannot “believe” what he is writing is “truthful”. The historical record, though open to interpretation in many instances, is nonetheless a record. Barton cannot explain his invented quotes and deceptive editing as belief. Jefferson said what he said. Madison said what he said. The record contains their own words, and no one can justify fabricating quotes or misrepresenting quotes based on belief. Any more than I can point at the sun and say it’s the moon. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of fact. And Barton has been confronted, over and over again, with his errors and distortions. He can look at the words of those he quotes and know whether he quoted them correctly, or even if the quote exists at all. This isn’t a matter of belief: It’s either the sun or it’s the moon. It’s not the sun to the rest of the world but the moon to him.

               D’Souza is a different beast. He is a flat out propagandist. His misrepresentations of historical fact have been called out over and over by actual historians, and he ignores them or responds by changing the subject or otherwise squirting ink in hopes no one can see him swimming away. He was a conservative darling when he was younger, but now he’s really a joke. And since his conviction, he has been struggling to get anyone to care what he says.

               Right now we are in a very dangerous and unprecedented time. Where Republicans once insisted on moral absolutes, they are now abandoning reality altogether and cynically betting it won’t matter. People like Alex Jones, who spout paranoid fantasies as if they were established fact, and who were once consigned to the far edges of the public square and ignored by everyone, now command large audiences and sway opinion. Truth matters. This can’t persist, if we are to survive.

            3. Well, Jefferson has said many things but there are different interpretations among historians what Jefferson was trying to convey, considering the context. For example, historians argue whether Jefferson wanted to enshrine separation of church and state in our constitution when he wrote a letter to a group of Virginia Baptists. Thus, it becomes questionable what is Truth. As for Alex Jones, I saw some of his videos, and to me he appeared leaning left and he is not really friendly towards the Republican party, isn’t he?

            4. You can assert that Jefferson didn’t really mean a separation of church and state when he said “a wall of separation between church and state”. But, pretty much the only one who supports you is Barton, which is probably the only reason you think it. And he himself has been refuted on this exact point many many times.

               That’s kind of the point people are making. Barton is *not* a trained historian. Almost everything he says about history lacks context, nuance, or is misrepresented. And seeing as how he is also a Conservative activist and his “honest mistakes” seem to always support this political agenda, it’s not hard to put two and two together. He’s a propagandist masquerading as a historian. That your politics aligns with his, should give you no cause to believe his conclusions. Again, he is either right or he is wrong. Please read the many many people who debunk his claims. Chris Rodda is great, for example.

               And Alex Jones is on the left? You do realize, Jones is a huge fan of Trump and Trump is a huge fan of his. Trump has even personally called into his show. Until recently, Jones employed Jerome Corsi, infamous for both the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth hit job and he was a leading Birther. Additionally, Jones is a believe in QAnon, Pizzagate, and many many other anti-government conspiracy theories over the years (Agenda 21, Jade Helm, FEMA concentration camps, Common Core). And, of course, any tragic event in US history is always a “false flag”.to seize guns or round up conservatives. He is no friend to the left.

               And out or curiosity, if Barton and D’Souza aren’t far right, who exactly would you put on the far right?

            5. I know that there are different interpretations on Jefferson among many historians. Personally, I do not have a solid position on what he was trying to accomplish when he wrote that infamous letter. I need to fully study the context and all relevant information in order to come to my own conclusion. Barton has a right to his own interpretation and analysis of Jefferson, just like the others. I know that Alex Jones has been extremely critical of both Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and of George W. Bush, thus I find it highly surprising to learn that he is a Trump supporter, now.

      2. Your tepid response to the lying and distortions uttered by Christian “thought leaders” is perfect illustration of the sort of willful ignorance- or outright stupidity that has fallen upon Christians in America. The pall of unreality blankets the fundamentalist Christian world heavily and by your answer- this fog even obscures the blatant mendacity of figures like D’Souza to folks like you. Please realize that it’s not sinful or disloyal or unchristian to refuse to be lad by the nose toward falsehood.

         1. If you think that Christianity is full of shit, then, don’t be a Christian. The same goes for conservatism and conservative values. Just live and let live. But, please, don’t create institutions that oppress people who disagree with your views. As I said in my previous posts, I agree with many things D’Souza is saying, especially about what is happening in American colleges because I personally experienced anti-conservative Christian bigotry over there. Thus, I praise anybody who talks about it, not only D’Souza, but also people like Dennis Prager and David Horowitz, who are secular Jews, btw. So, it’s not a conservative Christian thing, overall.

            1. Hooray! Now you are finally being truthful as to where four real beliefs are. I notice you want to judge my beliefs because I do not agree with you. I don’t agree with D’Souza’s lies either. That does not make me an unbeliever- just a person of faith who does not willingly tolerate lying and fantasy as a means to support what are political issues- not elements of faith. I knew I could draw the truth out of you. Why did you wish to hide your opinions behind a cloak of room temperature what “both-side-ism” and “what-about-ism”. But don’t fret- the answers to all life’s problems are inscribed in microscopically tiny print in the lining of your MAGA hat. No, really- “Q” says so….

            2. Well, nobody asked me before about my personal beliefs on this thread, but I remember I’ve stated somewhere else on Dr. T’s blog that I am basing my views from the Bible, and that I am fairly conservative. Still, I admire others who are non-Christians, Prager and Horowitz, who are Jewish, for example. Your posts sounded antagonistic towards Christianity, so I thought you didn’t like it.

            3. So you hid your opinions until you were drawn out. To me- there is no worse way than to express our faith – or to contend for our faith than to use lies and distortions to do this. That is what D’Souza and Barton – and quite a few others do. This is destructive toward Christianity- and insulting to Jesus Christ- to think that He and His truth could be helped by a lie.

            4. I wasn’t hiding anything, I just thought that everybody here was aware of my beliefs already. I don’t believe that D’Souza, Barton, Prager, and Horowitz (the latter are non-Christians) are helping Jesus’s Truth, but their actions help to protect civil liberties of Christians, and I admire that.

            5. Your admiration of D’Souza and Barton (I would not put the other 2 in their category) appears to be “the ends justify the means”. An approach that has historically been frowned upon in Christian ethics.

               And does it really help to “protect civil liberties of Christians” when D’Souza and Barton spew malicious lies in the name of Jesus? Or, by giving the impression that Christians are a bunch of liars who value political power more than truth, do they foster more hostility toward Christianity and strengthen the hand of those who might want to deprive Christians of civil liberties?

               Of course that last sentence is a little hypothetical, since so far the deprivation of civil liberties of Christians in the US has been near zero. Requiring those who serve the public to serve the whole public, including gay people, does not count, and allowing others to do something I disapprove of does not harm my civil liberty. Not having the state give preference to my religion in schools is a loss of privilege, not a loss of liberty. But there is a minority that might like to go further, and I think if we want to keep that minority from growing it is better for us to act with integrity in constructive ways than to behave as dishonest political hacks like D’Souza and Barton.

            6. And your disdain for D’Souza and Barton indicates that people who believe that Jesus is the only Truth, who believe that gay lifestyle is immoral, people who support Israel’s right to exist, people who are against abortion, people who prefer capitalism over communism and democratic socialism/capitalism should be fired from jobs expelled from public colleges and thrown in jails? This is what Barton and D’Souza are fighting against. Why do you keep insisting that I supposedly said that what they do is in the name of Jesus? I am saying that they are doing it in the name of doing justice for conservative people, be they Christians, or non-religious, who are being unjustly persecuted by the leftists. Hence, I put them in the same category with Horowitz and Prager. I agree with Barton, D’Souza, Horowitz, and Prager that people like me are being persecuted but I do not agree with all of them on the issues of history, racism, and faith, and I have already posted about that. What is the problem with me admiring something they do because I think it could be beneficial to me, despite them doing something else that I do not approve of?

            7. What is the problem with me admiring something they do because I think it could be beneficial to me, despite them doing something else that I do not approve of?
               The problem is that the lying of D’Souza and Barton is not “something else” that can be separated out — it is the very means by which they fight for “justice for conservative people”. D’Souza, for example, makes propaganda for political causes you support, but the propaganda is so rife with lies that if you took away the falsehood almost nothing would be left. Your defense of these liars is basically “the end justifies the means” which is not a position we Christians should take.

               To pick an analogy, it is like saying you admire the home run records of Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire even though you don’t agree with their use of steroids — the steroids are an essential part of the records.
               Or it is like saying you don’t agree with mass murder, but you admire the person’s contribution to solving the overpopulation problem.

            8. Remember, bluetah: Jesus was biased, therefore the blatant lies and deception of D’Souza and Barton are totally justified! sam80 may find his intellectual sloth to be entertaining, but it is no substitute for a legitimate counter-argument he clearly does not have.

            9. How Jesus was biased?

Comments are closed.