@jdgrab1 with all due respect, bullshit Barton would mop the floor with Rhodda one on one. Jon Stewart did nail Barton, but with a lot of difficulty, because Barton is slime.
it's rather odd that no matter which video of him you play you hear the same measured words. a good orator may work out a partial speech but can riff off of it. This guy needs to use the precise language so that he's safe from being called on lies rather than just lies of omission. Neil Degrasse Tyson is a good speaker and can play off an idea, this mook is layacting at being knowledgeavle rather than bending the facts to fit his 'truth'
I've already gone over all the accusations of Chris Rodda. (accuser of the brethren) There are organizations and radical groups being hired by George Soros via the "TIDES FOUNDATION", the "OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE" , "MOVEMENT for a DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY" and more. Mr. Barton is an EXPERT on American history. His main advantage is that he has a BIBLICAL WORLD VIEW, as did the founding FATHERS. An atheist, progressive , radical hireling would be unable to judge properly the amazing events of our USA.
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.
"the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
From Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797
.
In this country Religion is a private matter of the individual. The founders specifically did not want Organized Religion to be calling the shots in Civil Government. They knew all too well what happened in countries that married State with Religion; Oppression of its people and much bloodshed.
@imyyz4u, a quick read of his coment made me laugh- i thought that you'd written 'Benny Hill'. When i read it agan it was even funnier. thanks for the double chuckle.
This is all a sales pitch. What a con-man. Barton has been debunked by many, most notably Chris Rodda. Please do your own research and don't teach your children these lies. We are now and have always been, by the founders intention, a secular nation which protects the right of the individual to believe or not believe and to worship or not worship in any way one chooses. Democracy not theocracy. He is a fake, a liar and a revisionist.
I hate how people who don't believe in God take things out of the original books/documents so that they remove the faith out of our history...it's sad because we shouldn't be ashamed of those things
Truth or falsehood in a statement needs only to be fully researched to discover which isTrue or False. If the statement is TRUE than it can not be argued. It can only be accepted or rejected. Also a person's morality will always DICTATE their philosophy , without exception.
Am I surprised your trust of Barton is based purely on your faith? You say he is a Christian? How do you know? Because HE says so? You say he is telling the truth? "So well documented"? By who? You are defending a guy you do not even know. Why, because you both claim to be Christians. There are many dozens of Barton lies documented right here on youtube. Try Chris Rodda, for starters ... but she is just a start.
Barton has not stopped lying. One his many current lies is his claim that Congress printed the first bibles in America, when in fact Congress never printed any bibles.
Ah, we meet again, Mr. Greatness! You seem to be following Mr. Barton around YouTube. LOL!
Of course, he's not "lying." That's not a very becoming trait for a professed, Bible-believing Christian. We've debated this issue already, so no need to go over it again.
But for those reading, Barton is dead-on accurate and is so well documented that all critics are left with are ad hominem attacks. Research it for yourself and see.
Nothing motivates me like a liar. Barton is the best motivator around. Barton is the best liar. Good at rhetoric, but that does nothing to compensate for his lying. Barton is also a "quote miner" - collecting and repeating select quotes to make people appear to have a different opinion than they really did. Yes do research Barton ... a fraud of frauds.
Sorry, but I could find a lot of things to motivate me other than liars. But, I too, seek truth, and do have issues when someone purposely tells an untruth. So is that what Barton is really doing, or is simply another ad hominem attack on his character when the facts he presents can't be defended?
I believe that Barton is not only telling the truth, which he's bound to do as a Christian, but his understanding and interpretation of history cannot be refuted.
"Jan 21, 1781, Robert Aitken petitioned the US Congress to authorize, & if possible even fund, the printing of a complete Bible in the English language of the King James Ver. Sept 10, 1782, Aitken rec'd authorization from the United States Congress to commence his American printing of the Bible in English. This is the only instance in history of the U.S. Congress authorizing the printing of a Bible. In subsequent years, that session was often mockingly referred to as The Bible Congress." NEXT!
Although Barton has gotten better at using proper references, he has gotten MUCH better at cherry picking them, using truncated references, and using them completely out of context. The ninth commandment is not about lying, but about being a false witness. Barton fits the latter perfectly.
Wow. Whether or not you agree with David Barton isn't the issue here. It is about liking or disliking Christianity. Personally, I see both sides. I am a believer in the Lord and I can see why some people would hate me. We "Christians" act better when we're not and we don't love when we should. We shut the "sinners" out when we should welcome them into our homes. We yell at those around us when they talk badly about us but frankly... we deserve it sometimes.
Thx 2 David Barton & posting of this very important historically accurate information. I am so glad that this part of our country's history and founding is being taught.The current state-fed textbook curriculum being used 2 indoctrinate children n public schools is so obviously biased away frm the truth if it n any way proves a Christian viewpoint by our founders.
It takes alot of courage 2 speak the truth n thisday when anyone speaking from a Christian viewpoint is sure 2 get shouted down.
What do you know about our so called biased history lessons in public schools? This man is a charlatan by all accounts. His interpretation of history has been repeatedly exposed as fraudulent by thousands of historians with doctorates in the historical dicilines. I'm sorry, but if you buy this mans bull shit your an ignorant morron.
We certainly can use a comprehensive look at history. What motivated America's founders? What did they read and study? How did they become such hero's? Where are today's hero's?
The only real problem that people have with him is because he stands for christians. If it was anybody else of other faith's or non faith, no one would have a problem
The problem is he's a fake historian, a fraud, and a damned liar. I know you fundies would rather die than admit that perhaps not all Christians are good people--but there it is.
I'm a bit confused, you believe the quotes from his book, but you don't believe him when he admits to falsifying quotes of the founding fathers?
Furthermore, anyone who has studied the founders even a little bit from actual History books, such as the letters they wrote etc. would know exactly what they stood for.
Wow. OriginalGuest and annabelleleetoo come across with such energy behind their accusations. Zeal is great, but you really need to back up your accusation. You say David Barton "has admitted to lying"--please footnote. And are you going to provide a "confirmed" quote, or a "nonconfirmed" one. As annabelleleetoo has agreed, both are fair, but "confirmed" is better. David's use of 14 "unconfirmed" quotes is what you must be calling lies. It has to be that.
He's confirmed that the Madison/Ten commandments quote is indeed false. The rest he tries to dance around. The point is: they didn't exist until Barton came along. He made them up; he's a fraud.
You fundies like your word play, but this is just putting lipstick on a pig.
His "Democracy in America" nonsense is so ridiculous. Abridged version? So what? I bought a brand new unabridged version at Barnes & Noble. He's pissing himself as if the evil "liberals" banned the original book or something.
I honestly can say I would trust David Barton with my life and the lives of my wife and children whom I love dearly. I have met this man and have heard him in person, and every quote he has mentioned that I have taken the time to look up for myself has been verified. He is a man of integrity, and not the first man in history of his caliber who has come under such attacks from those who would seek to falsely discredit and ruin him. May God bless him and may He continue to bless the USA.
Then you're a fool. He is attacking the foundations of our govt and using people like you to accomplish this. He discredits himself. It's not an "attack" when people point out the truth about this man's outright lies and misleading agenda.
If it can't be verified then it isn't a "quote" and a real historian wouldn't use it. Barton isn't a historian (no credentials) and has admitted to lying therefore, he's a liar and those who defend him knowing this are dishonest too. End of story.
Look, you either value the truth or you don't. David Barton has been exposed as a liar in the past, and you can see just with our talk on this phony letter that he's not being honest. And here you are making excuses for him.
Benjamin Franklin wrote his own epitaph, which declared: "The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out, stripped of its lettering, and guilding, lies here, food for worms. But the work shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more elegant edition, revised and corrected by the Author."
Both his epitaph and his response to Thomas Paine's manuscript show Benjamin Franklin to be quite a firm believer in God (or a Supreme Being, Providence, Author, Creator of our inalienable rights).
Franklin believe in god but Franklin was not a christian. There was no manuscript of the age of reason ever sent to Franklin because Paine didn't begin writing it until after Franklin's death. The letter you posted is fake. That's why you won't name your source, you realize it's fake yourself.
Okay, so at least we can agree that Benjamin Franklin believed in a Creator whom he would stand before some day.
Many people, myself included, have text written down with plans of possible future publication. I see no reason to discredit the 1840 book by Jared Sparks' on Benjamin Franklin's works--you're not preseting a convincing arguement.
Yes I am. You just like having your ears tickled by Barton and like him you don't give a rat's ass whether or not something is true or not. This letter was false. And in case I forgot to mention it, Paine was sitting in a French prison when he began writing "The Age of Reason" in 1793; he wasn't even in the United States.
You're grasping at straws and it shows. I'm sure they discussed religion because they shared the same views on religion but Franklin was shrewd and knew all "hell" on earth would break loose on Paine if he wrote their views down and made them public. BUT Franklin did not write that letter; he couldn't have. You should read "The Age of Reason"....not anything written by David Barton. Paine was honest to a fault and that's something you cannot say about DB.
I can see why you'd say it's grasping, but, to me it can't be ruled out as a possible explanation. The feelings expressed in Franklin's (alleged) letter are consistent with other first-hand documented writings of Franklin, even up to his death.
Now you're doing what Barton does. When he got caught making up quotes his excuse was that the quotes he made up were "consistent with other first-hand documents/statements the founders would have made." That's not history; that's lying. That's revisionist history.
How can you say he made up quotes? Name a quote he made up. Barton has raised the bar on reliable referencing of quotes. All his quotes are either "confirmed"--first-hand, or "unconfirmed", second-hand. Name a quote he made up, please.
LOL, I can say it because it's true and he admitted it already. AND we have covered this already, why are you coming back and asking the same questions you asked me two days ago? -- You've got a lot of gall saying Barton raises the bar...he does no such thing.
Clever response in substitute of presenting support for your statement. You never gave me proof to your claim. You told me to look it up myself. I could accuse you of lying, but I happen to believe you truely believe that David Barton has "made up quotes" which is why I stop short of calling you a liar as you have accused me and David Barton of being.
I told you what to google to get the information. We are limited to 500 words per post here. You told me the other day that you checked out the Baptist Joint Committee critique; did you forget already? Yes David Barton is a liar and I think you are one too. But then, some people can't handle the truth.
Btw - I've directed you to lots of proof and have discussed the obvious proof with that phony letter from Barton's site and all you've done is give me David Barton and "what ifs" when I ask you something.
You don't accuse because you know damn well what Barton had done. The problem here is christians don't want to admit that fellow christians are just as capable of lying as "teh evil liberals!1!!".
Why is that? Even christians still sin. Thus, if christians say they don't lie, then they are not christians. I think that David is very reliable, and there has not been solid proof of his "lies". So until that is shown, you should stop criticizing him.
HE does NOT, He has a list of Quotes that should not be used because they are unconfirmed quotes, He never claimed to make them up, how nice of you to make up a quote for him
Yeah, but that's got nothing to do with this fake letter and David Barton revising history to accommodate his own personal religious and political agenda.
update - Benjamin Franklin died in 1790; Thomas Paine didn't begin writing "The Age of Reason" until 1793 according to real historians.... with the first part being published in 1794. If you attend anymore of Barton's revisionist history talks please raise your hand and ask him about this???
Paine often sought advise from Franklin who was responding to a manuscript from Paine. This was long before it was published and, obviously, before Franklin died. A quote from Franklin to Paine makes this clear: "I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance."
US archives. I read a PDF of it. Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1840), Vol.X, pp. 281-282.
Google "works benjamin franklin sparks vol 10", look for "Internet Archive Search...". Click on it and go down about 34 links. Click PDF. Scroll down to page 282.
What was Jonathan Spark's source? Yale couldn't find one. This letter is not in any of the writings of B. Franklin or anywhere else and no-one could find Spark's source. I've been checking for hours on this; the letter doesn't exist and Sparks started this. Where did you get the letter? Be honest. The only place I could find it is at Barton's website and of course he didn't list a date (did you notice that).
btw - I already googled "The Works of Benjamin Franklin by Jonathan Sparks". Yet when you check Franklin's actual works, the letter isn't there. But then, how could it be since Paine didn't write it until after Franklin's death; you can give a manuscript to a dead man.
You must not be looking too hard then. google: Benjamin Franklin's letter to Thomas Paine; it's as easy as that. -- If you didn't find that letter and the Sparks mention at Barton's site then where did you get it. I know darn well you didn't come across it perusing through the national archives. So if Barton wasn't your source who was? Enquiring minds want to know.
But, I do agree I'm not convinced of anything at Barton's site. He has so many lies mixed in with truths and half-truths you can't take anything at his site at face value....which is pretty much my point for posting here to start with.
btw - you know where because you basically cut-n-pasted the Sparks "thing" from that site on your other post. Did you really think I wouldn't notice? Why does lying come so easily to Christians?
Of course I cut-n-pasted the reference--it's accurate; what's wrong with doing that? I looked it up myself, though, and told you exactly where you could read it for yourself, apart from David Barton's website, because you do not deem Barton as a reliable source. Wow. How can you accuse me of lying? btw, no, I don't know where. There was just a verbatim quote typed in above what I cut-and-pasted, but that's not as good as seeing the PDF of the pages of the 1840 publication I told you about.
So, if you're looking at it (I could find the actual book with the directions you gave me) what does Sparks site as his source for that letter? Evidently Sparks was repeating hearsay because the letter isn't mentioned by anyone else from Franklin's death in 1790 and Sparks book 50 yrs later in 1840. The letter isn't in any archives for Franklin or Paine or anywhere else. SO, it's fake; it didn't happen. Somebody wrote it and whoever did was lying.
One more thing about my last point there. Somebody signed Franklin's name to this letter to give it some authority.....the same thing that was done with the bible when the "church" assigned names to the gospels...to give them "authority" that they didn't really have.
Forgive me for the misunderstanding. To clarify, I first heard of Franklin's letter to Paine from Barton, live. I told you I twice heard him live. I cut-n-pasted from Barton's full quote of this letter. Later, when you wanted the source I wasn't going to refer you to Barton's site--you do not deem him as a credible source. I followed Barton's footnote (which was a nice and neat cut-n-paste easy to follow reference) to look up the actual book which contains the text of Franklin's letter.
Oh okay. - Now, can you see how the letter wasn't penned by B.Franklin to T. Paine? Have you noticed in your searches that all roads lead back to Barton, then Sparks and then dead-ends? -- The best thing to do is to google the writings of Benjamin Franklin and you can what he wrote firsthand for yourself. Please read "The Age of Reason", don't be scared, Thomas Paine did believe in God very much; he just thought the bible was a man-made fabricated insult to God.
If this quote is true then Franklin isn't disagreeing with Paine's critique of the babble at all since it hadn't even been written yet; he's warning Paine that to write such a critique would induce an angry X-ian mob [unchaining the tiger] to destroy him just as they'd destroyed the pagans and their archealogical sites... and the "heretics" that came later.... and many, many others. Christianity survived because it's adherents squashed everything and everybody that dared to "cross" it.
pbtransmin - I've been looking all over for that letter you posted from B. Franklin to T. Paine and the ONLY place I've been able to find it is at David Barton's website. Is that where you got it? If not could you please direct me to your source? David Barton provides no link to the Sparks quote which he says was written in 1840, long after Adams had died.
"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
(John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States
"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
(John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)
He wasn't talking about Christianity. --John Adams "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
Member Annabelleleetoo said 4 founders were "anti-Christian"—one being Benjamin Franklin (see Benjamin Franklin's quote below defending the Christian belief). Right now I can list original source quotes from 22 founders showing themselves to be quite "Christian."
Believing in a "nature's god" and being a X-ian are two different things. The majority of the founders were indeed x-ian in their private lives and yet (here's the important thing) THEY along with the nonX-ian founders voted to keep church and state separate ( Patrick Henry fot outvoted). Barton is attempting to mix church and state which our founders (both christian and non-christian) overwhelmingly opposed. That's the bottom line here.
B. Franklin (raised calvinist; rebelled against it becoming a deist). "If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Xianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution". Essay "On Toleration".
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and god does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power , 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one". --- WOW, I agree and I think we should eliminate both faith-based iniatives and the 501c3 status of churches.
And thank you for acknowledging that the majority of the United States' founding fathers were Christian. I respect that. It took guts to say, as it's clear you vehemently oppose Christian principles. By the way, they were not "private" about their Christian beliefs.
Yes I am opposed to Bible "values" however most of my family are Xtians and I wouldn't want to see them persecuted for that; it'd be unconstitutional BUT what Barton is attempting to do is weave this idea that this country was founded on the bible and that theocracy is what the founders really meant (going so far as to make up quotes) and that's absolutely not true at all.
I disagree. A theocracy is what Israel was before King David. The U.S. was set up to, and still does, operate under three branches of government, one of which, the Executive branch, is lead by a President elected by the people. It's ridiculous to say David Barton purports the founders meant to set up a theocracy. What I see happening today is atheistic revisionists trying to rewrite U.S. history. If you want to change our government, fine, do it at the ballot box—don't rewrite history.
Go to his site and see what it says; it's goal is theocratic politics.-- Sounds like a theocracy to me. He's the one revising history and attempting to change it thru govt via the republican party. Check that aspect of his life out for yourself; it'll take you less than a minute.
Benjamin Franklin was all in favor of seeking the Providence's good favor and guidance, but "theocratic politics" is a term you might be making up(?). The Supreme Court for the longest time, since our country's founding until recent decades, used the Bible as an authoritative source in arriving at decisions.
Theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e.: a church), replacing or dominating civil government.
One could say the religion of Athiesm does not support itself and is therefore a bad religion. And, yes, it is a religion. Athiestic organizations also file as 501c3's.
Atheism isn't a religion it's a lack of a religion; lack of belief in a god, gods, goddesses etc. Atheists don't have or need churches. I think they should abolish 501c3 across the board. Only Christians call atheism a religioin but that's just one more "brainwashing" tool in their arsenal of brainwashing tools. Think about it, if you weren't saturated with the X-ian story all your life and just heard of it when you were an adult you wouldn't believe it and you know you wouldn't.
That was a risky assumption you just made. I know just about as many X-ians (Christians) who came to believe the eye-witness accounts of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection--as recorded by eye-witnesses who died for their beliefs--as I know people who came to believe as a child.
What eyewitnesses? There weren't any. The gospel accounts were written decades after these supposed events took place by anonymous authors. The Catholic Church assigned the names later to give them "authority". -- Also the Supreme Ct. cases you mention probably were those that kept slavery legal before the civil war. And a few other cases that were later overturned.
The Gospel of John was written by one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The earliest manuscripts we have on record date to before the time of the Catholic Church. John identifies himself and his association with Christ at the end of his account, chapter 20. He tells of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ—which he witnessed. He then writes, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
The Gospel of John has been dated to A.D. 80 or 85 according to some; others date it to A.D. 50, no later than A.D. 70. I used the term "manuscripts" earlier. I'll have to check into the dating of the manuscripts which may differ.
The earliest peice of any manuscript is about a one inch section of John dating around 125 C.E. That one inch section is long after the story takes place. So much for the idea of "god" divinely preserving "his" word. What we have a copies of copies with no clue as to who wrote John or how many times it was changed by the "church fathers". This we do know, whoever wrote John was not an "eyewitness".
Oh contrair, the Catholic church was one of many christian cults that came long before Constantine. And the basics of christianity as we know it today are from this cult because it gained the most adherents and the most power. The bible you read today is a catholic production. Keep in mind JC supposedly died between 29-33 C.E.
Athiesm requires faith. To believe that the first one-celled organism assembled itself, or "came together", from a collection of self-assembled protiens which came together from self-assembled amino acids...without it's own DNA molecule containing it's own assembly instructions... that takes MORE faith than believing in the "Creator of our inalienable rights."
No it doesn't. I don't know how we got here but making up some far-fetched story about a "god" doing it only complicates it further. That would require a being more intricate that the universe it supposedly created and yet we're to believe that came from nothing? I agree with Mark Twain who said "Faith is believing in something you know ain't true".
bbtransmin - I tried replying to you yesterday with some links but my post isn't showing up. Try googling Baptist Joint Committee on David Barton, they go into a lot of depth. Barton also lies by ommission in that he does not give many, many quotes by our founders that make it clear that they intended for this govt to be secular; many of them even loathed the institution of christianity with good reason. You need to take an extra step and verify everything that comes out of this man's mouth.
James Madison; Thomas Jefferson; Thomas Paine; Benjamin Franklin. There are probably others but those are the most prominent yet even they had to tread carefully. Remember, the world was still dominated by christian myths and people of that era were profoundly aware that their political careers would be over if they were too vocal (same holds true today). Also, life and limb could be in jeopardy (same holds true today). Christianity in the western world is a very powerful political tool.
I'm now familiar w/ David Barton's article about 14 (out of very many) quotes he has used. He refers to these 14 as "unconfirmed" tho they were from deemed credible works, but were secondary quotes, for instance. 3 of the 14 (so far) have since been "confirmed."
How am I to know you're not making up a claim that the 3 founding fathers you listed "loathed the institution of Christianity?" David provides quotes from primary sources as proof to his claims. Can you provide quotes as proof?
His excuse at the time he was caught was that his made up quotes were in keeping with what the founders would have said in his opinion. See if those quotes have been confirmed (you can't take the word of a man whose already been caught lying). Verify everything he says and what I'm telling you too. You have a computer but I'm limited to 500 words per post.
Another thing about the secondary quotes; there are several other secondary quotes that Barton would also leave out. Now, first hand quotes are the best because you don't have to rely on revisionism....christian revisionism in particular has been afoot since the Declaration of Independence was signed and the Constitution written up and approved.
Also notice in this video Barton talks about biographical histories written by other people. Why not just go straight to the source, the founders left plenty about their own thoughts written by their own hand. We don't even have to rely on biographical histories which were most likely written by christians who would have made every effort to do what Barton does today. Revise, revise, revise in order to make the history favorable to their own religion.
How about providing a quote from Jefferson, Paine, or Franklin that shows alleged disdain toward Christianity. If you can provide one, I'll recipricate with a quote showing his apparent favorable disposition toward Christianity. Thanks.
Whenever we read the obscene stories the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindicitiveness with which more than half the bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon rather than the word of god. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it as I detest everything that is cruel." Thomas Paine [on the Bible] in the Age of Reason
pbtransmin - You can read "The Age of Reason" online just google it. I wish I'd read that book when I was a teenager instead of when I was 43 or 44. When T. Paine published that book it enraged people so much that only 6 people attended his funeral when he died.....after all that he'd done for our country and for France. That's what telling the truth will get ya.
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
-- Benjamin Franklin
He [the Rev Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard.
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
I have read your manuscript with some attention. ..., you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. ... you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence [to be continued...]
[cont.] of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face...
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
B. Franklin
Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1840),Vol.X,pp.281-2.
You're accusing David Barton of lying, yet you apparantly are trying to deceive me into believing Benjamin Franklin loathed the institution of Christianity. Didn't you read his rebuttal to Thomas Paine? He respectfully shut him down for his shameful remarks about the Bible. Mr. Franklin had a high respect for and belief in God though, at the time, not ascribing to a creed.
Franklin did loathe the institution privately but publically he saw that it wasn't going away and that Paine needed to tread carefully. Franklin isn't criticizing Paine's critique of the babble at all but warning him of the "fallout" he was going to receive from the "wicked religionists". Franklin does seem somewhat offended at the beginning but not on behalf of Christianity; on behalf of belief in a "god/deity/divine providence" which for Franklin wasn't "jesus christ".
i think you need to find something better to do than bash people you dont know...
this is a man of a MIGHTY God ! ! !
I'm glad i dont have to be accountable for the types of actions youre accountable for ! ! ! and if you have a problem with him speaking his mind...DONT WATCH HIS VIDEOS!!!
This man is a liar. The Baptist Joint Committee and Christianity Today outed him as a liar several years ago (he was making up quotes and attributing them to our founding fathers). The fact that lies so easily flow out of his mouth is just further evidence that there's no such thing as "the holy spirit" and that he certainly is not "spirit filled".
Two times I've been honored to be present when David Barton spoke to live audiences about our country's founders and the incredible history of our nation. Would you please name me just one date and place you feel David Barton has uttered a "made up quote" of a founding father (or provide a link to such a claim). I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the person making such a claim is making it up in hopes to falsely discredit Mr. Barton.
No need to. The man says it himself on his own website. He got called out big time some years back. No legitimate source considers David Barton to be an historian.
I'd love to see him run for President; that'd be a great way to expose his lies in a most public way. A David Barton run for the Presidency might be one of the best ways to educate people on the 1st Amendment and the truth of separation of church and state as well as teaching people the importance of guarding against revisionist history by people like DB.
To say he's lying is an incredibly bold claim. That claim demands proof. Quote the lie--I really want to read the lie here in this YouTube thread. Thanks.
It's a true claim. Go to google and type in Baptist Joint Committee on David Barton and start there. Also Barton fessed up that he made up quotes back when the Baptist Joint Committee (and others) caught him lying back in the 90s. I'm not the one selling books, videos and speaking publically to large audiences, but he is and I think you should attend and question him boldly after you start verifying what he's saying.
Read them for youself. Go to google and type in David Barton false quotes. I'm limited to 500 words. After you check it out start questioning Barton since he's the one getting up in public and selling his opinions as fact and using this platform to play politics.
He is NoT a liar. Can't we just be friends? Work through the differences and stop labeling decent honest men. And no, if you have a decent bone, I would not want to break your omly hope at decency.
This guy sounds like a used car salesman.
tamerseeker 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey David...debate Chris Rodda...I dare you. Come on, you've got God on your side.
jdgrab1 9 months ago
@jdgrab1 with all due respect, bullshit Barton would mop the floor with Rhodda one on one. Jon Stewart did nail Barton, but with a lot of difficulty, because Barton is slime.
robertmike57 8 months ago
@robertmike57 I agree with you on the slime factor but disagree on who would when in a legitimate debate.
jdgrab1 8 months ago
@robertmike57 win
jdgrab1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Barton is a historical revisionist and known liar!
tinyurl(dot)com/3tunqk7
CRUClEFICTION 10 months ago
it's rather odd that no matter which video of him you play you hear the same measured words. a good orator may work out a partial speech but can riff off of it. This guy needs to use the precise language so that he's safe from being called on lies rather than just lies of omission. Neil Degrasse Tyson is a good speaker and can play off an idea, this mook is layacting at being knowledgeavle rather than bending the facts to fit his 'truth'
fomoran 10 months ago
Wow David Barton, you sure know a lot about history! I bet you have multiple degrees from prestigious institutions on the topic!
What's that, you say? Only a BA in religious education from Oral Roberts University?! STFU and go home. You're completely unqualified.
wockawocka1000 11 months ago
@wockawocka1000 boy that sure makes it easy to ignore him huh? lol
MrRische 1 month ago
I've already gone over all the accusations of Chris Rodda. (accuser of the brethren) There are organizations and radical groups being hired by George Soros via the "TIDES FOUNDATION", the "OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE" , "MOVEMENT for a DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY" and more. Mr. Barton is an EXPERT on American history. His main advantage is that he has a BIBLICAL WORLD VIEW, as did the founding FATHERS. An atheist, progressive , radical hireling would be unable to judge properly the amazing events of our USA.
MultiBuakaw 1 year ago
This guy is a complete liar! Liarsforjesus (.) com
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
This man knows more about the Constitution than our own president.
spacitydrummer4JC 1 year ago
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.
eVVVVV 1 year ago 2
"the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
From Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797
.
In this country Religion is a private matter of the individual. The founders specifically did not want Organized Religion to be calling the shots in Civil Government. They knew all too well what happened in countries that married State with Religion; Oppression of its people and much bloodshed.
eVVVVV 1 year ago
@eVVVVV and look what those religions were!!!
rickharbour1 1 year ago
@rickharbour1 "and look what those religions were!!! "
You make a good point "rickharbour1".
The only real threat to Civil government and Individual Rights at that time would have been Organized Christianity, like today.
But it appears Islam too is gaining strength to become an additional internal threat to American founding principles and Civil Liberties.
eVVVVV 1 year ago
David Barton is a historian like Benny Hinn is a doctor...
imyyz4u 1 year ago 11
@imyyz4u, a quick read of his coment made me laugh- i thought that you'd written 'Benny Hill'. When i read it agan it was even funnier. thanks for the double chuckle.
fomoran 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The US Federal State was not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the christian religion. Period!
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
This is all a sales pitch. What a con-man. Barton has been debunked by many, most notably Chris Rodda. Please do your own research and don't teach your children these lies. We are now and have always been, by the founders intention, a secular nation which protects the right of the individual to believe or not believe and to worship or not worship in any way one chooses. Democracy not theocracy. He is a fake, a liar and a revisionist.
jdgrab1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
David Barton is a FRAUD! The US Federal State was not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the christian religion.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
There is simply not enough time to cover the material. If your doing master's work or gtting a phd in american history maybe.
samv12321 1 year ago
I hate how people who don't believe in God take things out of the original books/documents so that they remove the faith out of our history...it's sad because we shouldn't be ashamed of those things
TheBarby82 1 year ago
@TheBarby82 Name one original founding document that contains Christian faith.
jfsfrnd 1 year ago
If I had one with in this world I would have my son meet David Barton.
God Bless David Barton!!!
saveourcountry777 1 year ago
@saveourcountry777
Being Christian, though, he'll probably try to have sex with him.
PubliusAfricanus 1 year ago
God Bless David Barton!!!
If I had one wish in this world I would have my 5 year son meet David Barton!
saveourcountry777 1 year ago
David Barton is a disgraced LIAR.
liarsforjesus
TuneSlingr2 1 year ago
Calling Barton a historian is like calling Ted Haggard a saint.
stinky472 1 year ago
Truth or falsehood in a statement needs only to be fully researched to discover which isTrue or False. If the statement is TRUE than it can not be argued. It can only be accepted or rejected. Also a person's morality will always DICTATE their philosophy , without exception.
28037 2 years ago
Am I surprised your trust of Barton is based purely on your faith? You say he is a Christian? How do you know? Because HE says so? You say he is telling the truth? "So well documented"? By who? You are defending a guy you do not even know. Why, because you both claim to be Christians. There are many dozens of Barton lies documented right here on youtube. Try Chris Rodda, for starters ... but she is just a start.
TouchOfGreatness 2 years ago
Barton has not stopped lying. One his many current lies is his claim that Congress printed the first bibles in America, when in fact Congress never printed any bibles.
TouchOfGreatness 2 years ago
Ah, we meet again, Mr. Greatness! You seem to be following Mr. Barton around YouTube. LOL!
Of course, he's not "lying." That's not a very becoming trait for a professed, Bible-believing Christian. We've debated this issue already, so no need to go over it again.
But for those reading, Barton is dead-on accurate and is so well documented that all critics are left with are ad hominem attacks. Research it for yourself and see.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
Nothing motivates me like a liar. Barton is the best motivator around. Barton is the best liar. Good at rhetoric, but that does nothing to compensate for his lying. Barton is also a "quote miner" - collecting and repeating select quotes to make people appear to have a different opinion than they really did. Yes do research Barton ... a fraud of frauds.
TouchOfGreatness 2 years ago
Sorry, but I could find a lot of things to motivate me other than liars. But, I too, seek truth, and do have issues when someone purposely tells an untruth. So is that what Barton is really doing, or is simply another ad hominem attack on his character when the facts he presents can't be defended?
I believe that Barton is not only telling the truth, which he's bound to do as a Christian, but his understanding and interpretation of history cannot be refuted.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
Counter w/facts. Nothing like good debate, discussion and conversation. :)
JnzWorld 2 years ago 2
"Jan 21, 1781, Robert Aitken petitioned the US Congress to authorize, & if possible even fund, the printing of a complete Bible in the English language of the King James Ver. Sept 10, 1782, Aitken rec'd authorization from the United States Congress to commence his American printing of the Bible in English. This is the only instance in history of the U.S. Congress authorizing the printing of a Bible. In subsequent years, that session was often mockingly referred to as The Bible Congress." NEXT!
JnzWorld 2 years ago
@JnzWorld Congress authorized it as an example of the state of the art of printing in the U.S., nothing more and certainly nothing religious.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
Although Barton has gotten better at using proper references, he has gotten MUCH better at cherry picking them, using truncated references, and using them completely out of context. The ninth commandment is not about lying, but about being a false witness. Barton fits the latter perfectly.
kressink 2 years ago
Opps! I ment to give your comment a thumbs up. but my clicker farted. Sorry. Great comment my friend.
Texasantichrist 2 years ago
Wow. Whether or not you agree with David Barton isn't the issue here. It is about liking or disliking Christianity. Personally, I see both sides. I am a believer in the Lord and I can see why some people would hate me. We "Christians" act better when we're not and we don't love when we should. We shut the "sinners" out when we should welcome them into our homes. We yell at those around us when they talk badly about us but frankly... we deserve it sometimes.
06Psalm91 2 years ago
Thx 2 David Barton & posting of this very important historically accurate information. I am so glad that this part of our country's history and founding is being taught.The current state-fed textbook curriculum being used 2 indoctrinate children n public schools is so obviously biased away frm the truth if it n any way proves a Christian viewpoint by our founders.
It takes alot of courage 2 speak the truth n thisday when anyone speaking from a Christian viewpoint is sure 2 get shouted down.
onlinefreedomclub 3 years ago
What do you know about our so called biased history lessons in public schools? This man is a charlatan by all accounts. His interpretation of history has been repeatedly exposed as fraudulent by thousands of historians with doctorates in the historical dicilines. I'm sorry, but if you buy this mans bull shit your an ignorant morron.
Texasantichrist 2 years ago
Counter w/ facts and specifically what the heck you are talking about. Nothing like encouraging good debate, discussion and conversation. :)
JnzWorld 2 years ago 2
Please counter with facts rather than name calling. Why must people who don't believe something always use vulger language and name calling?
Just a legitimate question.
Saddlemomma 2 years ago 7
@Saddlemomma
Yeah. I hate those fuckers too.
PubliusAfricanus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Saddlemomma Barton is a complete liar! Liarsforjesus (.) com
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
We certainly can use a comprehensive look at history. What motivated America's founders? What did they read and study? How did they become such hero's? Where are today's hero's?
FreeAgain2 3 years ago
The only real problem that people have with him is because he stands for christians. If it was anybody else of other faith's or non faith, no one would have a problem
lunalost77 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The problem is he's a fake historian, a fraud, and a damned liar. I know you fundies would rather die than admit that perhaps not all Christians are good people--but there it is.
Barton is scum.
PubliusAfricanus 3 years ago 3
'scum' seems to sum him up quite well.
slothtopsy 2 years ago 2
@PubliusAfricanus Your name indicates you correctly, ANUS, Your thought process has followed your name.
Rich2841 1 year ago
@Rich2841
Except Anus isn't my name, you wonderful compassionate Christian you.
PubliusAfricanus 1 year ago
I'm a bit confused, you believe the quotes from his book, but you don't believe him when he admits to falsifying quotes of the founding fathers?
Furthermore, anyone who has studied the founders even a little bit from actual History books, such as the letters they wrote etc. would know exactly what they stood for.
nomorepropaganda 4 years ago 2
Wow. OriginalGuest and annabelleleetoo come across with such energy behind their accusations. Zeal is great, but you really need to back up your accusation. You say David Barton "has admitted to lying"--please footnote. And are you going to provide a "confirmed" quote, or a "nonconfirmed" one. As annabelleleetoo has agreed, both are fair, but "confirmed" is better. David's use of 14 "unconfirmed" quotes is what you must be calling lies. It has to be that.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
He's confirmed that the Madison/Ten commandments quote is indeed false. The rest he tries to dance around. The point is: they didn't exist until Barton came along. He made them up; he's a fraud.
You fundies like your word play, but this is just putting lipstick on a pig.
OriginalGuest 4 years ago 2
Where have i heard this quote before....?
serandlya 4 years ago
His "Democracy in America" nonsense is so ridiculous. Abridged version? So what? I bought a brand new unabridged version at Barnes & Noble. He's pissing himself as if the evil "liberals" banned the original book or something.
OriginalGuest 4 years ago
I honestly can say I would trust David Barton with my life and the lives of my wife and children whom I love dearly. I have met this man and have heard him in person, and every quote he has mentioned that I have taken the time to look up for myself has been verified. He is a man of integrity, and not the first man in history of his caliber who has come under such attacks from those who would seek to falsely discredit and ruin him. May God bless him and may He continue to bless the USA.
pbtransmin 4 years ago 2
Then you're a fool. He is attacking the foundations of our govt and using people like you to accomplish this. He discredits himself. It's not an "attack" when people point out the truth about this man's outright lies and misleading agenda.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Every quote could not have been verified since even Barton has admitted some of them cannot be. Sucks to be you.
OriginalGuest 4 years ago
If it can't be verified then it isn't a "quote" and a real historian wouldn't use it. Barton isn't a historian (no credentials) and has admitted to lying therefore, he's a liar and those who defend him knowing this are dishonest too. End of story.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Look, you either value the truth or you don't. David Barton has been exposed as a liar in the past, and you can see just with our talk on this phony letter that he's not being honest. And here you are making excuses for him.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Benjamin Franklin wrote his own epitaph, which declared: "The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out, stripped of its lettering, and guilding, lies here, food for worms. But the work shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more elegant edition, revised and corrected by the Author."
pbtransmin 4 years ago
What's Franklin's epitaph got to do with the false letter you posted earlier?
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Both his epitaph and his response to Thomas Paine's manuscript show Benjamin Franklin to be quite a firm believer in God (or a Supreme Being, Providence, Author, Creator of our inalienable rights).
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Franklin believe in god but Franklin was not a christian. There was no manuscript of the age of reason ever sent to Franklin because Paine didn't begin writing it until after Franklin's death. The letter you posted is fake. That's why you won't name your source, you realize it's fake yourself.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Get a clue, Barton is a liar. Stop enabling him.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Okay, so at least we can agree that Benjamin Franklin believed in a Creator whom he would stand before some day.
Many people, myself included, have text written down with plans of possible future publication. I see no reason to discredit the 1840 book by Jared Sparks' on Benjamin Franklin's works--you're not preseting a convincing arguement.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Yes I am. You just like having your ears tickled by Barton and like him you don't give a rat's ass whether or not something is true or not. This letter was false. And in case I forgot to mention it, Paine was sitting in a French prison when he began writing "The Age of Reason" in 1793; he wasn't even in the United States.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Yes, I read that, too. That's not to say he didn't present Franklin with written thoughts on the subject before then.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
You're grasping at straws and it shows. I'm sure they discussed religion because they shared the same views on religion but Franklin was shrewd and knew all "hell" on earth would break loose on Paine if he wrote their views down and made them public. BUT Franklin did not write that letter; he couldn't have. You should read "The Age of Reason"....not anything written by David Barton. Paine was honest to a fault and that's something you cannot say about DB.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
I can see why you'd say it's grasping, but, to me it can't be ruled out as a possible explanation. The feelings expressed in Franklin's (alleged) letter are consistent with other first-hand documented writings of Franklin, even up to his death.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Now you're doing what Barton does. When he got caught making up quotes his excuse was that the quotes he made up were "consistent with other first-hand documents/statements the founders would have made." That's not history; that's lying. That's revisionist history.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
How can you say he made up quotes? Name a quote he made up. Barton has raised the bar on reliable referencing of quotes. All his quotes are either "confirmed"--first-hand, or "unconfirmed", second-hand. Name a quote he made up, please.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
LOL, I can say it because it's true and he admitted it already. AND we have covered this already, why are you coming back and asking the same questions you asked me two days ago? -- You've got a lot of gall saying Barton raises the bar...he does no such thing.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
google: David Barton's fake quotes
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Clever response in substitute of presenting support for your statement. You never gave me proof to your claim. You told me to look it up myself. I could accuse you of lying, but I happen to believe you truely believe that David Barton has "made up quotes" which is why I stop short of calling you a liar as you have accused me and David Barton of being.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
I told you what to google to get the information. We are limited to 500 words per post here. You told me the other day that you checked out the Baptist Joint Committee critique; did you forget already? Yes David Barton is a liar and I think you are one too. But then, some people can't handle the truth.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Btw - I've directed you to lots of proof and have discussed the obvious proof with that phony letter from Barton's site and all you've done is give me David Barton and "what ifs" when I ask you something.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
You don't accuse because you know damn well what Barton had done. The problem here is christians don't want to admit that fellow christians are just as capable of lying as "teh evil liberals!1!!".
OriginalGuest 4 years ago
Why is that? Even christians still sin. Thus, if christians say they don't lie, then they are not christians. I think that David is very reliable, and there has not been solid proof of his "lies". So until that is shown, you should stop criticizing him.
serandlya 4 years ago
He has a list of quotes on his website that he says you should not use because he made them up. Are his own words not reliable?
OriginalGuest 4 years ago 2
HE does NOT, He has a list of Quotes that should not be used because they are unconfirmed quotes, He never claimed to make them up, how nice of you to make up a quote for him
unclepoo 3 years ago
Ronald Reagan said: "I like teh cock." It's true, someone told me.
By your logic, that's an irrefutable quote and must be accepted as such by the historical community.
OriginalGuest 4 years ago
Yeah, but that's got nothing to do with this fake letter and David Barton revising history to accommodate his own personal religious and political agenda.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
update - Benjamin Franklin died in 1790; Thomas Paine didn't begin writing "The Age of Reason" until 1793 according to real historians.... with the first part being published in 1794. If you attend anymore of Barton's revisionist history talks please raise your hand and ask him about this???
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Paine often sought advise from Franklin who was responding to a manuscript from Paine. This was long before it was published and, obviously, before Franklin died. A quote from Franklin to Paine makes this clear: "I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance."
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Source please?
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
US archives. I read a PDF of it. Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1840), Vol.X, pp. 281-282.
Google "works benjamin franklin sparks vol 10", look for "Internet Archive Search...". Click on it and go down about 34 links. Click PDF. Scroll down to page 282.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
What was Jonathan Spark's source? Yale couldn't find one. This letter is not in any of the writings of B. Franklin or anywhere else and no-one could find Spark's source. I've been checking for hours on this; the letter doesn't exist and Sparks started this. Where did you get the letter? Be honest. The only place I could find it is at Barton's website and of course he didn't list a date (did you notice that).
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
btw - I already googled "The Works of Benjamin Franklin by Jonathan Sparks". Yet when you check Franklin's actual works, the letter isn't there. But then, how could it be since Paine didn't write it until after Franklin's death; you can give a manuscript to a dead man.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
typo, should have read "you can't give a manuscript to a dead man".
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Where on Barton's website? I didn't find anything more convincing on wallbuilders dot com than I found in the U.S. Archives.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
You must not be looking too hard then. google: Benjamin Franklin's letter to Thomas Paine; it's as easy as that. -- If you didn't find that letter and the Sparks mention at Barton's site then where did you get it. I know darn well you didn't come across it perusing through the national archives. So if Barton wasn't your source who was? Enquiring minds want to know.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
But, I do agree I'm not convinced of anything at Barton's site. He has so many lies mixed in with truths and half-truths you can't take anything at his site at face value....which is pretty much my point for posting here to start with.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
btw - you know where because you basically cut-n-pasted the Sparks "thing" from that site on your other post. Did you really think I wouldn't notice? Why does lying come so easily to Christians?
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Of course I cut-n-pasted the reference--it's accurate; what's wrong with doing that? I looked it up myself, though, and told you exactly where you could read it for yourself, apart from David Barton's website, because you do not deem Barton as a reliable source. Wow. How can you accuse me of lying? btw, no, I don't know where. There was just a verbatim quote typed in above what I cut-and-pasted, but that's not as good as seeing the PDF of the pages of the 1840 publication I told you about.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
So, if you're looking at it (I could find the actual book with the directions you gave me) what does Sparks site as his source for that letter? Evidently Sparks was repeating hearsay because the letter isn't mentioned by anyone else from Franklin's death in 1790 and Sparks book 50 yrs later in 1840. The letter isn't in any archives for Franklin or Paine or anywhere else. SO, it's fake; it didn't happen. Somebody wrote it and whoever did was lying.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
One more thing about my last point there. Somebody signed Franklin's name to this letter to give it some authority.....the same thing that was done with the bible when the "church" assigned names to the gospels...to give them "authority" that they didn't really have.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
You implied earlier that you didn't get it from Barton's website.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Forgive me for the misunderstanding. To clarify, I first heard of Franklin's letter to Paine from Barton, live. I told you I twice heard him live. I cut-n-pasted from Barton's full quote of this letter. Later, when you wanted the source I wasn't going to refer you to Barton's site--you do not deem him as a credible source. I followed Barton's footnote (which was a nice and neat cut-n-paste easy to follow reference) to look up the actual book which contains the text of Franklin's letter.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Oh okay. - Now, can you see how the letter wasn't penned by B.Franklin to T. Paine? Have you noticed in your searches that all roads lead back to Barton, then Sparks and then dead-ends? -- The best thing to do is to google the writings of Benjamin Franklin and you can what he wrote firsthand for yourself. Please read "The Age of Reason", don't be scared, Thomas Paine did believe in God very much; he just thought the bible was a man-made fabricated insult to God.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
If this quote is true then Franklin isn't disagreeing with Paine's critique of the babble at all since it hadn't even been written yet; he's warning Paine that to write such a critique would induce an angry X-ian mob [unchaining the tiger] to destroy him just as they'd destroyed the pagans and their archealogical sites... and the "heretics" that came later.... and many, many others. Christianity survived because it's adherents squashed everything and everybody that dared to "cross" it.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
pbtransmin - I've been looking all over for that letter you posted from B. Franklin to T. Paine and the ONLY place I've been able to find it is at David Barton's website. Is that where you got it? If not could you please direct me to your source? David Barton provides no link to the Sparks quote which he says was written in 1840, long after Adams had died.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Sorry I meant to say long after Franklin had died....s'getting late.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
John Adams--
"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
(John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
pbtransmin 4 years ago
John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States
"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
(John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)
pbtransmin 4 years ago
He wasn't talking about Christianity. --John Adams "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Member Annabelleleetoo said 4 founders were "anti-Christian"—one being Benjamin Franklin (see Benjamin Franklin's quote below defending the Christian belief). Right now I can list original source quotes from 22 founders showing themselves to be quite "Christian."
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Believing in a "nature's god" and being a X-ian are two different things. The majority of the founders were indeed x-ian in their private lives and yet (here's the important thing) THEY along with the nonX-ian founders voted to keep church and state separate ( Patrick Henry fot outvoted). Barton is attempting to mix church and state which our founders (both christian and non-christian) overwhelmingly opposed. That's the bottom line here.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
B. Franklin (raised calvinist; rebelled against it becoming a deist). "If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Xianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution". Essay "On Toleration".
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and god does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power , 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one". --- WOW, I agree and I think we should eliminate both faith-based iniatives and the 501c3 status of churches.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
That was a B. Franklin quote. --
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
And thank you for acknowledging that the majority of the United States' founding fathers were Christian. I respect that. It took guts to say, as it's clear you vehemently oppose Christian principles. By the way, they were not "private" about their Christian beliefs.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Yes I am opposed to Bible "values" however most of my family are Xtians and I wouldn't want to see them persecuted for that; it'd be unconstitutional BUT what Barton is attempting to do is weave this idea that this country was founded on the bible and that theocracy is what the founders really meant (going so far as to make up quotes) and that's absolutely not true at all.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
I disagree. A theocracy is what Israel was before King David. The U.S. was set up to, and still does, operate under three branches of government, one of which, the Executive branch, is lead by a President elected by the people. It's ridiculous to say David Barton purports the founders meant to set up a theocracy. What I see happening today is atheistic revisionists trying to rewrite U.S. history. If you want to change our government, fine, do it at the ballot box—don't rewrite history.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Oops--I mean King Saul (not King David). Sorry about that.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Go to his site and see what it says; it's goal is theocratic politics.-- Sounds like a theocracy to me. He's the one revising history and attempting to change it thru govt via the republican party. Check that aspect of his life out for yourself; it'll take you less than a minute.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Benjamin Franklin was all in favor of seeking the Providence's good favor and guidance, but "theocratic politics" is a term you might be making up(?). The Supreme Court for the longest time, since our country's founding until recent decades, used the Bible as an authoritative source in arriving at decisions.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Says who?
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e.: a church), replacing or dominating civil government.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
One could say the religion of Athiesm does not support itself and is therefore a bad religion. And, yes, it is a religion. Athiestic organizations also file as 501c3's.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Atheism isn't a religion it's a lack of a religion; lack of belief in a god, gods, goddesses etc. Atheists don't have or need churches. I think they should abolish 501c3 across the board. Only Christians call atheism a religioin but that's just one more "brainwashing" tool in their arsenal of brainwashing tools. Think about it, if you weren't saturated with the X-ian story all your life and just heard of it when you were an adult you wouldn't believe it and you know you wouldn't.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
That was a risky assumption you just made. I know just about as many X-ians (Christians) who came to believe the eye-witness accounts of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection--as recorded by eye-witnesses who died for their beliefs--as I know people who came to believe as a child.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
What eyewitnesses? There weren't any. The gospel accounts were written decades after these supposed events took place by anonymous authors. The Catholic Church assigned the names later to give them "authority". -- Also the Supreme Ct. cases you mention probably were those that kept slavery legal before the civil war. And a few other cases that were later overturned.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
The Gospel of John was written by one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The earliest manuscripts we have on record date to before the time of the Catholic Church. John identifies himself and his association with Christ at the end of his account, chapter 20. He tells of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ—which he witnessed. He then writes, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
pbtransmin 4 years ago
The Gospel of John has been dated to A.D. 80 or 85 according to some; others date it to A.D. 50, no later than A.D. 70. I used the term "manuscripts" earlier. I'll have to check into the dating of the manuscripts which may differ.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
The earliest peice of any manuscript is about a one inch section of John dating around 125 C.E. That one inch section is long after the story takes place. So much for the idea of "god" divinely preserving "his" word. What we have a copies of copies with no clue as to who wrote John or how many times it was changed by the "church fathers". This we do know, whoever wrote John was not an "eyewitness".
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Just FYI, the earliest Gospel manuscripts found to date, excluding fragments, date to after 150 A.D. and before 200 A.D..
Constantine became an X-ian (Christian) in about 305. The Catholic Church came after that.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Oh contrair, the Catholic church was one of many christian cults that came long before Constantine. And the basics of christianity as we know it today are from this cult because it gained the most adherents and the most power. The bible you read today is a catholic production. Keep in mind JC supposedly died between 29-33 C.E.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Athiesm requires faith. To believe that the first one-celled organism assembled itself, or "came together", from a collection of self-assembled protiens which came together from self-assembled amino acids...without it's own DNA molecule containing it's own assembly instructions... that takes MORE faith than believing in the "Creator of our inalienable rights."
pbtransmin 4 years ago
No it doesn't. I don't know how we got here but making up some far-fetched story about a "god" doing it only complicates it further. That would require a being more intricate that the universe it supposedly created and yet we're to believe that came from nothing? I agree with Mark Twain who said "Faith is believing in something you know ain't true".
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
BTW - It's not "guts" it's fact. All facts should be acknowledged.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
bbtransmin - I tried replying to you yesterday with some links but my post isn't showing up. Try googling Baptist Joint Committee on David Barton, they go into a lot of depth. Barton also lies by ommission in that he does not give many, many quotes by our founders that make it clear that they intended for this govt to be secular; many of them even loathed the institution of christianity with good reason. You need to take an extra step and verify everything that comes out of this man's mouth.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Hi. I just posted a comment to your other comment. Ha! :-)
I'll look into the Baptist Joint Committee lead you provided.
Which founder loathed the institution of Christianity? Thanks.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
James Madison; Thomas Jefferson; Thomas Paine; Benjamin Franklin. There are probably others but those are the most prominent yet even they had to tread carefully. Remember, the world was still dominated by christian myths and people of that era were profoundly aware that their political careers would be over if they were too vocal (same holds true today). Also, life and limb could be in jeopardy (same holds true today). Christianity in the western world is a very powerful political tool.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
I'm now familiar w/ David Barton's article about 14 (out of very many) quotes he has used. He refers to these 14 as "unconfirmed" tho they were from deemed credible works, but were secondary quotes, for instance. 3 of the 14 (so far) have since been "confirmed."
How am I to know you're not making up a claim that the 3 founding fathers you listed "loathed the institution of Christianity?" David provides quotes from primary sources as proof to his claims. Can you provide quotes as proof?
pbtransmin 4 years ago
His excuse at the time he was caught was that his made up quotes were in keeping with what the founders would have said in his opinion. See if those quotes have been confirmed (you can't take the word of a man whose already been caught lying). Verify everything he says and what I'm telling you too. You have a computer but I'm limited to 500 words per post.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Another thing about the secondary quotes; there are several other secondary quotes that Barton would also leave out. Now, first hand quotes are the best because you don't have to rely on revisionism....christian revisionism in particular has been afoot since the Declaration of Independence was signed and the Constitution written up and approved.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Look up the names I gave you and see for yourself what they had to say first hand. That's how you'll know I'm not making anything up.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Also notice in this video Barton talks about biographical histories written by other people. Why not just go straight to the source, the founders left plenty about their own thoughts written by their own hand. We don't even have to rely on biographical histories which were most likely written by christians who would have made every effort to do what Barton does today. Revise, revise, revise in order to make the history favorable to their own religion.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Okay, I'll see if I can check that out.
How about providing a quote from Jefferson, Paine, or Franklin that shows alleged disdain toward Christianity. If you can provide one, I'll recipricate with a quote showing his apparent favorable disposition toward Christianity. Thanks.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Whenever we read the obscene stories the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindicitiveness with which more than half the bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon rather than the word of god. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it as I detest everything that is cruel." Thomas Paine [on the Bible] in the Age of Reason
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Thanks. I'll check it out.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
pbtransmin - You can read "The Age of Reason" online just google it. I wish I'd read that book when I was a teenager instead of when I was 43 or 44. When T. Paine published that book it enraged people so much that only 6 people attended his funeral when he died.....after all that he'd done for our country and for France. That's what telling the truth will get ya.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
-- Benjamin Franklin
He [the Rev Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard.
-- Benjamin Franklin
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
TO THOMAS PAINE.
DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. ..., you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. ... you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence [to be continued...]
pbtransmin 4 years ago
[cont.] of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face...
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
B. Franklin
Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1840),Vol.X,pp.281-2.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
You're accusing David Barton of lying, yet you apparantly are trying to deceive me into believing Benjamin Franklin loathed the institution of Christianity. Didn't you read his rebuttal to Thomas Paine? He respectfully shut him down for his shameful remarks about the Bible. Mr. Franklin had a high respect for and belief in God though, at the time, not ascribing to a creed.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
Franklin did loathe the institution privately but publically he saw that it wasn't going away and that Paine needed to tread carefully. Franklin isn't criticizing Paine's critique of the babble at all but warning him of the "fallout" he was going to receive from the "wicked religionists". Franklin does seem somewhat offended at the beginning but not on behalf of Christianity; on behalf of belief in a "god/deity/divine providence" which for Franklin wasn't "jesus christ".
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
OriginalGuest
i think you need to find something better to do than bash people you dont know...
this is a man of a MIGHTY God ! ! !
I'm glad i dont have to be accountable for the types of actions youre accountable for ! ! ! and if you have a problem with him speaking his mind...DONT WATCH HIS VIDEOS!!!
-peculiar
titus 2;14
Bpeculiar 4 years ago
This man is a liar. The Baptist Joint Committee and Christianity Today outed him as a liar several years ago (he was making up quotes and attributing them to our founding fathers). The fact that lies so easily flow out of his mouth is just further evidence that there's no such thing as "the holy spirit" and that he certainly is not "spirit filled".
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Two times I've been honored to be present when David Barton spoke to live audiences about our country's founders and the incredible history of our nation. Would you please name me just one date and place you feel David Barton has uttered a "made up quote" of a founding father (or provide a link to such a claim). I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the person making such a claim is making it up in hopes to falsely discredit Mr. Barton.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
No need to. The man says it himself on his own website. He got called out big time some years back. No legitimate source considers David Barton to be an historian.
Only christian and neocon groups call him that.
OriginalGuest 4 years ago
David! Do us all a favor: run for Presidency... You have my vote.
In Christ
Bryan
NuDawgontheblock 4 years ago
I'd love to see him run for President; that'd be a great way to expose his lies in a most public way. A David Barton run for the Presidency might be one of the best ways to educate people on the 1st Amendment and the truth of separation of church and state as well as teaching people the importance of guarding against revisionist history by people like DB.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
To say he's lying is an incredibly bold claim. That claim demands proof. Quote the lie--I really want to read the lie here in this YouTube thread. Thanks.
pbtransmin 4 years ago
It's a true claim. Go to google and type in Baptist Joint Committee on David Barton and start there. Also Barton fessed up that he made up quotes back when the Baptist Joint Committee (and others) caught him lying back in the 90s. I'm not the one selling books, videos and speaking publically to large audiences, but he is and I think you should attend and question him boldly after you start verifying what he's saying.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
Read them for youself. Go to google and type in David Barton false quotes. I'm limited to 500 words. After you check it out start questioning Barton since he's the one getting up in public and selling his opinions as fact and using this platform to play politics.
annabelleleetoo 4 years ago
He is NoT a liar. Can't we just be friends? Work through the differences and stop labeling decent honest men. And no, if you have a decent bone, I would not want to break your omly hope at decency.
bmf1706 4 years ago
Do you own a decent bone in your body?!
bmf1706 4 years ago
Why, do you want to break it?
You are pledging your allegiance to a fake historian and confirmed liar. Now, I know you neocons love liars and frauds, but isn't this a bit much?
OriginalGuest 4 years ago
David Barton for Speaker of the House in 2008!
bmf1706 4 years ago