The most influential evangelist you've never heard of

[carlfense]

For example, you've been taught the Constitution is a secular document. Not so, says Barton: The Constitution is laced with biblical quotations.

 

"You look at Article 3, Section 1, the treason clause," he told James Robison on Trinity Broadcast Network. "Direct quote out of the Bible. You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim.I mean, it drives the secularists nuts because the Bible's all over it! Now we as Christians don't tend to recognize that. We think it's a secular document; we've bought into their lies. It's not."

 

We looked up every citation Barton said was from the Bible, but not one of them checked out.

http://www.npr.org/2...-never-heard-of

 

When your own publisher pulls your book from shelves because of countless factual inaccuracies . . . it's a bad day.

[Enhance]

Sometimes people really, really baffle me. Barton had to have known someone would analyze what he said. You don't use historical evidence as evidence unless you know for a fact it will support you. Why give specific lines from the constitution and verses from the bible, comparing the two? You'd have to assume someone would look it up. It just doesn't make sense. Why lie in a colossal way like that?

[The Dude]

Sometimes people really, really baffle me. Barton had to have known someone would analyze what he said. You don't use historical evidence as evidence unless you know for a fact it will support you. Why give specific lines from the constitution and verses from the bible, comparing the two? You'd have to assume someone would look it up. It just doesn't make sense. Why lie in a colossal way like that?

In a word: desperation.

[Enhance]

Sometimes people really, really baffle me. Barton had to have known someone would analyze what he said. You don't use historical evidence as evidence unless you know for a fact it will support you. Why give specific lines from the constitution and verses from the bible, comparing the two? You'd have to assume someone would look it up. It just doesn't make sense. Why lie in a colossal way like that?

In a word: desperation.

But even desperation doesn't sit well with me. We can look up information with ease in this day and age, thanks to the internet and advanced forms of communication. No matter how desperate one might be, there are only two reasons you would use information you know is false to support you - one, you're an idiot, or two, there's something seriously wrong with you. Is he really that big of an idiot? What sort of desperation is he in that he would need to lie like the article says he lies? Unless he's trying to completely discredit himself on purpose, I don't understand his thought process.

 

I'd love to see his defense against these claims.

[carlfense]

Sometimes people really, really baffle me. Barton had to have known someone would analyze what he said. You don't use historical evidence as evidence unless you know for a fact it will support you. Why give specific lines from the constitution and verses from the bible, comparing the two? You'd have to assume someone would look it up. It just doesn't make sense. Why lie in a colossal way like that?

In a word: desperation.

But even desperation doesn't sit well with me. We can look up information with ease in this day and age, thanks to the internet and advanced forms of communication. No matter how desperate one might be, there are only two reasons you would use information you know is false to support you - one, you're an idiot, or two, there's something seriously wrong with you. Is he really that big of an idiot? What sort of desperation is he in that he would need to lie like the article says he lies? Unless he's trying to completely discredit himself on purpose, I don't understand his thought process.

 

I'd love to see his defense against these claims.

He makes a lot of money peddling this stuff to Glenn Beck's audience. They want to hear it . . . they're willing to pay Barton for saying it . . . and Barton makes a ton of money. It works well. He gets rich. They hear what they desperately want to hear. Who cares that it's false?

[JJ Husker]

How influential can this guy be if nobody has ever heard of him? I've never heard of him. Other than this forum topic, I have never heard him or his views referred to. There are probably a lot of nutjobs out there spouting crap that isn't true. I guess it doesn't surprise me but I don't see where it is important in the grand scheme.

 

edit- I originally posted before reading the article. It is obvious that this guy is out there. But, I would offer one thing in his defense (not that I really want to). I would think that around 236 years ago that a lot more respect for and acceptance of religion was the norm. When I read the constitution, my take on the items referring to religion are that the founding fathers did not want the government interferring with our religious rights. Not so much so that we couldn't use our religious beliefs to influence government or that we could not have public displays of it. So, in a way, he is kind of on the right track but to come out and state absolute falsehoods renders his thoughts moot. I think times were much different then and todays secular society has trouble understanding the actual original intent of many of these issues. The thing I don't get, like the rest of you, is why he would posit such obvious lies when they can be disproved so easily.

[carlfense]

How influential can this guy be if nobody has ever heard of him? I've never heard of him. Other than this forum topic, I have never heard him or his views referred to. There are probably a lot of nutjobs out there spouting crap that isn't true. I guess it doesn't surprise me but I don't see where it is important in the grand scheme.

I think he was on the best sellers list at one time. That would probably hint that some have heard of him.

 

Also . . . his work has been praised by Huckabee, Bachmann, Gingrich, etc. That would also probably hint that some have heard of him.

[ZRod]

He was also a part of that whole Texas writing their own version of history for text books thing a few years ago. I didn't remember this guys name, but just reading the text I knew exactly who it was. He's been on the Daily Show a couple times and Stewart tried calling him out on different subjects but the guys mouth runs a mile a minute and he can talk his way out of almost any situation with more BS, he makes a hell of a salesman.

[JJ Husker]

How influential can this guy be if nobody has ever heard of him? I've never heard of him. Other than this forum topic, I have never heard him or his views referred to. There are probably a lot of nutjobs out there spouting crap that isn't true. I guess it doesn't surprise me but I don't see where it is important in the grand scheme.

I think he was on the best sellers list at one time. That would probably hint that some have heard of him.

 

Also . . . his work has been praised by Huckabee, Bachmann, Gingrich, etc. That would also probably hint that some have heard of him.

I was referring more to the title of the topic in which you claimed "...you've never heard of" and not trying to claim literally that nobody has heard of him. However, I can be somewhat egotistical at times so, if I haven't heard of him, then he means squat to me. He's just another in a long list of crackpots.

[carlfense]

I was referring more to the title of the topic in which you claimed "...you've never heard of" and not trying to claim literally that nobody has heard of him.

That's not my claim. That's the title of the article.

 

[The Dude]

Sometimes people really, really baffle me. Barton had to have known someone would analyze what he said. You don't use historical evidence as evidence unless you know for a fact it will support you. Why give specific lines from the constitution and verses from the bible, comparing the two? You'd have to assume someone would look it up. It just doesn't make sense. Why lie in a colossal way like that?

In a word: desperation.

But even desperation doesn't sit well with me. We can look up information with ease in this day and age, thanks to the internet and advanced forms of communication. No matter how desperate one might be, there are only two reasons you would use information you know is false to support you - one, you're an idiot, or two, there's something seriously wrong with you. Is he really that big of an idiot? What sort of desperation is he in that he would need to lie like the article says he lies? Unless he's trying to completely discredit himself on purpose, I don't understand his thought process.

 

I'd love to see his defense against these claims.

Or hey, yeah, maybe he's just an idiot and there's something wrong with him. I was just throwing out ideas.

[Enhance]

Sometimes people really, really baffle me. Barton had to have known someone would analyze what he said. You don't use historical evidence as evidence unless you know for a fact it will support you. Why give specific lines from the constitution and verses from the bible, comparing the two? You'd have to assume someone would look it up. It just doesn't make sense. Why lie in a colossal way like that?

In a word: desperation.

But even desperation doesn't sit well with me. We can look up information with ease in this day and age, thanks to the internet and advanced forms of communication. No matter how desperate one might be, there are only two reasons you would use information you know is false to support you - one, you're an idiot, or two, there's something seriously wrong with you. Is he really that big of an idiot? What sort of desperation is he in that he would need to lie like the article says he lies? Unless he's trying to completely discredit himself on purpose, I don't understand his thought process.

 

I'd love to see his defense against these claims.

He makes a lot of money peddling this stuff to Glenn Beck's audience. They want to hear it . . . they're willing to pay Barton for saying it . . . and Barton makes a ton of money. It works well. He gets rich. They hear what they desperately want to hear. Who cares that it's false?

They should care, and it's unfortunate that they don't.

[Enhance]

Sometimes people really, really baffle me. Barton had to have known someone would analyze what he said. You don't use historical evidence as evidence unless you know for a fact it will support you. Why give specific lines from the constitution and verses from the bible, comparing the two? You'd have to assume someone would look it up. It just doesn't make sense. Why lie in a colossal way like that?

In a word: desperation.

But even desperation doesn't sit well with me. We can look up information with ease in this day and age, thanks to the internet and advanced forms of communication. No matter how desperate one might be, there are only two reasons you would use information you know is false to support you - one, you're an idiot, or two, there's something seriously wrong with you. Is he really that big of an idiot? What sort of desperation is he in that he would need to lie like the article says he lies? Unless he's trying to completely discredit himself on purpose, I don't understand his thought process.

 

I'd love to see his defense against these claims.

Or hey, yeah, maybe he's just an idiot and there's something wrong with him. I was just throwing out ideas.

I didn't mean to belittle your idea, if that's how it came off. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to me how someone would be willing to knowingly lie in such a manner.