Hi hulsey,
It would be more beneficial if you could point out just what (specifically) you are saying is "propaganda" in the book itself or in what you described as the "false history" of David Barton.
I have experience in researching this matter. While I wouldn't judge David Barton as an "academic" or even a "scholar" on the issues surrounding Jefferson, there is a great deal of misinformation that I feel to be the real "propaganda" as it has been repeated over the years by certain revisionists. Jefferson, given his peculiarities, is a favorite target by atheists and even certain "non-involvement" believers alike.
I wouldn't accuse Barton of having created an "almost delusional cult of America" either. If anything, Barton has simply pointed out the flaws and myths that are often parroted by history revisionists. Instead of attacking the man, his motives or even the apparent (or supposed) consequences of his efforts, it would be better to examine the claims that he makes and then scrutinize them one by one.
While we can debate about the extent of participation of godly men in early American government (or who was godly to begin with) or just what constitutes "cult of America," I am highly convinced that there has been a great deal of willful omission in regard to the role that the Christian faith played in the formation of the American nation.
I have listened to David Barton speak. I have read through some of his articles. Many of the things that he says are verifiably true. When it comes to Jefferson, I don't think that Barton is attempting to paint Thomas Jefferson as a saint. However, I think that he is simply trying to differentiate between the fact and fiction, myth and romanticism.
As someone who has studied many of these things firsthand, I believe that David Barton paints a much more accurate, if also idealistic, portrayal of early American history. Those who revise history often do so through a narrow scope. They focus down to a particular section rather than the object as a whole. When studying Jefferson, or Washington, Lincoln or any other historic figure, you must examine the entire picture.
By the way, many of these revisionists are the same individuals who are also revising the persons of Jesus and the apostles too. They take a verse or passage out-of-context to paint a picture of a very worldly Jesus and apostles. I was watching a "history" program at a friend's home recently about Paul the Apostle. The distortions that they painted of Paul were unbelievable. Yet, the individuals painting Paul in such a light are the same ones who revise the history of this country (and the men who helped found it) and then accuse anyone who disagrees with their attempts as "revisionists."
As for Chris Rodda: I don't know what you are claim that David Barton has said about her that you claim was running "her name publicly through the mud." I have read through several of her articles myself and David Barton isn't the only target of her ire. It seems that she has an intense hatred for what she calls the "religious right."
However, like I have said before, this "slur" is ironically inclusive of most sincere Christians too...and many people who are disagree with any attempt to neglect any history that contains the faith (or references to Christianity) of early Americans.
During grad school, I engaged into a discussion with a "non-involvement" believer and an atheist professor. Oddly enough, those two were united in their hatred for the "religious right." However, when the conversation turned to specific topics like abortion, the goals of homosexual activists, pornographic "free speech," and whether or not "morality" exists, we all realized that the atheist professor's definition differed from the believer's.
The professor lumped ALL "fundamentalist" believers into the "religious right" if they feel that abortion is sinful, immoral and should be illegal. This professor demonstrated the fact that most of us on this website -- if we shared with them what we believe -- would be "cast off" as part of the "religious right" even if we never join any organization or show up to the polls during elections. This professor also demonstrated that many liberals WANT for believers to keep their faith to themselves, at least to the point of not affecting the outcome of elections or policy.
This definition set off a debate in which the "non-involvement" believer -- who had previously argued that America has always been a non-Christian nation -- was defending the right of Americans to believe something strongly enough that they can try to influence the opinions of others or guide them at the polls or in the decisions of public figures. The professor argued that a "separation of church and state" should restrict ANY influence of the Church on the people of the state or the laws of the state. Ironically, the believer then argued that the state should not be promoting forms of immorality and pushing those opinions about such things upon the people through policy and laws.
This is the sort of conundrum that many believers face. It is that "Catch 22" where you only make individuals happy with your faith in Christ if you leave it at home or inside of a Church building and don't allow that faith to influence anyone else.
On a personal level, I feel a liberty to vote in elections and even share my opinions about it. Like most believers, we don't hold to some idealistic notion that America was formed out of a "religious revival." However, I am convinced that there was a spiritual heritage in America in that it was a moral society and heavily influenced by religious faith.
Yes, that faith may have differed from what we view as proper or true. However, the fact remains that religious faith was a much, MUCH greater part of early America than it is right now...or what many people on the ideological Left want it to be. If you believe in Christ and it influences your decisions, you are often lumped together with that same "dangerous" group of individuals who want to "proselyte" the country for Christianity. While this statement may sound ludicrous, it was actually told to me during a discussion with an Economics professor from Harvard University.
They feel that it is totally appropriate for elected politicians to define marriage to include homosexuality (*while accusing anyone who disagrees as trying to "redefine" marriage). They feel that it is commendable for elected politicians to define "a living human being" as anyone outside of the womb and paint anyone who disagrees as a "radical" who wants to allow their crazy religious views to "take away a woman's right." They can't even see that THEY are the ones redefining laws...morality...history...and even faith.
So, in this sense, I would have much more in common with a person like David Barton than I would probably have with a woman like Chris Pinto. While I have seen some slight romanticism and idealism with Barton's presentation, the essence of what he is pointing out is factual and an accurate representation of a part of history that some would rather ignore.
All that one has to do to understand the deep religious faith of early American founders is to read their own writings firsthand...and NOT what others have quoted them as saying or believing. Rodda, on the other hand, seems fixated with a vastly secular history of this nation where founders confined their religious faith to the home and churches. Yet, the faith of most founders was practiced in the open and was evident in their writings, laws, policies and in what they PERMITTED in schools and government settings.
The Christian faith was undeniably an accepted and obvious part of the early American continent. Now, this freedom is being torn asunder and being replaced with a form of "new morality" that is defined apart from religious faith and pushed upon society as the law of the land. This is what many people are trying to point out. Whether or not Jefferson's faith was rooted in Christ (or the REAL Christ) is less of an issue as the fact that Jefferson would probably have welcomed the free discussion of religious faith or principles in the public or to define the positions or decisions that such individuals would make.
When you study Jefferson, sometimes, it is interesting to note things that aren't actually said (policy wise) but what is implied. I find it interesting when he mentions just what went on in public buildings while he was president. In a few letters, he didn't make issues about public Christmas displays in government buildings yet noted that they were there (with descriptions). He didn't complain about a need for a "separation" regarding such matters. He wrote many letters about the Christmas season, how he noticed it being celebrated, how he celebrated it in the White House and how he loved the song "Adeste Fideles." This is not the view that secularists want to paint of Jefferson.
Of course, our faith is not in Jefferson. It isn't in the founding fathers. It isn't in America either. It is in Christ...and Christ alone. However, this doesn't mean that we must sit back and let others rewrite or ignore history to fit the end that they want to portray either. Personally, I am glad when individuals point out the many anecdotes of religious faith from the early formation of the American country and how it may or may not have influenced the decisions of many of those founders.
