The national media seems to be ignoring the outcry by civil liberties groups and Democrats about Christian Right author David Barton’s religious history of the U.S. tour sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. They are also ignoring Barton’s role in formulating the current strategy of “intimidation” of judges by the Christian Right and their allies in Congress. The notable exception so far, is a fine article in The Nation magazine, by Max Blumenthal.
Meanwhile when I posted my diary on the several Barton-related flaps yesterday, I completely forgot that I had detailed some of his background in Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy when trying to explain the depth and breadth of Barton’s influence in national life.
“Barton… frequently appears at official functions as an expert on the Constitution and American history. In 1994, he spoke at an inaugural function for [then] Virginia Governor George Allen and was the featured speaker at the ‘Commonwealth Prayer Breakfast’ sponsored by Pennsylvania state legislators. In 1995, he gave a series of lectures on American history to conservative freshmen Congressional Republicans and was featured at a Christian Coalition forum in Tennessee along with [then]Tennessee Governor Don Sundquist. Barton is also a popular speaker at both state and national Christian Coalition events, and his books and videos are in wide circulation. Christian Coalition leader Bob McClellan of El Cajon, California says ‘David Barton’s products have been invaluable in furthering the principles of the Christian Coalition strategy in San Diego. Emblematic of his growing role in political life, Barton was a Texas delegate to the 1996 presidential nominating convention in San Diego, and served on the platform committee.” (pgs 17-18)
But as long as we are putting together a Barton file, probably no one has done more to research and debunk Barton’ distorted and often false version of American history than Robert Boston. His 1993 article in Church and State magazine, (published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State), Sects, Lies and Videotape: David Barton’s Distorted History is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand why Barton is better understood as a snake-oil salesman than, as he was described by Senator Frist, as a “historian.”
The false narrative that the U.S. was founded as a “Christian Nation,” and must be “restored” is intergral to political success of the Christian Right. However, the national media and most politically interested groups and individuals, continue to ignore the centrality of Christian nationalism to the ideology of the Christian Right, and Barton’s role as its leading proponent.
The media and the political community also seems to be ignoring the fact that Barton wrote a book on the strategy of judicial intimidation that we now see in operation in Washington.
Here is an excerpt from my diary of yesterday.
Ralph Neas, president of People for the American way also urged Frist, to disassociate himself from Barton, citing one of Barton’s books. From Neas’ description, the book sounds like a field manual for the current attacks on the state and federal judiciary by Christian Right leaders and their allies in Congress.
“Mr. Barton’s 1996 book Impeachment!: Restraining an Over Active Judiciary,” writes Neas, [is] “a 50 page handbook on how and why the right should push for impeachment of judges whose decisions they disagree with on abortion, school desegregation, homosexuality, and other subjects.”
“Clearly stated,” Neas concluded, “is Barton’s agenda to intimidate federal judges, noting that even if impeachment does not succeed, the threat ‘serves as a deterrent’ and would cause judges to ‘become more restrained.'”
If the media and the political community cannot focus thier concern on the author of a field manual for indimidation of state and federal judges, whose ideas are now being put into play by conservative and Congressional leaders… well lets just say I don’t get it.
Do you?
Me neither and that whole deal with Barton’s blueprint for dealing with judges that is now being done is just one more scary deal as if they are not all scary enough as it is.
And I have no hope of the media doing anything one this unless somehow the blogs bring it to their attention or lots more print reporters follow the story and force the media to pay attention.
well, I’m doing my bit, as is Bruce Prescott. and Jesus Politics linked to my orignal Barton post on my blog. But I don’t know if this is really moving in the blogosphere. Its my experience that most people don’t get the religious right, are afraid, and don’t want to go very deeply into this material. The degree of denial about all this is quite profound.
Keep blogging away and hopefully people will become more/more aware of what is happening with all these creeps and how they are trying to destroy the constitution…and our way of life.
Denial is a good term. Most people seem to be indoctrinated where any mention of religion is seen as a good thing so how can that be bad. It doesn’t make any difference is said religious person isn’t religious at all as long as they say they are. Yet it automatically confers respectability and decency on that person without them having to do anything to earn it.(and my personal opinion is that someone who I barely know tell me they are a good christian right off the bat…I run for cover fast)
I think we have to somehow take away these peoples ‘religious’ mantle and figure out way to refer to them differently. Calling them a supremist group who want to destroy constitution or something like that. Not a good example maybe but we have to take away their frame(as religious) and find one of our own
to describe them.
Aha, that’s where I read it:
I think we have to somehow take away these peoples ‘religious’ mantle and figure out way to refer to them differently.
Some are using the term “Dominionists” to refer to at least some of the extremists, the ones who want a theocracy and to have “God’s law” as the law of the land, and all that.
I am not sure that’s a good term, because it doesn’t have an immediate meaning to most people. One has to explain the term, who you are calling it and why. It has its uses, but probably not as a good way to refer to them in general In my opinion, anyway.
I don’t like the term dominionists either for reasons you stated. Has to be a more immediate term that everyone will get just from the name or term used. I’ve been trying to come up with a term or name myself for some time but just keep drawing blanks.
Radical Rightous?-just doesn’t do it. Course how I’d like to see them all refered to is something along the lines of ‘Radical M-fuckers against the Constitution and America as we know it’ but doubt that will catch on.
LOL, that may not catch on but it sure would be tempting.
I read in an article in some newspaper a while back that reporters were requested to refrain from calling them the Christian Right or the Religious Right or Right Wing Christians, because those were pejorative and gave a bad impression. The preferred term is Conservative Christians. That way, they get a sort of clean slate from all the nutty stuff they’ve done in the past (and freaking people out at that Republican convention and stuff).
And.. of course the media has complied. So, I make sure I use those terms at least, and try to avoid the term they want. Same with right wingers in general, actually. They are no more ‘conservative’ than I am, lol.
I refer to them as Puritans when speaking to young people, and Theocrats or Radical Religious Right in more public discourse. I also like neo-Christians or even post-Christians when talking to other moderate Christians. I also speak to young people using the imagery of the Church Lady from SNL becasue they understand it, and because almost to person they do not want the Church Lady in their pants.
What I call them in private is another matter.
I can only speak for myself but I think the problem is fear, these people seem so insane and so frightening that it’s hard to deal with. I’ve also had a lot of debates about the rr with politically minded progressives who can’t believe that religion can really factor that largely in policy making-they are intent on following the money on the grounds that money trumps all.
I am trying to learn more on the subject, without giving way to anxiety attacks and the urge to hide under the bed. I’m hoping your book will help me with this.
I hope it will help too, Vida.
You are right that many folks think that money is the only motivating factor, and that religion is somehow only a tool of manipulation. While that can be true, that view is the only explanation is also exremely limited, and frankly willfully ignorant of or turning a blind eye to the role of beliefs (call it religion if you will) as playing an important role in animating people’s political action. Does anyone doubt that authentic belief animated the activism of Martin Luther King? No? Then why not James Dobson and Don Wildmon?
Rationality and evidence requires us to look honestly at the role of religion instead of allowing our prejudices to govern our judgements.
Nice to see this followup diary giving more information about this guy’s role in things. Thanks for writing it.
I’m probably one of those who feel that while the religious aspects are one part of the story, and that possibly some or most of these people actually hold the beliefs, that it’s not the entire story.
Religion makes a good vehicle, as politicians, tyrants and so on have found out through the centuries. A vehicle to power, to control of the populace, and to great wealth. So, while I believe that there are definitely believers within this movement, I also think there are definitely just users, especially among the ranks of the politicians but also among the.. the.. I don’t know the term. I don’t think clergy is it, but the Dobson types, whatever they are called.
Religion also makes a good shield. As someone mentioned upthread, people are reluctant to say anything, because it is under a religious mantle (sincere or not). Thus, you have stories like yours that the media won’t touch, leaving people uninformed of the people behind the agenda. Freedom of religion and all that. I think that’s one reason why some seek ways to divorce the issue from religion, in order to open it up to more scrutiny. I don’t know how well that’s working either, though.
Also, of course, the media don’t want the religious on the right (or the left) screaming religious bias at them… because some very well meaning and sincere people don’t see the extremity of the beliefs that these others hold, chosing instead to fit the beliefs within the context of their own (not extreme) world views. Thus, they feel that an attack, or even a gentle expose of people like this man is an attack on them and their religion.
Interesting dilemma.