Earlier this month, David Barton delivered a series of presentations at Charis Bible College in Colorado on "The Principles of Success." In the very first presentation, Barton made a claim that we had never heard from him before, despite having listened to literally hundreds of his radio programs and presentations, when he told the audience that he played college basketball for a team that "set the NCAA record for two years in a row of most points scored" per game.
Barton was teaching on a passage from 1 Corinthians about the need to "strike a blow to my body and make it my slave" and whip one's self into shape in order to be a success and cited his college basketball days as an example.
"I remember when I was playing basketball, the college stuff that we did," he said, "we started every day with a five mile run, then we lifted weights, then we had an hour of racquetball, then we had two hours of full-court basketball, then we came back for another run. It wasn't particularly enjoyable, but in those years, our college team set the NCAA record for two years in a row of most points scored. We averaged 105, 104, 103 points a game, I forget what it was":
According to Wikipedia, the ORU men's basketball team led the nation in scoring in the 1972 and 1973 seasons. A search of the rosters posted on ORU's own website from the years Barton presumably attended finds no mention of him having been on the men's basketball team, including during the two record-setting seasons he specifically cited:
UPDATE: Warren Throckmorton contacted ORU directly to inquire about Barton's claim and a school official declared that "after checking with the Athletic Office, there is no record of a David Barton ever playing basketball for ORU."
David Lane declares that "we have allowed a holocaust in America and the government is defiling God's design for our sexuality."
Bill Muehlenberg is not happy with all these "reprobates" who "celebrate the very things our holy God despises and calls an abomination ... They are rebelling against God, and effectively spitting in his face as they declare that they know better than God in regards to all things sexual."
William Sullivan knows that "Obama is clearly a communist ... And yes, if you choose to deny that fact, you are ignorant and, willfully or not, complicit in its ramifications."
Finally, Peter LaBarbera is outraged by the appointment of this nation's first international envoy for gay rights: "The Shining City on a Hill which Reagan invoked has turned into a Smog-covered Slum spreading moral pollution under Obama. And his shame becomes our shame until we, the citizens of this once-great nation."
Earlier today, we noted that the American Family Association had released its own anti-Christian "bigotry map" in response to having been designated as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center several years ago.
The usefulness of the AFA's map is debatable, since is seems to just blindly designate every gay, secular, atheist, or humanist group as a bigoted anti-Christian organization without providing any actual evidence to support such a designation.
Nonetheless, the AFA's Bryan Fischer thinks the new map is a game-changer, crowing in a typically clueless fashion on his radio program today that the key difference between the SPLC designating the AFA as a hate group and the AFA labeling everyone else as anti-Christian bigots is that the allegation that the AFA is a hate group is false while the AFA's designation is true.
"They falsely accuse of us hate," he cogently explained, "but we accurately and truly accuse these groups of anti-Christian bigotry."
To make things even more absurd, Fischer then proceeded to accuse us at Right Wing Watch of being "apoplectic" and "almost frothing at the mouth" over the AFA's useless new map:
Recently, when the Somalia-based terrorist organization al-Shabab released a video calling for attacks on shopping malls located around the world, including Minnesota's Mall of America, the U.S. government responded by assuring the public that "no credible or specific evidence" exists that any such attack is in the works.
But former Rep. Michele Bachmann is not buying it, telling Newsmax host Steve Malzberg today that the call for an attack itself constitutes a credible threat, claiming that the shooting of two New York City police officers back in December was carried out in response to a similar call put forth by ISIS.
The government's reaction to the latest threat, Bachmann said, "is an absolutely apathetic, clueless response."
"The video from al-Shabab," she said, "that's the credible threat because that message is being sent to sympathizers to light a match and take action and actually have something happen at Mall of America. Don't forget, last fall, there was a call from terrorists for those who couldn't come to the Islamic State in Syria to join the jihad to take jihadist actions locally and that's when we saw that attacks in Canada, at the Parliament and also against government figures, and we also saw two police officers innocently killed in Brooklyn. That was in direct response to a call to take action":
There is no evidence that Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the man who murdered the two NYPD officers, was inspired by ISIS. Not surprisingly, the theory that he was inspired by ISIS seems to have originated from Alex Jones' InfoWars website.
Outraged that right-wing Christian business owners are facing the possibility of fines for refusing to serve gay customers rather than being allowed to freely discriminate in the name of religious freedom, Glenn Beck said on his radio show today that not allowing Christians to engage in discrimination is "the work of Satan."
"I can't change my religious point of view. I can't. Especially by force. I won't by force," Beck said, before declaring that "the Left just doesn't understand religion at all," which is why liberals refuse to admit that radical Islamic terrorism is rooted in religion and won't honor the right of Christians in America to engage in anti-gay discrimination.
"They want to shut Christians down," he said. "What is this, except the work of Satan?"
Ever since the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the American Family Association as an anti-gay "hate group" back in 2010, the AFA has vehemently objected to being designated as such. In addition to regularly attackingthe SPLC, the AFA has also taken a few half-hearted steps to try and distance itself from Bryan Fischer, who was almost single-handedly responsible for getting the AFA placed on the SPLC's hate list in the first place, in an effort to salvage its reputation.
Now, it seems, the AFA has decided to take a page out of the SPLC's playbook by releasing its own "Bigotry Map" which seeks to highlight organizations that it claims "openly display bigotry toward the Christian faith":
These groups are deeply intolerant towards the Christian religion. Their objectives are to silence Christians and to remove all public displays of Christian heritage and faith in America.
A common practice of these groups is threatening our nation’s schools, cities and states. By threat of lawsuit, they demand prayer removed from schools and city council meetings, Ten Commandments monuments stricken from courthouses and memorial crosses purged from cemeteries and parks.
Because of anti-Christian bigotry, private business owners have been sued and forced to close their business. Families and businesses that express a Christian worldview on social issues often face vicious retaliation from bigoted anti-Christian zealots.
Some members or supporters of these groups have committed violent crimes against Christians and faith-based groups. Physical and profane verbal assaults against Christians are methods frequently exercised in their angry methods of intimidation.
At first glance, the map appears to be pretty heavily populated, but a quick search of the actual groups listed reveals that the AFA basically just listed every atheist, humanist, or freethinker organization it could find, as well as the state chapters of national organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, SPLC, the Human Rights Campaign, and GLSEN:
We're honored to see that we here at PFAW also made the map as one of the groups that supposedly "actively engages in the complete eradication of the Christian faith from society, government and private commerce. These groups file lawsuits and use intimidation to silence any reference to Christianity from the public square":
Recently, David Barton sat down for a conversation with Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, California, during which he asserted that even Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer knows that the due process clauses in the Bill of Rights came directly out of the Bible and even mentioned this fact in one of his Supreme Court decisions.
"I was reading a Supreme Court case," Barton said, "and in it, Justice Breyer — and no one is going to accuse Justice Breyer of being a religious individual, he'll not be found guilty of that — and he makes the comment that 'of course we all know that all of our due processes clauses in our Bill of Rights came out of the Bible.'"
Barton said that Breyer even footnoted this assertion in his ruling, citing Volume 30 of "Federal Practice and Procedure," which Barton claims contains a sixty page explanation of how our system of due process came directly out of the Bible.
"There's Breyer saying 'of course we all know that the due process clauses came out of the Bible,'" Barton said. "We don't know that today":
As is typical when Barton makes these sorts of claims, he doesn't actually provide any information about the ruling in which Breyer supposedly made this assertion, making it all but impossible verify the claim that he has just made.
Our best guess is that Barton is referring to Breyer's 1999 concurrence in Lilly v. Virginia (emphasis added):
The Court’s effort to tie the Clause so directly to the hearsay rule is of fairly recent vintage, compare Roberts, supra, with California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155—156 (1970), while the Confrontation Clause itself has ancient origins that predate the hearsay rule, see Salinger v. United States, 272 U.S. 542, 548 (1926) (“The right of confrontation did not originate with the provision in the Sixth Amendment, but was a common-law right having recognized exceptions”). The right of an accused to meet his accusers face-to-face is mentioned in, among other things, the Bible, Shakespeare, and 16th and 17th century British statutes, cases, and treatises. See The Bible, Acts 25:16; W. Shakespeare, Richard II, act i, sc. 1; W. Shakespeare, Henry VIII, act ii, sc. 1; 30 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure §6342, p. 227 (1997) (quoting statutes enacted under King Edward VI in 1552 and Queen Elizabeth I in 1558); cf. Case of Thomas Tong, Kelyng J. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (out-of-court confession may be used against the confessor, but not against his co-conspirators); M. Hale, History of the Common Law of England 163—164 (C. Gray ed. 1971); 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *373. As traditionally understood, the right was designed to prevent, for example, the kind of abuse that permitted the Crown to convict Sir Walter Raleigh of treason on the basis of the out-of-court confession of Lord Cobham, a co-conspirator. See 30 Wright & Graham, supra, §6342, at 258—269.
You'll note that, contrary to Barton's claim, Breyer is not saying that "all of our due processes clauses in our Bill of Rights came out of the Bible," but merely that the right to face one's accuser is mentioned in the Bible, among other places. On top of that, the Bible verse that Breyer cites, Acts 25:16, consists of the Apostle Paul citing his right to confront his accuser according to Roman law:
I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges.