A few months ago, David Barton and Rick Green invited early Mitt Romney supporter Jordan Sekulow onto their "WallBuilders Live" program to make the case why Religious Right votes can and should be excited about supporting Romney in the general election.
Sekulow made the case that Romney would nominate good judges, especially to the Supreme Court , and while that certainly appealed to Barton and Green, the fact of the matter is that regardless of how unexcited they might be about a candidate like Romney, their vehement opposition to President Obama meant that they were going to do whatever they could to see Obama defeated.
And that was more or less the argument put forth by Matt Barber last month in a column he wrote calling on Christians to support Romney primarily because Obama was so bad that no "Christian in good conscience" could ever vote for him or even consider sitting this election out.
Today, Barton and Green invited Barber on to the program to make this case to the WallBuilders listeners and the general consensus among all three was that it was a sin for any Christian not to vote for Mitt Romney:
Barber: We are admonished in Scripture to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Now the wise thing to do is to go in and support Mitt Romney because, again, the alternative is catastrophic.
Green: Absolutely. And like you said, not voting is not only a dereliction of duty, it's really anti-Biblical. It's actually being the servant, remember the parable where they gave the talents? It's being the one that buried their talent. Well that was described in the Bible as being a wicked and slothful servant. I don't want to be that one, man, I want to be one of the other guys.
Barber: Well, absolutely. Well, it's worse than that; not voting is essentially a vote for Barack Obama because it fails to cancel out a vote for Barack Obama so it's absolutely a dereliction of duty.
Barton: I don't care if Romney calls himself a Mormon [and] Obama calls himself a Christian. Here's my question: where are you on judges, because Isaiah 1:26 says the righteousness of a land is determined by the judges of the land. Who's more biblical on judges? Romney or Obama?
Green: No question, Romney.
Barton: Let's ask marriage, who's more biblical on marriage? Romney or Obama?
Green: Romney, no question.
Barton: Let's ask where we are on the life issue, who's more biblical? Romney or Obama?
Green: Not even close. Obama supports infanticide he's so pro-abortion. Romney has become very pro-life.
Barton: We know the free enterprise system was started out of five verses in the Bible, the whole economic system that God created we used in America. Who's more biblical on the free enterprise system, Obama or Romney?
Green: Obama's a socialist without question on free enterprise. Romney's a great example on true biblical free enterprise.
Barton: So why do we have a question here? Because he's a Mormon? Hey, we've got to get past labels. Just like Obama's Christian label means nothing, Romney's Mormon label means nothing. What matters is the fruit, which one is going to produce more biblical fruit ...
There's only two options Christians have. Christians do not have the option of sitting this one out. You do not have that option, it is not a possibility. You will stand before God and He will say "I gave you your vote, what did you do with your vote?" And we can't just say "well, I chose to sit this one out."
Green: Especially in a situation like this where so much is at stake. What's the verse, when you know what to do and you do nothing? That's sin!
Barton: James 4:17; when you know what's right to do and you don't do it, that is sin.
A few weeks ago, we posted a clip of Bryan Fischer rewriting American history in order to claim that the American Revolution was not a rebellion because, according to the Bible, rebellion against governing authorities is rebellion against God since Romans 13 says that all governing authorities have been established by God.
We see this sort of re-framing American history quite often from the Religious Right, mainly because their entire worldview depends on it. Since, in their view, America was founded by God and established for the propagation of Christianity, then everything good that has happened has been because Christians were following the Bible while everything bad was a result of not having Christians in charge and not following the Bible.
We see this mentality at work in the way the Religious Right proclaims that it was Christians who ended slavery and in the assertion that they are the ideological descendents of civil rights champions like Martin Luther King Jr.
How a movement dominated by Southern conservative Christian fundamentalists has managed to convince itself that it is the modern-day bearer of MLK's legacy has always been something of a mystery to us. After all, if fundamentalist Christians were the ones championing the Civil Rights struggle, then who were the ones standing in the way and turning the fire hoses on the activists?
Ladies and gentlemen, who was it that abolished the institution of slavery? It was the Republican Party, it was a Republican President, it was a conservative who abolished the institution of slavery.
Who was it that filibustered the Civil Rights Acts in the Sixties? It was liberals, it was progressives. It was conservative Republicans that voted in greater percentages that voted for the Civil Rights Act then Democrats did.
Who where the ones that were standing hosing people off with fire hoses? Those were Democrats, those were liberals that were doing that.
Last week the Department of Health and Human Services announced a relaxation of some work requirement contained in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act in an effort to give "states and localities [more] flexibility administering it so they can experiment with ways to improve the number of people making the jump from government assistance to jobs."
Today on his radio program, Bryan Fischer absolutely flipped out over the change, claiming that it was an effort by President Obama to win re-elections by getting "more people helpless, abjectly dependent upon him as if he were the slave owner of a plantation and they were working in his cotton fields."
The move, Fischer declared, was illegal and unconstitutional, demonstrating that Obama is a "lawless president" who is like a "street thug" who takes a "perverse delight" in destroying America "just like juvenile delinquents just destroy stuff just for the sheer pleasure of destruction":
We have a lawless president. This guy, he reminds me of a juvenile delinquent is really what he reminds me of. He's like a street thug where there are no laws, there are no rules that apply to him. He feels like he can do whatever he wants, he can take whatever he wants, he can ignore whatever he wants. Really, he has the mindset of a juvenile delinquent. He is destroying America, he is dismantling the structure of America, he is dismantling and destroying American values and he seems to be taking a perverse delight in doing so just like juvenile delinquents just destroy stuff just for the sheer pleasure of destruction.
In between fretting that the United States was on the verge of permanent collapse due to the policies of President Obama and the poor moral/spiritual state of the nation in general, Grudem was asked by Ryan Dobson just what he should say to people who think that just because something is legal that makes it okay. The question prompted Grudem to respond that just because something is legal, that doesn't make it moral ... just as our nation allows freedom of religion, but that doesn't mean it is "morally right" for people to be Muslims or Buddhists:
Ryan Dobson: When I speak around the country to all ages, I talk about the difference between legal and right; just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. And oftentimes I hear from churchgoers "well, that's what the law is, what am I supposed to do?" And at what point can a believer say just because it's legal doesn't make it right and I'm going to do what's right even if it's illegal.
Grudem: Well, there are two questions. One is does God require of us more than the civil laws demand? Sure. Our nation, for instance, allows freedom of religion so it's legal to have a Muslim mosque or a Buddhist temple but that doesn't mean it's morally right for people to seek to come to God that way because you and I believe, Ryan, that we only come to God through knowing Jesus Christ as Savior. So there are things that are allowed that are not what God wants us to do.
On his program yesterday, Bryan Fischer was discussing the study produced by professor Mark Regnerus purporting to show that children of same-sex parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents and the news that the University of Texas would be conducting an investigation into his study, seeing the latter as proof that "the homosexual lobby is vicious, they are venomous, [and] they are filled with hatred."
During the discussion, Fischer cited the study as evidence that children in same-sex homes are at a higher risk for sexual molestation, prompting him to declare that any parent "who goes into the homosexual lifestyle after siring children" should be denied custody and only allowed to have supervised visits with their children:
As we noted in our earlier post about David Barton today, he has a rather serious problem with accurately presenting information, especially in situations where misrepresenting that information better suits his religious/political agenda.
Case in point, during last Friday's program, Barton went off on his new favorite topic about the ways in which know-nothing government bureaucrats are interfering with the lives and work of average Americans in cumbersome and absurd ways. To prove his point, Barton cited a supposed situation in which the Department of Agriculture shut down shows featuring Tennessee Walking Horses solely because these government bureaucrats thought "it looks strange to us" and must be damaging the horses, even though they had no idea how to actually check a horse's hoof in the first place:
That is Barton's version of the story, which you can compare to the real version of the story involving undercover video filmed by the Humane Society showing trainers routinely beating and torturing horses in order train them to walk in this distinctive manner:
The Humane Society of the United States released undercover video Thursday of a Tennessee Walking Horse trainer abusing the animals in order to accentuate their well-known high leg kick.
The practice, known as “soring,” involves using chemicals on the horses ankles as a way to force them, because of pain, to lift their legs higher when they walk ... Soring has been illegal under the federal Horse Protection Act since 1970. But Keith Dane, director of equine protection for the Humane Society, said it has “continued unabated for the past 42 years.”
The video, shot over seven weeks last year by an undercover humane society investigator, shows trainers at a Collierville, Tenn., farm applying the chemicals to the horses, whipping them, shocking them in the head and hitting their legs with wooden sticks. At points, horses in the video struggle to stand up.
The USDA responded by mandating that inspecting organizations levy fines on those who violate this law; a move that prompted a lawsuit from the industry.
So it was not just a bunch of DC bureaucrats shutting down a legitimate business operation because they just thought the whole thing was kind of weird but rather an order to impose fines in response to leading trainers being caught engaging in illegal practices that injured horses.
As we have said several times before, if Barton cannot be relied upon to accurately relate information pertaining to situations that anyone with access to Google can easily check and verify, how can anyone trust the arcane claims he makes about early American history?
It is no secret that we regularly listen to "WallBuilders Live" as part of our monitoring, and we do so because that is where we learn interesting things from David Barton like how people are on welfare because they are not reading the Bible, how prayer stopped the BP oil spill in the Gulf, and that there are no grocery stores in the city of Detroit.
But not every episode contains these sort of informative nuggets because sometimes Barton and co-host Rick Green dedicate the program to talking with our nation's veterans about their harrowing experiences fighting in past conflicts. Today was one of those days, and though the program was actually rather interesting, these types of episodes generally don't produce much that is of use to us in terms of blog content - except in this case Barton and Green gave us a nice shout-out at the end while bizarrely taking delight in the fantasy that we would be extremely uncomfortable listening to this show about "a guy who loves God and country":
Barton: We got to do a little shout-out to our listeners that nobody knows about: Right Wing Watch. I mean, these are the radical left social guys and they listen to every program and these are the kind of programs that drive them crazy. I mean, what do you do with a guy who loves God and country, etc ... 'cause they're always beating on us - and by the way, in addition to them doing all their little releases, they always find a little clip here and there out of our program they can release to the Huffington Post. I also, and you may not know this, I made the top 25 this year - I think it's the top 25 for the Southern Poverty Law Center and I'm apparently one of the 25 greatest terrorist, domestic terrorists in America 'cause just way too much of this God/country kind of stuff, you know patriotism now makes you a terrorist.
Green: Well congratulations.
Barton: So I'm curious to see how Right Wing Watch is going to handle a program like this where you've got such patriotism because now patriotism makes you a domestic terrorist.
Green: Yeah, because we're loving our country more than some other country, we're honoring the sacrifices ...
Barton: Yeah, we're not trying to be like France or Europe or those guys, yeah, you're right. What can we say?
Green: Well, sometimes I like to irritate people, so let's irritate Right Wing Watch a little bit with honoring these guys!
For what it is worth, it is not episodes such as this in which WWII vets recount their experiences serving in combat that irritate us - both of my grandfathers served in WWII, after all - it is Barton's flagrant misrepresentations that irritate us; misrepresentations like claiming that he was listed among "the 25 greatest domestic terrorists" when, in reality, he was merely included in a SPLC report highlighting "30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right."
Only in Barton's warped view is a SPLC article proof that "patriotism makes you a domestic terrorist" while our efforts to point out his incessant lies means that we harbor some sort of absurd hatred for our nation's veterans.
A 700 Club viewer asked Pat Robertson today if he should marry his Muslim girlfriend of three years even though he is a Christian, to which Robertson responded, “no way.” “She wants to do her Muslim thing and you want to do your Christian thing,” Robertson said, “walk away.” He urged him to pray for her to become a Christian, “and if that doesn’t work say, ‘I’m sorry, good bye.’” Robertson, who is no fan of Muslims, explained that it isn’t necessarily Christ-like to be “nice and friendly” as “he’s not gentle Jesus, meek and mild, he really isn’t.”
As Brian noted in the last post, the Religious Right is hard at work trying to link the abuse scandal at Penn State to homosexuality and it is no surprise to see the AFA's Bryan Fischer making the connection as well, declaring that the lesson to be taken from the Freeh Report is that gays must be kept out of the Boy Scouts:
The St. Louis based pharmacy benefits manager Express-Scripts told the Center for Media and Democracy today that it had terminated its relationship with ALEC. The move was confirmed by Express Scripts head of Communications David Whitrap.
The disclosure comes at the end of a busy week for corporate defections from ALEC. On Tuesday, Express-Scripts competitor CVS announced it was cutting ties, along with four other corporations, including Hewlett-Packard Co., Best Buy, and MillerCoors LLC. In a statement, PFAW Foundation President Michael Keegan applauded the news:
The decision by these five companies to leave ALEC is an important step to do right by their customers. Their competitors who have yet to quit should know that the American people won’t forget who continues to underwrite ALEC’s agenda at our expense. Fortunately, more and more corporations, nonprofits and organizations are withdrawing their memberships. As a result, ALEC’s ability to push its dangerous agenda through our statehouses diminishes every day.
As more companies follow their competitors out of ALEC, the campaign to get corporations to ditch ALEC gains even more momentum. Those who stay with the organization will have to justify their support of an extreme anti-consumer agenda to their customers.
PFAW Foundation has taken an active role in exposing ALEC’s stealth role in promoting conservative legislation at the local, state, and federal level.
A comprehensive list of the corporations who have cut ties with ALEC can he found here.
Jerry Boykin is best-known around here for being a militantly anti-Islam Religious Right activist who likes to spread all sorts of conspiracy theories about how the Council on Foreign Relations intentionally triggered a global economic crisis in order to help Barack Obama win the election so that he could establish an army of Brownshirts loyal only to him though the passage of Health Care Reform.
So obviously this is exactly the sort of man that the Family Research Council wants overseeing its day-to-day operations, which is why FRC has named Boykin its new Executive Vice President:
Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin has been appointed Family Research Council's executive vice president, the organization announced Friday at a press event. Besides overseeing the day-to-day operations at FRC, Boykin's extensive military experience will provide the organization with greater expertise to address social issues in the military.
UPDATE: FRC has released an official announcement:
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins is pleased to announce today that Lt. Gen. (USA Ret.) William G. "Jerry" Boykin has joined Family Research Council as its Executive Vice President. In this role, he will oversee day-to-day operations including policy, finance, development, communications, human resources, facilities, information technology, constituent communications and services.
Of Boykin, Perkins said:
"We are very excited and pleased to announce that Lt. General Boykin is joining Family Research Council's leadership team," said FRC President Tony Perkins, a Marine veteran. "The depth of his leadership skills, forged under the most demanding circumstances, combined with his passion for faith, family and freedom, will greatly enhance FRC's effectiveness and impact in Washington and beyond."
General Boykin was one of the original members of the U.S. Army's Delta Force. He was privileged ultimately to command these elite warriors in combat operations. Later, Jerry Boykin commanded all the Army's Green Berets as well as the Special Warfare Center and School. His last four years in the Army were spent in Washington, D.C. as the U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.
"I am honored to join the country's premier Christian public policy organization dedicated to strengthening the family, defending life and advancing freedom," said Boykin. "As I ponder the future that my six grandchildren will grow up in, I realize how important it is that I do my part to restore the values that made America a great nation. This is why I am honored to help advance Family Research Council's mission of faith, family and freedom."
Additionally Lt. Gen. Boykin will assist FRC in its expanded role of advocating for the men and women who continue to serve in our nation's military.
"The Obama administration has undermined our nation's security and increased the risk to those who serve by systematically using our nation's military to advance a liberal social agenda. There is no one better equipped to speak on behalf of those who serve our nation in uniform and advocate for policies that uphold our national security than General Boykin," concluded Perkins.
Recently, the "ex-gay" organization Exodus International shocked the Religious Right when it announced that it would no longer promote so called "reparative therapy" which claims to help gays change their sexual orientation.
The announcement has, not surprisingly, angered professional anti-gay activists and today Linda Harvey lashed out at Exodus president Alan Chambers, saying that his admission that he still struggles with same-sex attraction demonstrates "very poor judgment" and blasting the idea that gays can be Christians because the Christian Church would never welcome a "compassionate pedophile":
The group's president, Alan Chambers, has been under a firestorm of criticism lately because of several statements he has made lately that reflect poorly on his understanding of the basics of Christian faith.
For one, Chambers has said he doesn't believe a person can change his or her so-called sexual orientation. Now, there's not anything like this invented term called "sexual orientation" in Scripture in the first place, but then he also says that he still struggles himself with sexual feelings for other males. This shows very poor judgment as the leader of this ministry to, first of all, be experiencing this and secondly, to announce it to the whole world.
Of course a person can leave homosexuality; there are thousands of people who have done it and God's word clearly states that he can deliver us from sin. And the proud, open sinner who is publicly proclaiming it as good in defiance of God's word? It is highly questionable that such a person is saved.
We would not be making this exception for well-adjusted adulterers would we? How about a compassionate pedophile? What about incest like two brothers involved in homosexuality? Why not just defy God's word on this?
This is plain old rebellion and worship of self and our own impulses, not the worship of our Creator and Savior. Please join me in praying for Alan Chambers and Exodus, but also in praying for Alan's influence to diminish unless he recants this untruthful misrepresentation of the Gospel.
Televangelist and former Gingrich faith coalition co-chair Michael Youssef is continuing his virulent attacks on the Episcopal Church, writing today that the church’s newly adopted LGBT-inclusive policies will lead the church to ultimately embrace pedophilia and proves that the church is not Christian but Satanic:
Episcopalian leaders continue to guide their denomination into the abyss -- and no doubt, the Presbyterians (PCUSA) will soon follow.
The Episcopal denomination's General Convention voted this week to make it illegal to "discriminate against anyone." Specifically, that means it is now illegal to "... bar from the priesthood people who were born into one gender and live as another or who do not identify themselves as male or female."
Readers of my columns and other pieces may remember my prediction that this fast train into the pit would not stop just with practicing homosexuals. It will inevitably lead all the way to pedophilia.
I cannot help but think of Jesus' words: "Wide is the gate that leads to destruction." Those words became poignant when I read the jubilant quotefrom one of the Episcopal leaders:
It is not just a good day for transgender Episcopalians and their friends, families and allies. It is a good day for all of us who are part of a church willing to take the risk to continue to draw the circle wider as we work to live out our call to make God's inclusive love known to the whole human family," the Rev. Susan Russell, a deputy from the Diocese of Los Angeles and an activist who supported the legislation, said in a statement.
That wide "circle" is certainly the wide gate that Jesus talked about. It is the place where people can enter with all their baggage, but then they proceed to go over the cliff of eternal destruction. If this decision doesn't cause Bible-believing Anglicans (who represent 90 percent of Anglicans worldwide) to sever ties with the Episcopal Church, I don't know what will.
For years, some of us have said that the Episcopal Church has ceased to be the Church of Jesus Christ. But if you're no longer the Church of Jesus Christ, then whose church are you?
There are only two ways -- God's and Satan's. There are only two kingdom's -- God's and Satan's. And there are only two churches -- God's and Satan's. For any faithful worshipper of Jesus Christ, there can be no doubt as to which camp the Episcopal Church now belongs.
As we have noted several dozen times before, David Barton has something of a problem with telling the truth. And we have not been the only ones making note of it, especially since the release of his "The Jefferson Lies" book has prompted Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter to write an entire book questioning his claims while other Jefferson scholars have criticized Barton's shoddy scholarship.
Now it appears that Barton has gotten fed up, as he posted a response to his critics on the WallBuilders website in which he basically says that all his snooty academic critics are just jealous that he has written a bunch of best-selling books while nobody reads their boring works:
I have penned numerous best-selling history works, and characteristic of each is a heavy reliance on primary-source documentation ... Not many individuals in America have read more original works (or fewer modern ones) than I have; and the general public has responded enthusiastically to this history based on original documentation... [T]ypical history works by modern elitist professors generally sell very poorly; and seeing their own influence wane, they often lash out and condescendingly criticize the more popular documentary works.
A common mantra for today’s academics is “Publish or die.” Believing that if they are not publishing something new that their academic career is regressing, they therefore regularly “discover” something they believe to be a new revelation on some obscure micropoint of history, and then, as if having received an earth-shattering revelation, write an article or book giving their personal opinions about it. Significantly, however, the public does not respond well to these works, for publishers claim that with few exceptions most academic scholars’ books sell only two hundred or so copies a year.
Barton is particularly angry with those smug "academic elitists" who dare to suggest that he is not an actual historian:
After The Jefferson Lies, rose to a New York Times best-seller, similar attacks were launched against it from academic elitists. I will address three of these attacks below, but first, I must tackle their oft-repeated talking-point that I am not a qualified historian – a claim they make to cast a shadow of doubt over all the facts I present. However, this charge, like their others, is completely false. After all, I am:
- Recognized as an historical expert by both state and federal courts;
- Called to testify as an historical expert by both the federal and state legislatures;
- Selected as an historical expert by State Boards of Education across the nation to assist in writing history and social studies standards for those states;
- Consulted as an historical expert by public school textbook publishers, helping write best-selling history texts used in public schools and universities across the nation.
The funny thing is that it is not only actual historians who don't consider Barton to be a historian, but Barton himself who just last year blatantly stated - and we quote - "I don't consider myself a historian; I just happen to know some things about it.":
The Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute has been tracking Savage U, the MTV show where Dan Savage offers sex and relationship advice to inquiring students, and has not liked what it has seen. It seems that the biggest complaint of writer Taylor Hughes is that Savage speaks directly and candidly about sex without pushing the abstinence-only-until-marriage message, but Hughes appears to be especially upset that Savage has “used the show to push the gay agenda.” How so? By having regularly “featured people dealing with LGBT issues, reinforcing in its own little way the myth that gays make up more than a tiny percent of the population.” Disturbed that Savage “often fields questions from gay or lesbian people during the show’s Q & A session,” Hughes goes on to label Savage a “Neanderthal” who is “barbaric and uncivilized”:
Savage has also used the show to push the gay agenda, of course. The show regularly has featured people dealing with LGBT issues, reinforcing in its own little way the myth that gays make up more than a tiny percent of the population. (It’s an effective tactic. About half of all Americans believe nearly 25 percent of the population is gay.) Savage interviewed a lesbian who is now becoming attracted to men, a man who used to date women but now is looking to date men, and a transgendered person in the midst of becoming a woman. He often fields questions from gay or lesbian people during the show’s Q & A session.
Surely his most recent attack on Republicans will only further solidify his role in the liberal media. On Monday, June 25, he attacked gay Republicans in an article titled “On Booze, Meth, Suicide ... and GOProud” stating, “like gay meth addicts who aren't satisfied harming only themselves, the boys at GOProud aren't satisfied harming only themselves. They want to harm other gay people—they want to harm all gay people—by getting Mitt Romney elected.”
Dan Savage is what his name indicates, barbaric and uncivilized, yet the liberal media accepts and endorses him because he is a cultural progressive. MTV and its ilk would give a Neanderthal a show about table etiquette, provided he hated conservatives enough.
As we noted last month, the Religious Right and their allies in Congress are very angry about a decision by the Defense Department to no longer allow publication of editions of the Bible carrying the official emblems of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.
Now, Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-MS) has sent a letter to the Defense Department on behalf of himself and several other members of Congress demanding to know "how the decision to revoke this trademark permission was made and what the Department of Defense is doing to ensure that the religious freedom of the members of our military is preserved and protected."
This morning, Nunnelee was on "Today's Issues" with Tony Perkins where we asserted that "this is just another example of government assault on religion" while voicing his outrage over the whole thing because "to say that you can't link your service in the United States Military and the comfort that you find in the Word of God is just absurd."
And it is absurd ... but that is not what anyone is saying, of course; the Defense Department is not telling members of the Armed Forces that they can't take comfort in the Bible, but merely that B&H Publishing no longer has permission to publish editions of the Bible that bear official military emblems. In fact, a B&H spokesman told Fox News that the company had merely "replaced the official seals with generic insignias [and the Bible] continue to sell well and provide spiritual guidance and comfort to those who serve.”
But for Nunnelee, it is proof that there is clearly an "assault on religious liberty practiced by Christians" which is designed to undermine the Bible: