History Revisionists

Religion and politics don't mix.

History Revisionists

By Gene Garman

Do not confuse them with the facts; they have already made up their minds.

There is abundant evidence that book writing Christian apologists do not need fact with which to write or sell their books. Please, understand, it is okay to be Christian and an apologist. The objection is to careless use of historical facts which eagerly get repeated by mindless or uncritical zealots and devotees.

Again, it is okay to be religious. The argument is with historical fiction being printed and sold as if it were scholarly fact:

1. Whitehead, John W. THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 1982. "Any law which contradicts biblical revelation is illegitimate" (p. 74). Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, believes in a "higher" law:

"The higher law is clearly expressed in God's revelation as ultimately found in the Bible. . . . The higher law values of the Declaration [of Independence] are incorporated into the Constitution by its preamble. If we recognize that the Constitution presupposes the Declaration and the higher, fundamental law to which the Declaration witnessed, then we will understand the Constitution. . . . If we see the Constitution as standing alone, and forget or deny that it presupposes the Declaration, we will misunderstand the Constitution" (p. 75). Where did Whitehead go to law school?

Whitehead cannot accept the words of the First Amendment as written by the First Congress and approved by the states. Therefore, says Whitehead, the religion clauses should be revised as follows: "The federal government shall make no law having anything to do with supporting a national denominational church, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion" (p. 98). Whitehead's revision of the words of history makes him a history revisionist.

2. Cord, Robert L. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 1982. The only comment necessary to describe this book is written by the distinguished constitutional historian Leonard W. Levy. Levy describes Cord's book as "mostly fiction masquerading as scholarship" (THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, p. 221).

3. Eidsmoe, John. CHRISTIANITY AND THE CONSTITUTION. 1987. In May 1789 George Washington wrote: "No one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution" (WRITINGS, 30:321). Eidsmoe asserts that "this statement summarizes Washington's view of the First Amendment" (p. 124). The First Amendment was not drafted until September 1789.

Eidsmoe's apologist enthusiasm also led him to conveniently identify the "Daily Sacrifice" as originating from Washington (p. 130). The unsigned document is not in the WRITINGS or PAPERS of Washington because its author has not been confirmed by real scholars.

4. Hart, Benjamin. FAITH AND FREEDOM. 1988. Hart declares the Declaration of Independence as "America's founding document" (p. 13). As everyone--except Hart and Whitehead--knows, the Declaration was signed by representatives from colonies which were declaring themselves independent states. The founding document of the United States of America is its Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence or the Mayflower Compact.

Hart quotes (without citation) Washington saying, "It is impossible to rightly govern . . . without God and the Bible" (p. 13). Washington never said it. Hart quotes James Madison (without citation) saying, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization . . . upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves . . . according to the Ten Commandments of God" (p. 18). Madison never said it.

5. Limbaugh, Rush. THE WAY THINGS OUGHT TO BE . 1993. Limbaugh misquotes the establishment clause and declares: "Only a lawyer could claim not to understand the plain meaning of those words. The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, . . . but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion" (p. 281, paper).

If the meaning is plain, why add "a state"? And, will someone tell the Mormons (REYNOLDS, 1879) and Native Americans (SMITH, 1990) Limbaugh has rescinded the Court's barriers against the practice of their religion?

In SEE I TOLD YOU SO (1993), Limbaugh copied from Hart the bogus Madison quotation (p. 73).

6. Barton, David. THE MYTH OF SEPARATION. 1992. At least twice Barton repeats the bogus Washington quote (p. 113, 150). At least twice he repeats the bogus Madison quote (p. 120, 155). Barton's source is HALLEY'S BIBLE HANDBOOK.

Another example of Barton's revision of history is his reference to Noah Webster as a "Founding Father" (p. 125). No history scholar would make that obvious error. Webster's dictionary defines a Founding Father as "a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787." Noah Webster was not.

7. Evans, M. Stanton. THE THEME IS FREEDOM. 1994. Journalist Evans' revision of the establishment clause from "religion" to "an official church" (p. 275) is unacceptable, unscholarly, and illustrative of a book which lacks significant "historical fact and relevant citation" (p. xvi).

Back to
Comments on Islam
Christianity in America

Visitors since
March 2002