He sure fights a lot of strawmen. Anyone with any historical education regarding Jefferson knows that he was, like many intellectuals of the time, a deist. He certainly was not an atheist, and anyone who claims so is demonstrably wrong. However, Barton is just as demonstrably wrong about Jefferson being a Christian. He did not believe in a god that intervened in the lives of humans at all.
He considered himself a Christian in the sense that he agreed with many of the moral teachings of Jesus, but he did not believe that Jesus was divine in any way, or even that he was sent by any divine agency to bring a message to humanity. Barton is attempting to open the door for religion to operate as one with the state, and I think that this is an incredibly stupid idea. Like so many others who wish to meld religion and state, he seems to assume that his particular sect will be the one to gain influence. But this flies in the face of the history of religious conflicts in European history.
*
Well, you are saying he's not a Christian, but a Christian. I mean we all know TJ was not an orthodox Christian, did not partake in most of the rites and mythologies, but that doesn't mean he didn't call himself a Christian. TJ says he's a Christian, identifies himself as a Christian, but does not associate with orthodox christianity. Does that mean he's not a Christian, or not a Christian as most people identify with? I would say TJ is Christian-y and religious; a christian of a different stripe maybe. (Deism is a religious position and is DEFINITELY not atheistic)
But Barton, at
least in this interview, admits and agrees with all that, with at least what Jon put forth. Maybe Jon should have pressed more on that, but they seemed to have nothing to disagree with so... I mean isn't anyone shocked at that? Barton at the very least seems to be honest in this interview (maybe not the book, but the interview yes)
As for opening the door to merge religion and state, that wasn't really opened up in the interview. For the most part Barton seems to discussing pluralism and the government ensuring pluralism and not allowing majority belief to squash other religions, though I think Jon was correct when he said that allowing a student to pray "whatever he wanted" in a scheduled school prayer as "naive" because it just is. A school can purposefully pick a student who is aligned with a particular belief or lack thereof to lead the prayer and be protected, and that's part of the squashing of pluralism; I would be much more inclined for a school to ignore a prayer/moment of silence entirely and let the kids out five minutes early to do what they want to do, which is what pluralism should allow anyways.
Again as to Barton's book(s) yes he's a revisionist and probably wants to open the door to merge religion with government in a nonpluralistic fashion, but I didn't get it from this interview. I actually thought as far as identifying particular concerns from his legal side of the aisle was at least interesting and not antagonistic. At least for this interview. I wasn't expecting it.
*small edit of spacing of the original quote to make the quote not such an eyesore.
At the end of the interview when they got into the Blunt Amendment and were discussing "religious conscience" I think Jon smacked it down immediately though. No matter what conscience you have, you cannot allow it to withhold proper medical care. Religious conscience doesn't allow you to be an *******, particularly to your employees.
