Aug 11 2012

Barton Radio Co-Host Issues Challenge; I’ve Accepted

OK … I want this spread FAR and WIDE!

Rick Green of WallBuilders, David Barton’s radio show co-host, posted a post on his website saying: “If you can show me specifics that back up the image created by the critics innuendo, I’ll post it right here for the world to see.”

Link to Rick Green’s post: http://www.rickgreen.com/attacks-on-david-barton-same-as-tactics-of-alinsky-hitler/

I just posted a comment on Rick Green’s post accepting his challenge, which, as you can see in the image below, is currently “awaiting moderation.” I want it known EVERYWHERE that I accepted Green’s challenge.

Anyone who can help spread this through social media, other blogs, etc., please do it. Thanks in advance.



UPDATE: Rick Green has clearly been on his blog post since I submitted my comment, shown by the screen capture below of him responding to another comment. So there is no question that he has seen my comment, but it has not yet been approved and posted.


Skip to comment form

  1. 1

    Yeah, Chris!

  2. 2

    Yeah, but they’re looking for serious arguments.

    I kid. Rock on.

  3. 3
    Michael Heath

    I posted there as well, noting Chris Rodda taking up the challenge.

  4. 4
    Michael Heath

    Rick Green posted a comment in the subject blog post about one hour after Chris Rodda posted her comment which went straight to moderation.

  5. 5
    Chris Rodda

    Saw that, Michael … just updated my post with a screen capture of it as you were posting your comment.

  6. 6
    Brett McCoy

    I suspect there are a great many comments that have been kept in the moderation queue.

  7. 7

    Pathological ignoring of facts? Check.
    Unironic references to rightwing boogiemen? Check.
    Refusal to actually address criticisms? Check.

    Par for the course, really.

  8. 8
    Kyle V

    I can see Green rationalizing to himself that you’re trying to sell/promote your book in your comment, and using that as justification for not approving it.

    Chris: Instead of saying “I have a book that explains everything”, could you do a series of short blog posts to specifically cite and debunk claims in this Barton book? If he wants specifics, give him specifics (rather than a link to an enormous scholarly work). Heck, turn it into a blog series. Pick a claim from Jefferson Lies and respond to it, restricting yourself to maybe 1000 words. Then we can all say, “Here’s a specific claim that is unsubstantiated and why.” We can get a viral effect going if we can link to a blog post or series. We can’t do that with your book; many of the people that need to hear the truth don’t have the time/will to read your book.

    Help us help you. Provide us with a blog-length rebuttal of a specific claim that anyone can read in 10 minutes. Do that a few times, and we can spread the word and get people to read it.

  9. 9
    Chris Rodda

    Kyle V … The link in my post on Green’s blog is to a FREE PDF download of my book. I’m not asking anybody to buy anything.

    As for a quick post debunking something, I did post a good one from Barton’s Jefferson book to show just how incredible and deliberate his taking quotes out of context is:


    Right now, I don’t have time to blog any more than I absolutely have to. My priority is getting my book done so that my full rebuttal of Barton’s book is out there. So, people are just going to have to use whatever I’ve already got out there (which is quite a bit) for now. But I think the link I just provided above is the best one to use because it’s specifically from the Barton book in question.

  10. 10

    I’m immensely grateful for the good work you’ve done on Barton, and I understand you may be too constrained by your schedule right now, but I agree with Kyle V: They’ll use this as an excuse to dismiss you. Free distribution is a modern promotional tactic even when the artist or author intends to make money. I have no idea how effective it is, but that’s not my point; the point is, people do it all the time. And even if you have zero profit motive, they’ll claim you’re selling “An Agenda” and do a lot of general ad hominem.

    I’m also reminded of the recent sparring between Carl Zimmer and the DI; in that instance “read our book” was as specific as they ever got.

    I don’t think they ever would have treated you fairly no matter how much you catered to their possible demands. They’ll seize on every excuse and smokescreen they possibly can. I just think this is one of the more obvious ones.

  11. 11

    Oh yea? Like you’re going to actually change his mind with facts and evidence. There you go, thinking logically and rationally again.

    remember the old adage “You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into”

  12. 12
    Jafafa Hots

    Well, there are pro-barton comments that are dated and appear after my comment, which is in moderation.
    My comment was not rude or anything.

    So (like I have to tell you) this guy is only approving comments out of moderation that fit the narrative he wants told.

  13. 13

    I read Rick Green’s blog and, as usual after reading that type of blog, I was flabbergasted at the prevarication and circular reasoning.

    Green’s constant use of innuendos as he tries to poison the well against valid critics of David Barton who Green says use innuendos to poison the well against Burton’s concocted quotes of founding fathers in his effort to convince followers of the US being a Christian nation.

    I had to close my eyes and wait for the room to stop spinning after writing that last paragraph. Especially after experiencing the same, only much stronger, symptoms after reading Rick Green’s blog.

    With all the spin Green’s nattering produces he may have mastered the mechanics of
    zero-point-energy. If his writings were harnessed their “free energy” could drive a new era of perpetual-motion.

    I wrote a comment to Mr. Green’s blog asking him to “Present the controversy so readers can see and judge both sides.” Its a trite phrase, but his readers are well conditioned to respond to such whistle words.

    Any bets on if my comment will escape Green’s awaiting-moderation purgatory.

  14. 14
    Jafafa Hots

    He’s let some comments out of moderation, but not mine.
    I was polite, I was not snotty.
    At least not any snottier than HE is.
    I mentioned Chris’ acceptance politely and wondered if he would allow it through moderation.

    The only bad thing I can possibly see in my comment is that I ended it by parroting the phrase HE used.

    “Waiting, waiting.

    Bueller, Bueller?”

    I guess that made my comment too rude to let through.

  15. 15
    NateHevens, resident SOOPER-GENIUS... apparently...

    Posted on Facebook and tweeted. I get little, if any, traffic on my blog, but I’ll reblog this there anyways…

    Every little bit helps, right?

  16. 16
    NateHevens, resident SOOPER-GENIUS... apparently...

    I’ve reblogged it here.

    Hope it helps…

  17. 17

    And for grins and giggles, I posted on Mr. Greens blog the following: Which is ALSO awaiting moderation…oh joy!!!

    David29073 on Your comment is awaiting moderation. August 13th, 2012 10:14 am
    I have been following David Barton and “the Jefferson Lies” for quite some time now, and have read the criticism by Warren Throckmorton. I find those criticisms valid. I could begin by refuting David Barton’s claim about there NOT being a wall between church and state,(http://myloc.gov/exhibitions/creatingtheus/billofrights/billofrightslegacy/exhibitobjects/jeffersonreaffirmsseparation.aspx) but I doubt that you are going to even post this. I will say this, Mr. Throckmorton has written a point by historical point rebuttal to Mr. Barton’s presentation of history.
    I also have a question, why was Mr. Barton’s book pulled from Thomas Nelson publishing?? Couldn’t be because of this:“in the course of our review learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported.” (http://wthrockmorton.com/2012/08/09/thomas-nelson-pulls-david-bartons-the-jefferson-lies/) Just Asking??

  18. 18

    Oh…geee…my comment is no longer on the blog…wonder why that is??? Something about be confronted with the truth…or am I looking in the wrong place???

  19. 19

    Well Well, I did get posted on Greens Blog, and you, Miss Rodda, have support that was also published on the blog, right below mine. Guess this is not over. Today, Scott Lively published a defense of Barton and a scathing attack on Throckmorton,(http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/newsarchives.php?id=8239619) and it gets better, Bryan Fisher, that starlet upstanding non hateful Christen had a discussion with Barton about Throckmorton.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxM5OEo9HUo&feature=plcp) It’s going to get interesting. I stay posted and see if I can update as I do my due diligence.

  20. 20

    nice post……

  21. 21
    Mike Morrison

    I posted in that old blog, and in case it does not make it out of moderation, this is what I wrote:

    “Seriously? You started out this blog post by using Godwin? Come on! You can do better than that! Can you figure out why Godwin’s Law, while not a formal logical fallacy, is such a terrible argument to use? Perhaps because NOBODY is “like Hitler” in this post modern western society. Show me these “professional academic” types who support such things as wanting to see people burn for their religious beliefs or ethnic heritage. That’s a disgusting comparison to make. Especially when you, yourself, make the very same “innuendo to falsely defame those with which [you] disagree,” even while you defame people for doing what you yourself are doing as you speak!

    Not to mention, practically everyone has done this who has ever lived at least one time in their lives. Such negative innuendo to defame someone else is so common, that a comparison to Hitler is totally moot. One might as well compare ME to Hitler, because we both happen to have brown eyes. Or to compare virtually everyone to Hitler because those who have the ability to read happen to be human. Weak. And disgusting.

    I have one further point, that perhaps you may have heard once or twice in your travels:

    If this were a “Christian nation,” and Christianity were to be the “law of the land,” and the founding fathers were Christian; then why is it that god is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, signed by all of those great and famous lawyers, politicians, and statesmen? And why does it begin with the phrase in the very first Amendment: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, nor prevent the free exercise.”?

  22. 22
    Mike Morrison

    One more comment:

    You mention that you “debated with a professor from Baylor once over the separation of church and state.” Who was this “Baylor prof.”? When did this occur? Where did it occur? And in front of whom?

    You should really check out Steve Shives from Youtube. (Yes, he’s an Atheist liberal Nazi zombie communist!) But he has a series called “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist,” in which he picks apart a book co-written by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. One of the arguments he has to keep going over and over again (because they use it over and over again,) is the same exact argument you just made: a “history professor,” in which you “debunk/frustrate/embarrass” from a “leading university.” It’s practically formulaic!

  23. 23
    Mike Morrison

    BAH! Sorry, blowing up your comment section. You can delete #22 if you run across this. This was the full extent of my last post in his blog from two years ago:


    One more comment:

    You mention that you “debated with a professor from Baylor once over the separation of church and state.” Who was this “Baylor prof.”? When did this occur? Where did it occur? And in front of whom?

    You should really check out Steve Shives from Youtube. (Yes, he’s an Atheist liberal Nazi zombie communist!) But he has a series called “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist,” in which he picks apart a book co-written by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. One of the arguments he has to keep going over and over again (because they use it over and over again,) is the same exact argument you just made: a “history professor,” in which you “debunk/frustrate/embarrass” from a “leading university.” It’s practically formulaic! It is mind boggling just how childish such argumentation really is. And the more one sees it, the worse it becomes. It’s about as bad as an internet meme that will not go away that has been around for 10 years. Like Lulcatz. (Except that lulcatz are always amusing. Whereas, this tactic is rather boring and sophomoric.)

  24. 24
    Mike Morrison

    And finally, last comment I left on that blog post: About his use of the word “innuendo:” (UGH!)

    “Oh, and no. One last, last comment. (I promise!)

    You keep using the word “innuendo” over and over again, as if you are trying to sound as intelligent as possible, perhaps to pander to those less intelligent. Again, quite ironic that you would reference a quote of Hitler talking about the use of propaganda in order to lure the less intelligent! You using a big-sounding word over and over again panders to such a crowd. I really do not think that word means what you think it means, which makes your attempt at sounding intelligent so….I dunno….moronic. More intelligent people with a larger vocabulary than you are all quite embarrassed for you.

    “Innuendo” means an understated statement about a particular subject matter, without actually coming right out and stating the obvious. Google the term: “Sexual innuendo.”

    That is NOT what these “professionals” were doing with David Barton and his lies. They were actually coming right out and calling him a liar! Coming right out and stating something definitively is not “innuendo.” Quit using words that you do not know.

Leave a Reply