No, The Republican Party does not need David Barton serving in the Senate

Christians, Tea Party members and Republicans need to avoid people with extreme views.

The National Review’s blog “The Corner” reports:

David Barton, an Evangelical Christian historian who recently made headlines for a controversial history of Thomas Jefferson, is seriously considering primarying Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas), per multiple sources. Rick Green, one of Barton’s closest advisers, tells National Review Online the following in an e-mail:

More than 1,000 (zero exaggeration, that is an actual number) tea party and republican party leaders have asked David Barton to run. Polling says Sen. Cornyn is vulnerable and that’s why he is running ads right now. Like America’s Founding Fathers, David Barton will not “seek” this office, but if the people of Texas speak loud enough in the next few days, he could most certainly be drafted in by the voters.

Another Republican consultant in Austin familiar with Barton’s thinking elaborates on that. “The conservatives are putting in a significant effort to get him into the race, and this is not a drill — he might actually do it,” the consultant tells me. “I think David is probably mulling the race because he’s getting pushed really hard to mull the race. If people weren’t really pushing him hard, I don’t think he would be considering it. He probably fits the one profile which would be really threatening to Cornyn.”

And JoAnn Fleming, executive director of Texas-based Grassroots America We The People, says that a number of tea-party leaders are slated to have a conference call with Barton in the next few days to discuss his senatorial prospects. “We need a Constitutional conservative in that seat,” she says. “We believe that Senator Cornyn has become part of the establishment and we don’t believe that his priorities reflect the priorities of the people of Texas any longer.”

Here is why I say this; David Barton holds to some of the same views as I, on some subjects. However, David Barton’s work and even his book has been brought into question, even by other Christians and political historians. Furthermore David Barton is a believer that America happens to be a Christian Republic. This is a gross error. America is a Constitutional Republic; nothing more, nothing less.

It is one thing to be a blogger or writer that holds to Fundamentalist Christian views, and have some of them to be considered extreme by some. It is another entirely to be a holder of these views and run for public office. I want my elected officials to uphold the constitution; and it alone. I do not want my elected officials to be operating under some sort of pseudo religious mandate. David Barton believes that there is no such thing as a separation of Church and State. While it might be true that the phrase does not exist in the constitution; Thomas Jefferson made it very clear to the Danbury Baptists that there was a full wall of separation between Government and Religion. This is why the pilgrims fled England, because the pilgrims were being persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church! Yet, people like David Barton want Christianity forced upon Americans!  

Anyone who says anything other than this, seeks to hijack the United States Government for a religious cause; which flies in the face of the founding principles of this great Nation of ours. Again, we must be alert for Christian extremists, who want to infiltrate our Government for their nefarious purposes. I want a free Republic, not the Christian version of Sharia Law in America.

9 thoughts on “No, The Republican Party does not need David Barton serving in the Senate

  1. The Churcxh Of England is not Roman Catholic. I also dont think the Roman Catholcis arw a tool of Satan.

    Also, Roger Williams called himself a Baptist, and Baptists were also Calvinists…

    1. pilgrims were being persecuted by the Church of England, not the Roman Catholic Church

      The Church of England WAS Roman Catholic! And the puritans were persecuted during that period, as well as after the Church left the Catholic Church.

      In fact, this from Wikipedia proves my statement:

      As a result of Augustine’s mission, the church in England came under the authority of the pope. Initially prompted by a dispute over the annulment of the marriage of King Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon, the Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church in 1534 and became the established church by an Act of Parliament in the Act of Supremacy, beginning a series of events known as the English Reformation.[6] During the reign of Queen Mary I and King Philip, the church was fully restored under Rome in 1555. Papal authority was again explicitly rejected after the accession of Queen Elizabeth I when the Act of Supremacy of 1558 was passed. Catholic and Reformed factions vied for determining the doctrines and worship of the church. This ended with the 1558 Elizabethan settlement, which developed the understanding that the church was to be both Catholic and Reformed:

      Catholic in that it views itself as a part of the universal church of Jesus Christ in unbroken continuity with the early apostolic church. This is expressed in its emphasis on the teachings of the early Church Fathers, as formalised in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds.[7]

      Reformed in that it has been shaped by some of the doctrinal principles of the 16th century Protestant Reformation, in particular in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer.[7]

      So, basically, the Church was still Catholic, they just were not affiliated with Rome. But, the rules and the lurgy were still the same. So, I was right.

      But, thanks for trying! 🙄

      1. So, The Church Of England is Roman Catholic becsuse its Catholic? Also, you do reslise that Catholic in this c9ntext mesns Universsk, right? The Church Of England is actuslly heavily influenved by Protestant Doctrines, and if you read the r9 Articles Of Faith, youd see where they are quiet different in many things , evrn repudiating the Catholic Church.

        That said, the Pilgrims weren’t as persecuted as we imagine. They als8 didnt lrave England for America just for Religious Liberty. The Truth is, they wanted to impose their beliefs onto the Church Of England, and the Persecution was little more than one loosing his pulpit ( the Pilgrims were actually Church Of England themselves…) and facing rejection and some ridicule.

        They went to Holland, but hated it because it haf too much Religious Freedom, and theu wanted society to run as they said.

        When they left Holland, went back to England, and then set off for the New World, they did do explivitly because they hated Religious Freedom.

        When they estsblished there colony, they also forbafe anyone not a member of thrir Church in good standing to vote, and even banished people whose beliefs they opposed strongly enough.

        The Pilgrims did not want simple Religious Freedom to Worship God according to the doctates of there oen conscience, they wanted all of society to conform to there Will.

        It was the Baptist Roger Williams who eamted Religious Freedom in the Colonies. He had been bsnished by the Pilgrims for being a Baotist and settked inRhode Island, then Petitionrd the King for a royal charter. This was granted, and Rhode Island Colony was born, as the first Colony with SeparTion of Church And State. This, and Kaws gurenteeing complete Kiberty of Religious Beleifs. It was Roger Williams, the Baprizt, not The Pilgrims, who we have to thank for this.

Comments are closed.