Are you recommending this book as someone independently knowledgeable about the relevant history? Or do you just assume that since its thesis, if accepted, would further some contemporary political goals that you favor, its historical claims must be more accurate than the historical claims of the other side? I lack the expertise to evaluate this book, but I do know that history written with the goal of providing propaganda ammunition for modern ideological controversies almost inevitably ends up heavily biased, no matter whose case it serves.
In any case, the idea that the modern U.S. First Amendment constitutional law doctrines and the controversies arising from them have any relation with its original meaning and purpose is fantastically ahistorical. Taking quotes from that period, to whatever effect, and trying to present them as having some bearing on the present-day issues is sheer propaganda.
Heavy questions for someone who merely wrote:
"This should be of interest to a few members of this forum"
To understand the potential for bias allows you to be cautious of it, which is good, but this type of critique can be counter-productive and a conversation killer. If a post as simple as this encounters this much scrutiny at initial submission, then we're going to have less and less contributions and discussion.
Methinks think that maybe you haven't thoroughly familiarized yourself with the standards and practices of this site. Those are pretty commonplace questions and are necessary if this site is going to maintain good epistemic hygiene. The people around here work hard to maintain a well-kept garden, and epistemic hygiene is really just another part of that. Community standards have a learning curve for the new user, but they also let you know what to expect before you present new material.
we're going to have less and less contributions and discussion
This has been the site standard for a while, so that doesn't seem likely. It is important not to ignore the value of scholarship when posting, lest we want to encourage a slip in the quality of discussion.
I am not an expert in history at all. Surely there are going to be some biased interpretations in this book; we are smart and we can discount accordingly.
I agree that original intent is ultimately a dead end, and I was previously even sympathetic to some Barton-type arguments. My prior for the U.S. Congress being more religion-friendly in the past was high, simply because religiosity in the past was so high. Before reading some of this book I simply would have said, "So what?" to the historical arguments of Barton and the like.
If you flip through the book, however, you'll see it has at least some value. Much of it is reminiscent of the Talk Origins Quote Mine Project, in which quotes are restored to their proper context, scurrilous ellipses removed, and shown to often have the exact opposite meaning as some historians claim. I can see how this sort of work can go bad, but more information is better regardless.
Also: Hey, free book. Why not share it? Get some opinions and discussion? Especially if there are any people with more historical knowledge than I on this forum.
Also: Hey, free book. Why not share it?
No book is free, because all books cost time. Why is this one worth mine? Its hectoring tone and its obsessing over the minutiae of just how interested the Congress of the late 18th century was or was not in remedying a shortage of bibles do not give me any reason to do more than glance at the first chapter. So, someone I don't care about is being wrong somewhere and someone else I don't care about has written a book to correct them. LW relevance?
A rational, appropriately meta, abstract deconstruction of the probable biases, trustworthiness, and relevance of the top post. Pure and clean and correct.
But the opposing sides of the argument aren't equal. The weight of bias isn't symmetrical. One side is much more wrong than the other. The obvious next criticism is 'reversed stupidity isn't intelligence'. Of course we'd like all sides to be less wrong! But the propaganda isn't symmetrical. The would-be theocrats have to distort more to make their case, because the truth isn't on their side.
There probably is value in the book. I doubt it is perfectly clean or fair. But I doubt it is worthless.
But the opposing sides of the argument aren't equal. The weight of bias isn't symmetrical. One side is much more wrong than the other. [...] The would-be theocrats have to distort more to make their case, because the truth isn't on their side.
Again, are you claiming this as an expert on the early U.S. history, or are you reasoning that since the "would-be theocrats" are further from the truth on contemporary issues, they must also be further from the truth about these historical controversies?
If the latter, it's a huge fallacy. I haven't studied this historical topic in-depth, but I have studied many others, some of which are commonly brought up in contemporary ideological controversies. In my experience, even in dispassionate topics it's hard to avoid oversimplifying and caricaturing history and retrojecting modern attitudes and conflicts onto it -- and when history is written for propaganda purposes, it's overwhelmingly likely to be distorted and biased to the point of worthlessness, no matter who does it and whose case it's supposed to advance. (This book might be an exception, for all I know, but what I object to is taking its value and accuracy for granted just based on ideological solidarity with the author.)
Not to mention that bringing up "theocrats" itself betrays a biased attitude. You may dislike the people in question and oppose their agenda, but "theocracy" is a reasonably well defined term in political theory, and what these people advocate doesn't satisfy this definition. Throwing derogatory labels at people may be an effective PR tactic in some circumstances, but there is no good reason to do it here.
And again, your statement is well reasoned and well justified. I don't disagree with anything you've written in particular. My point was weak, I don't hold it strongly, and I largely only wrote something in order to write something. To form a habit of participation.
Your statements are a perfect example of the epistemic hygiene I wish to cultivate. But the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
You were right, I am reasoning that because they are further from the truth on contemporary issues (in facts, but especially in truth-gathering methods) they are further from the truth (and knowingly lying) about historical issues. I am no expert in US history and of the apparent topics in the book, I have only read at length about Jefferson. Having considered my fallacious reasoning, I see now how my conclusion was unfair. And yet I still doubt I'm wrong.
Gauche Gratuitously Googled Grounds for those that would-be: Would-be-theocrats. The would-be theocrats are a faction of the Christian right in the US, though they are not the largest or the most powerful.
It also works as a case study of confirmation bias: ...
Definitely -- it's a test of whether LWers are going to jump at the chance to read a book about a topic, in preference to other such books, simply from knowing that it confirms their existing beliefs.
Not what you meant, but still... ;-)
Are you recommending this book as someone independently knowledgeable about the relevant history? Or do you just assume that since its thesis, if accepted, would further some contemporary political goals that you favor, its historical claims must be more accurate than the historical claims of the other side? I lack the expertise to evaluate this book, but I do know that history written with the goal of providing propaganda ammunition for modern ideological controversies almost inevitably ends up heavily biased, no matter whose case it serves.
In any case, the idea that the modern U.S. First Amendment constitutional law doctrines and the controversies arising from them have any relation with its original meaning and purpose is fantastically ahistorical. Taking quotes from that period, to whatever effect, and trying to present them as having some bearing on the present-day issues is sheer propaganda.
I am not an expert in history at all. Surely there are going to be some biased interpretations in this book; we are smart and we can discount accordingly.
I agree that original intent is ultimately a dead end, and I was previously even sympathetic to some Barton-type arguments. My prior for the U.S. Congress being more religion-friendly in the past was high, simply because religiosity in the past was so high. Before reading some of this book I simply would have said, "So what?" to the historical arguments of Barton and the like.
If you flip throug...
This should be of interest to a few members of this forum: Chris Rodda has made her book, Liars for Jesus, available for free online (pdf). The book is a debunking of modern revisionist histories written by authors like David Barton and Gary DeMar. Topics range from the obvious (no, Jefferson was not an evangelical Christian) to the less obvious (no, the Northwest Ordinance was not widely used to encourage religious teaching in public schools). It's a useful resource for those who, like me, are not well-educated in history. It also works as a case study of confirmation bias: chapter after chapter shows that the evidence for many of the revisionist claims is based on passages taken out of both literary and historical context, thus ignoring relevant counterevidence.