Buffman

<a href="http://www.saintsalive.com/freemasonry/fmyandsbc.2.html" target="_blank">http://www.saintsalive.com/freemasonry/fmyandsbc.2.html</a>

(Extract)
"We exhort Southern Baptists to prayerfully and carefully evaluate Freemasonry in the light of the Lordship of Christ, the teachings of the Scripture, and the findings of this report, as led by the Holy Spirit of God" (Ibid.)

And we say that if a Christian Mason truly did that he would honestly have to leave the Lodge.
(End extract)

<a href="http://www.ephesians5-11.org/wwjd.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ephesians5-11.org/wwjd.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.natcom.org/ROC/one-one/pullum.htm" target="_blank">http://www.natcom.org/ROC/one-one/pullum.htm</a>

(Extracts)
In chapter 2 Kell and Camp point out that "inerrantists" came into power in 1979 and elected inerrantist presidents of the SBC every year for the next two decades, thus solidifying their control over SBC business. These presidents selected the "committee on committees" that chose the SBC's board of trustees and members of other SBC committees. In time, "the loyalist agenda moved into every substructure, affirming the inerrantist agenda" while "moderates failed to develop a counterrhetoric to the claims of an 'error-free' Bible" (23). The problem with inerrantists in power, suggest Kell and Camp, is that Americans are seeking a church where "warmth, love, and nurturing experiences" are provided, yet the SBC "has responded with a corporate takeover emphasizing male-dominated leadership, obedience to doctrine, and the exclusion of those who disagree" (25).

Kell and Camp take up the "nature of [SBC] persuasion" in detail in chapter 3 (27). Here they explain what is involved in the SBC's rhetoric of fundamentalism, inerrancy, and exclusion with all of their sub rhetorics. Kell and Camp argue that, over time, women, homosexuals, Masons, and liberals have all come under "attack" by the SBC male-dominated hierarchy. They conclude that with the articulation of these rhetorics, "the political objective" of the SBC oligarchy "was the full and complete capture of the once proud Southern Baptist Convention" where "the faithful" were preserved and "dissidents" were expelled (34).

Alonzo Fyfe

Buffman:

Please write a book (electronic or otherwise) listing all of the popular quotes used in these types of debates that you are aware of -- and give their actual context and source.

Please include as many misquotes and false attributions that you are aware of as well and report the truth about any of those.

Please offer it to any secular organization of your choice to sell -- under the arrangement that you and the organization split the gross receipts between you.

I believe you would be doing yourself and the rest of us a great service.

Radorth

You're still talking about this one?:

I keep telling you, I don't have anything from Barton. All I have is the one which says Franklin says you don't have to worry being shocked by atheists in America, that atheism is unknown in America, etc.

Toto, I never once said Franklin wanted "atheists expelled from America." But I guess, since you would tell an outright lie to slander someone, you have to find a speck in other people's eyes and call it a log.

Hey, we all do it, my fellow hypocrite.

Rad

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

Barton's "questionable quotes" are already well documented and other quotes placed in context on several fundy atheist websites. Much has been written about his bad habits- more than he probably deserves considering he himself produced a list. Taking quotes out of context is done just as much by the other side. Buffman gave a fine example of it quoting De Toqueville. In fact one site I read takes both sides to task for it.

Rad

Radorth

Most founders were against slavery as were most Christians in the north. Permitting slavery was essential to getting a Constitution. It doesn't mean they had a good opinion of it. People were arguing about slavery and gender discrimination. Nobody was arguing about ANY of my questions.

Bad analogy.

But let's talk turkey. Would it be OK if kids were taught that virtually all the founders had a high opinion of Jesus and his doctrines? And that Jefferson called them "unsurpassed"? Or that Adams said "the Sermon on the Mount is my religion"?

Or that J.Q. Adams asserted that the American Revolution finally connected the principles of civil govenment with the principles of Christianity for the first time?

Is that OK, or no? I'd be perfectly happy with those kinds of things, but I suspect fundy atheists would go to the Supreme court to prevent such teaching, however limited in scope or factual.

A simple answer will do. This tap dancing is getting tiresome, not to mention the huge quantities of gratuitous ad hom which invariably means one side has run out of meaningful arguments.

Rad

SanDiegoAtheist

Not a founder BTW. John Q Adams was a child during the formative years - and quite a bit more Christian than many of the founders.

Nope. No problem at all.

But you can't have it ALL your own way. If you are going to teach about the founders religion, you can't just paint one side of it.

You're going to have to also teach them that Tom Paine was a Deist who believed the Bible and Christianity a fool's tale.

You're going to have to teach them that while Jefferson found Jesus' character 'admirable', he considered Jesus to be a mere mortal, that he considered the miracles and fantastic events in the Bible to be completely mythical, that he was a Deist, and that he thought that reason, not faith, should rule in the affairs of man.

You're going to have to teach them a George Washington who never mentioned Jesus at all in any of his rather voluminous writings, nor who was ever seen to pray, nor who ever indeed acknowledged that he was a Christian. A believer in God certainly - but a Christian?

You have to teach them that the two people most responsible for the 1st amendment (Jefferson and Madison) argued for the STRONGEST amount of seperation between church and state, and that Madison in writing argued that even the Chaplaincy should be considered to violate it (the Chaplaincy incidentally predates the first amendment, and indeed the congress which created the United States Constitution - it dates from the Federalist era).

In short, you've got to present a BALANCED point of view...and that is exactly what Barton and similar revisionist authors on the write do NOT do in any form whatsoever.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: SanDiegoAtheist ]</p>

Radorth

Do I think Franklin would want to expell any atheists from America? No. Do I think Franklin wanted lots of Christians to come over on the boats and atheists to stay home?

Yes. I do. And anyone who interprets his own words otherwise is a fool IMO.

Rad

Radorth

How many is "many"? 10? Yeah, what the hell would the son of John Adams know about the founders and their motives anyway?

They already teach all that, except the part about Washington, which contains several errors. Are you seriously asserting that Washington never mentioned Jesus or that he was never seen to pray?

If you are, then you are either lying or you've been reading too much fundy atheist B.S, and are giving Barton a grand excuse to continue as he is.

Criminy. I don't believe it, but you heard it right here on Infidels.org. Where else?

Let's see if Daggah and Toto call you a liar. Oh wait. I should allow that they are just as ignorant as you are.

Rad

Radorth

OK Buffman, let's see if you are worthy of the bows given by fromtheright. Did Washington ever mention Jesus and was he ever seen praying? Here's your chance to get a bow from Rad, if you can find the sources I have.

Rad

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

SanDiegoAtheist

Provide me a citation, ANY citation, from Washington's collection which mentions Jesus or declares himself a Christian. To my knowledge, they don't exist - even though we have thousands of pages of Washington's writings, including his private journals.

Find me a citation from his contemporaries that he was ever known to pray, or be devout in any religious observences, or that he ever said to ANYONE "I am a Christian".

If you do, I'll freely admit that I'm wrong - but from all the evidence I've ever seen, any religion he had he kept solely to himself, other than that he certainly did believe in a God.

[edited to add]
Btw, last time I was in school (admittedly, it's possible that it's changed, but I doubt it), they made absolutely no mention of the founder's religion aside from the references in writing to "Nature's God", etc. in the Declaration of Independence. I certainly didn't know Paine was anti-Christian until I read "Common Sense" in college. Same for the others - in fact, I assumed the opposite - that they were Christian - simply because most people in the US have been.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: SanDiegoAtheist ]</p>