Toto

Sabine - we all agree that some of the founders were Christians, and Christians can believe in the separation of church and state. There's no problem there.

The problem is that the religious right is trying to rewrite American history to claim that the founders didn't really mean complete separation of church and state, and would have allowed a pro-Christian bias in government policy. Rad has come to these boards and posted some false quotes that have been manufactured to support this position, as if they were true. He has posted false information, as if it were our duty to do the research to rebut it. He is not engaging in honest discussion - he is not doing his own research or taking the time to read and understand what others have written. He has admitted to trollish behavior.

It is very obtuse of you to equate Buffman and Radorth, as if both of them need to compromise to reach some happy medium. Buffman has been honest and polite. Rad has been dishonest and has acted in bad faith.

If you haven't had the time to follow the discussion, that's okay, but please don't assume that everyone is a nice person and you can reach a good result by just splitting the difference.

Radorth

I think Sabine understands that. In fact I think she's a lot smarter and more fair minded than almost anybody here thinks. She's not exactly defending me either, is she? Meanwhile you, et al, continue to assert Buffman has no bias, and only the skeptics are being honest here, and that they have admitted wrong. That's crap Toto. I apologized for misquoting Freddie. I said we can all do a better job. I acknowledged I should not have put words in Franklin's mouth. Meanwhile you have yet to admit you misrepresented what Steel said and you that you changed the meaning of my post by inserting elipses. In fact, you've never acknowledged any mistakes at all as far as I can remember. I guess I can't live up to your perfect record here, no.

The founders meant what they meant, and virtually every time I give a troublesome quote, a skeptic says "Well they were just playing politics." Or, "Washington signed it but he never read it." How the hell do you know them so well?

I disagree because I don't claim to be able to read their minds. So what's the problem Toto? The problem here is you can't disagree to disagee and you seem to think the readers here are pretty dumb. I don't.

Actually I'd be OK with your rule if you didn't whine that the complete context wasn't supplied. Some quotes are pretty stand alone, but you'd complain anyway, even though you gave us 10 more or less stand-alone quotes once with nary a URL. No thanks. Why don't you go clean up your yard? Of all people, a moderator ought to be first to do so.

Rad

Toto

1. Yes, Sabine is defending you.

2. I do not recall representing anything about what Steele said - I recall giving you some links. I don't have the time right now to track it down. I do not claim to be perfect, and I appologize if I did misrepresent anything.

One place I probably was wrong was where I said from memory that Washington never mentioned Jesus Christ. The correct statement is that Washington never wrote about Jesus Christ in his personal correspondence. In fact, he signed a document (that you refer to) drafted by his secretary, that recommends Christianity to Indians. I do not recall anyone saying "Washington signed it but he never read it," but again I don't have the time to go back and check.

3. I did not change the meaning of your post by using ellipses. When you first claimed this, I quoted your original and the abbreviated text, and challenged you to show me how the meaning was changed, and you had no response. Yet you continue to repeat this as if there were some substance to it.

4. You say ''The founders meant what they meant, and virtually every time I give a troublesome quote, a skeptic says "Well they were just playing politics." Or, "Washington signed it but he never read it." How the hell do you know them so well?''

One way people know this is by comparing the founders' private writings and correspondence with what they said in public. (Or did you ever think of that?) This is how history is done.

5. The reason I want you to supply at least some URL is that you have a habit of not citing your own sources correctly, and you try to hide your biases.

Radorth

Yeah Rad really thinks this, and Rad really thinks that, yak yak

More mind reading in order to "explain" the problem. That is not the truth. I simply present that side of the story that I think is being most ignored. I do the same thing with Christians I think are biased. And of course I never claimed to be a "researcher" and I suggest Buffman thinks his readers are awfully stupid if they believe me over his supposed "scholarly, fair and unbiased" reporting.

So which is it Buffman? Are you all you claim? If so then are your readers too dumb to tell the difference?



Rad

Buffman

Rad

The problem here is you can't disagree to disagee and you seem to think the readers here are pretty dumb. I don't.

Thank you for admitting that the people on the Secular Web aren't dumb. I wholeheartedly agree. However, why would you contend that you don't think they are "pretty dumb" while treating them as though they are?

Just ask all those who have directed their responses to you to provide verifiable evidence for "ALL" of your so-called "troublesome" quotes...many of which I have found to be clearly misquotes for no apparent purpose other than to promote a specific religious dogma? Perhaps if you made a sincere attempt to respond to their queries of you, they might more readily accept that you believe they are not "pretty dumb." Just a thought you might wish to consider when you attempt to pass the buck by blaming the Moderator for your own limitations and biases.

Buffman

Radorth

Try to address at least one of the issues being raised rather than resorting to more "cheap shot artist" name calling. I am getting the impression that you think of yourself as somehow unique among humankind. If you are, you certainly haven't demonstrated that uniqueness to me. I classified you as just one more radical Christian apologist troll as far back as 2 Nov, 02. Since then, you have posted little that would cause me to view you in a more positive light. However, I will readily and gladly admit that I have gained new knowledge from tracking down your quotes and statements to accurate sources. Thank you for that fringe benefit.

Either the quotes and comments you make are accurate and verifiable or they aren't. I have challenged many of them and found them to be inaccurate, wrong or just plain propaganda. I am sorry if that distrubs you, but then, you never seem able to supply your verifiable evidence for their accuracy...now do you? Nor are you quick to acknowledge that the sources you use may not be as accurate as they should, and can, be. All I have observed is you attempting to denigrate the verifiable evidence of others or finding fault with the manner in which they challenge you. How truly sad when you have had the opportunity to demonstrate just how thoughtful and sincere some true believers can be.

Radorth

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Rad doesn't give people a chance to comment on his debating tactics. My my my. Really? Tell us more.

And you're a "moderator."

That says it all. I just hope you make plenty more foolish statements like that. I'll just sit quietly and laugh. You're agrandizing yourself into la-la land IMO.

Unbelievable.

Rad

winstonjen

He means that you complain when people criticise your tactics, and don't give them a fair hearing.

And what I really find 'unbelievable' is laughing at a moderator - you're just asking to be suspended.

Radorth

More palm reading. I'd prefer to talk about whether Madison himself wanted the Gospel spread around and why he was the only one of the "deist" founders who objected to a paid Congessional chaplaincy, and Bobby Kirkhart's semi-factual essay.

Why do you need to keep saying how wonderful Buffman is and what a schlock I am? Did I make a point somewhere, or are the readers just morons who can't tell a great scholar from a right wing human being hating false witness bearing disingeuous arrogant fundy bigot?

Nice way folks here have of "reaching" Rad. Hey, I thought Toto said we were supposed to give specific examples. Oh wait. That was another rule meant only for Rad.

Criminy. Keep it up. By all means.

Since it's palm reading day, perhaps the reason we keep going around in circles is because you need to hear yourselves say the same thing ten times because you don't really believe yourselves.

See? I can read palms.

Name two "separation" related subjects I have evaded, and I will refresh your memory.

I suppose I do evade answering some personal attacks yes. (If that's what you are talking about. I don't honestly know.) Sorry. Today I choose not to ignore them, as the amount of self-agrandizing here is just too tempting to leave unmolested.

Well it does look more and more like I will soon overtake Paul as the "chief of sinners."

Rad

Radorth

Well I must avoid doing that then!

Good Lord.

:banghead: Rad