Radorth

Anyway, getting back to something approaching a relevant question, I ask again, what would 90% of the founders think of the fundy atheist's tortured definitions of separation?

Would they care if a child offered a prayer to Jesus in class? Would they care if Jefferson's favorite Bible verses were pasted on every public building? Did they care if every kid had to read Pilgim's Progress? Would they care if the Ten Commandments were posted in all public buildings? Did they have a problem with people swearing or saying "so help me God" as a policeman? Indeed, would they encourage it? If the Boy Scouts didn't want to change their oath? If they didn't want Christian chaplains in government, why did they hire them?

Rad

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

Ab_Normal

[rant]
Children can pray in school, as long as they don't disrupt class! They can get together in between classes and pray together! They can even have religious clubs that are school sponsored! They just can't be led in prayer by an employee of the school!
[/rant]

Radorth

Gee. Gosh.

OK, that answers one question anyway.

Criminy.

Rad

Alonzo Fyfe

Would they care that some people were owned as chattel slaves? Would they care about whether women were excluded from voting? Would they care about people killing each other in public duals?

My point being that your question is only relevant to the historian, and, to some extent, a jurist.

But it is of no relevance at all to the person interested in the question of what the law ought to be -- the difference between good law and bad law.

A law requiring signs in schools that says to students "those who trust in God are members of the favored "we" group and those who do not should not consider themselves a member of this favored "we" group" is bad law.

A law prescribing a ritual of pledging to regard atheists as being as anti-American as separatist/rebels, tyrants, and perpetrators of injustice is bad law.

A law whereby students attend classes where teachers tell them "these religious rituals are government approved while those religious rituals (or nonreligious nonrituals) are not approved" is bad law.

And I am no more inclined to use the founder's opinion about such things in judging these laws good or bad than I am inclined to use the founder's opinions on slavery and gender discrimination to judge laws against slavery and discrimination.

As somebody interested in distinguishing good law from bad law, I find your questions irrelevant.

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

gravitybow

My responses were based on exactly what you wrote:

You are the one that coupled the quote to Barton, and indeed, Barton does use the quote. What you call an assumption is based on your own words.

I don't believe for a second that you don't know Barton. You both share the same trait: shoddy scholarship. That was hilariously evident in your page 5 "Interview with Ben Franklin." And I don't think any of us want to sit through that crap with "the other 50+ founders/ signers of the Constitution" you're mourning over.

What's more, you're a Promise Keeper:
You didn't have to own the book to get the quote. Promise Keepers feeds you this stuff.
Oh, right. You were dragged kicking and screaming into this thread while we stacked fagots just for you. I forgot.

I'll leave you alone now to inflict others.

Toto

Rad : as an example of your "lies", you did not give a source for Franklin's low opinion of atheists. You gave a reference to a source that I had to track down that said nothing of the sort. I then quoted Franklin's autobiography in which he notes that others accused him of atheism.

I don't think you're a deliberate liar on this point, I think you're worse. You are so blinded by your own ideology that you can't even interpret the words in front of you on the page (or the screen.)

Radorth

Ah, no, you are the one claiming he just makes them up. I have no idea. The only thing I know about Barton is that he produced a list of "questionable" quotes himself, which I found on an atheist website, and do not use except for one which has a pretty good pedigree. Of course no one can prove he made up anything, only that they cannot find the original source.

I was simply anticipating your tired and tenuous reply of "Barton manufactured it." Some of you simply use Barton's faults as an excuse to ignore the quotes.

But Christians here are often presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Rad

joedad

All rhetoric aside, the only person obliged to credibly document any such "questionable" quotation is the person using them. This is called accepting responsibility and being accountable. "Questionable" is the wrong word to apply to these quotations, as they are not like the results of a poll or survey. These quotes are "fraudulent" until Mr. Barton authenticates or retracts them.

Guilty or innocent until "proven" doesn't apply as I see the situation. If Mr. Barton did poor or no research before publishing them, he is obliged to correct his errors when they are made known I would think. Why would he not be so forthcoming? He would become more credible in my eyes if he did.

I know that sounds naive, and I certainly understand Mr Barton has an agenda just like everyone else, but to continue to call them "questionable" is to continue to be dishonest.

joe

gravitybow

And when asked for the example you offered, you refused.

Gee, I wish my college professors could have understood scholarship that way. I'd always get an A+ without having to produce a single reliable citation.

ie, putting words in my mouth without actually allowing me to examine your evidence...

...all the while ignoring my tired and tenuous request for the quote.

BTW, Toto:
Thanks for pointing out that Rad's vague reference was the closest he ever came to giving the requested information.

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

No, you impeached your own testimony.
<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

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

Toto

If anyone is interested in more information and less fantasy on Franklin's religion, I recommend <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1890849030/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Atheists, Agnostics, and Deists in America : A Brief History</a> by Peter M. Rinaldo.

He notes on p.35 that Franklin was a Freemason, a member of a secret society which referred to God as "the Great Architect" and urged its members to comply with "the essentials of religion" rather than Christianity, which allowed Masons to embrace Deism. Franklin appears to have approved of the practice of Christianity for other people, but kept his own views rather fuzzy.