Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fromtheright · 10-16-2002, 08:32 PM

No, not a politico like Ashcroft, but McConnell will do nicely.

Buffman · 10-16-2002, 08:45 PM

Hmmmmmm?

<a href="http://www.au.org/press/pr091702sp.htm" target="_blank">http://www.au.org/press/pr091702sp.htm</a>

(Extract)
McConnell may be the Religious Right's dream judicial nominee, but he's a nightmare for all Americans who treasure the Constitution.

The president's nomination of Michael McConnell for the federal bench represents a terrible assault on American freedom. McConnell's record is one of relentless hostility for individual rights and a trivialization of long-fought claims of justice.
(End extract)

[Added]

<a href="http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=5676" target="_blank">http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=5676</a>

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

American Agnostic · 10-17-2002, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Here's a wonderful little list of quotes that David Barton HIMSELF admits are 'questionable' (not that he bothered to actually verify any of them during his book writing, and I somehow doubt he calls attention to them during his seminars, etc.)

Wallbuilders "questionable" quotes

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

Here's a great one that is thought to be authentic: Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."

Oresta · 10-17-2002, 04:52 AM

SLD:

Quote:

But the leadership however, was enlightenment deist. James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, can all be classified as Deists at best. And of course, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who may not have been there, but whose influences were still profound, are certainly not orthodox Christians. Name a real leader in the movement to create our Constitution who was not a deist - who was a more orthodox Christian.

If I may interrupt the excellent discussion at this point to pick up on an SLD's earlier post where the discussion was focussed on the religions of the Founders:
John Adams was no Deist. He was an orthodox Christian who later became a Unitarian, but that was after the founding years. Here is the Massachusetts Constitution, which was essentially his work. (Benjamin Rush and another Mass. Congressman left the task pretty much to John.) The document is laced with allusions not only to God, but to a Chritian one, and a Protestant at that!

<a href="http://www.state.ma.us/legis/const.htm" target="_blank">http://www.state.ma.us/legis/const.htm</a>

Quote:

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily

Quote:

Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one

Here's John's proposed oath of office

Quote:

Article I. [Any person chosen governor, lieutenant governor, councillor, senator or representative, and accepting the trust, shall before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.--
"I, A. B., do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seised and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."

Edited to tweak the UBB.

Washington is generally (no pun intended) believed by reputable historians to have been areligious, although he was free and easy with the God and Providence phrases.

Thank you for yielding the floor. Please continue this most excellent deconstruction on Barton.
Barbara

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]

Buffman · 10-17-2002, 11:42 AM

Oresta

"The floor always welcomes the accurate contributions of the Gentle Lady from Michigan."

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnst_ma.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnst_ma.htm</a>

(My use of an inaccurate preposition was driving me crazy.)

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

Oresta · 10-17-2002, 02:23 PM

I thank my esteemed colleague from the State of Florida.

fromtheright · 10-27-2002, 07:12 PM

Hey guys, I really am grateful for the info re Barton's fraudulent quotations, but I am curious about the chronology. In his website Barton says that he

came to believe that historical debates undergirding public policy should be conducted using a standard of evidence that would be accepted by courts.

and that

In using this higher standard, he discovered there were about a dozen or so popular and widely-used quotes by historians and others (David had quoted these sources with documentation properly footnoted in "The Myth of Separation") that he could not find in the Founders’ own writings.

Further, he says that the follow up to The Myth of Separation, Original Intent used original quotes and that

none of David’s antagonists have ever been able to point out a single example in "Original Intent" in which he "made up a quote." They cannot do so.

(1) Can anyone confirm if this is the correct chronology? Did he "come to believe" on his own or were the misquotes pointed out to him by Rob Boston or others?

(2) Are any of his quotes in Original Intent suspect?

While you guys are still a long way from changing my mind on this issue you have, with Barton's assistance, proven that he is not to be trusted, but I am curious whether, with the more recent book, he has "mended his ways".

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

Buffman · 10-27-2002, 08:53 PM

fromtheright

While you guys are still a long way from changing my mind on this issue you have, with Barton's assistance, proven that he is not to be trusted, but I am curious whether, with the more recent book, he has "mended his ways".

Might I recommend that YOU buy it (make him richer), read it and do your own critical analysis. The man is a proven liar. I have no need to prove that more than once, especially if you insist that you aren't about to reconsider your position on this issue regardless of the verifiable evidence.

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bartidx.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bartidx.htm</a>

Besides, I already exposed some of his most current historical revisionism...to which you made little comment.

Added PS:

Why don't you go back to page two of this topic string and spend some time learning from the Oct 16 entries.

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

fromtheright · 10-28-2002, 04:07 PM

Buffman,

To clarify, by "this issue" I meant CSS, not David Barton's credibility. You have certainly changed my mind as to believing Barton.

I made no comment as I have no disagreement with the points you have raised about him.

Might I recommend that YOU buy it (make him richer), read it and do your own critical analysis.

I suppose I will, I just thought that perhaps someone had already done so along the lines of the website someone pointed to in another thread as to the Unconfirmed Quotations from The Myth of Separation. I wasn't in a rush to send him any more money after being cheated with his sloppy/dishonest method in Myth.

I have now gone back and read the October 16 posts. Thanks.

Buffman · 10-28-2002, 06:01 PM

fromtheright

To clarify, by "this issue" I meant CSS...

Do you not see the threat to religious freedom of expression from a government that embroils itself in religion? If you don't, then you are not properly educated in the lessons of history.

Barton loves to claim that John Jay, the First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, appointed by Gearge Washington to that post, and one of the three men authoring the "Federalist Papers" said:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation
to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed.
(New York: G.P. Putnams's Sons, 1890), Vol IV, p 393, Oct 12, 1816.
Source of information, The Myth of Separation, by David Barton. pp 35, 297.

This is just one of the current radical religious right arguments offered to "prove" that America was and is a Christian Nation. You will find this quote on just about every Christian fundamentalist site. Is it authentic? Yes it is. But what else do you, or most folks, know about it and John Jay?

When was it written? To whom? About what? What were Jay's views about "Christian" Catholics? Does it have any legal substance/bearing on C-SS? Does the fact that Barton took it from another writer's book make it any more relevant? Just note the date of the original document and you will begin to appreciate why Barton can never be trusted.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

10-16-2002, 08:45 PM	#52
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Hmmmmmm? <a href="http://www.au.org/press/pr091702sp.htm" target="_blank">http://www.au.org/press/pr091702sp.htm</a> (Extract) McConnell may be the Religious Right's dream judicial nominee, but he's a nightmare for all Americans who treasure the Constitution. The president's nomination of Michael McConnell for the federal bench represents a terrible assault on American freedom. McConnell's record is one of relentless hostility for individual rights and a trivialization of long-fought claims of justice. (End extract) [Added] <a href="http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=5676" target="_blank">http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=5676</a> [ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

10-17-2002, 11:42 AM	#55
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Oresta "The floor always welcomes the accurate contributions of the Gentle Lady from Michigan." <a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnst_ma.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnst_ma.htm</a> (My use of an inaccurate preposition was driving me crazy.) [ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

10-27-2002, 07:12 PM	#57
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Hey guys, I really am grateful for the info re Barton's fraudulent quotations, but I am curious about the chronology. In his website Barton says that he came to believe that historical debates undergirding public policy should be conducted using a standard of evidence that would be accepted by courts. and that In using this higher standard, he discovered there were about a dozen or so popular and widely-used quotes by historians and others (David had quoted these sources with documentation properly footnoted in "The Myth of Separation") that he could not find in the Founders’ own writings. Further, he says that the follow up to The Myth of Separation, Original Intent used original quotes and that none of David’s antagonists have ever been able to point out a single example in "Original Intent" in which he "made up a quote." They cannot do so. (1) Can anyone confirm if this is the correct chronology? Did he "come to believe" on his own or were the misquotes pointed out to him by Rob Boston or others? (2) Are any of his quotes in Original Intent suspect? While you guys are still a long way from changing my mind on this issue you have, with Barton's assistance, proven that he is not to be trusted, but I am curious whether, with the more recent book, he has "mended his ways". [ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

10-27-2002, 08:53 PM	#58
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	fromtheright While you guys are still a long way from changing my mind on this issue you have, with Barton's assistance, proven that he is not to be trusted, but I am curious whether, with the more recent book, he has "mended his ways". Might I recommend that YOU buy it (make him richer), read it and do your own critical analysis. The man is a proven liar. I have no need to prove that more than once, especially if you insist that you aren't about to reconsider your position on this issue regardless of the verifiable evidence. <a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bartidx.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bartidx.htm</a> Besides, I already exposed some of his most current historical revisionism...to which you made little comment. Added PS: Why don't you go back to page two of this topic string and spend some time learning from the Oct 16 entries. [ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

10-28-2002, 06:01 PM	#60
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	fromtheright To clarify, by "this issue" I meant CSS... Do you not see the threat to religious freedom of expression from a government that embroils itself in religion? If you don't, then you are not properly educated in the lessons of history. Barton loves to claim that John Jay, the First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, appointed by Gearge Washington to that post, and one of the three men authoring the "Federalist Papers" said: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams's Sons, 1890), Vol IV, p 393, Oct 12, 1816. Source of information, The Myth of Separation, by David Barton. pp 35, 297. This is just one of the current radical religious right arguments offered to "prove" that America was and is a Christian Nation. You will find this quote on just about every Christian fundamentalist site. Is it authentic? Yes it is. But what else do you, or most folks, know about it and John Jay? When was it written? To whom? About what? What were Jay's views about "Christian" Catholics? Does it have any legal substance/bearing on C-SS? Does the fact that Barton took it from another writer's book make it any more relevant? Just note the date of the original document and you will begin to appreciate why Barton can never be trusted. [ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

10-16-2002, 08:32 PM	#51
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	No, not a politico like Ashcroft, but McConnell will do nicely.

10-17-2002, 02:23 PM	#56
Oresta Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 1,107	I thank my esteemed colleague from the State of Florida.

10-28-2002, 04:07 PM	#59
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Buffman, To clarify, by "this issue" I meant CSS, not David Barton's credibility. You have certainly changed my mind as to believing Barton. I made no comment as I have no disagreement with the points you have raised about him. Might I recommend that YOU buy it (make him richer), read it and do your own critical analysis. I suppose I will, I just thought that perhaps someone had already done so along the lines of the website someone pointed to in another thread as to the Unconfirmed Quotations from The Myth of Separation. I wasn't in a rush to send him any more money after being cheated with his sloppy/dishonest method in Myth. I have now gone back and read the October 16 posts. Thanks.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.