Radorth

Trying to end this "war" with Buffman

I'm not defending Barton as I suppose it seems. I do not trust anyone who inserts ellipses into quotes as often as he does. I'm saying we find the same stuff in atheist's backyards and I suppose both sides are simply trying to offset what they see as abuse by the other.

Barton has apparently become far more learned and careful, based on your own comments. Nevertheless if someone asked me if Barton's quotes were trustworthy, I would tell them to find a more original source. Would you agree to do same with some atheist sites? I hope so.

I mean really. What is the difference between listing or posting 10 one sentence Washington quotes, with no sources, and doing what Barton does? I fail to see one ounce of meaningful difference.

Rad

Buffman

David Barton admits errors and then explains why

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm

If you still refuse to read anything from this site, then read Barton's personal explanations

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resource...sourceID=20#30

However, it would be wise to consider the Robert Alley statements at the first URL with the subsequent ones of David Barton at the second URL... statements made after the fact that his quotes had been challenged by knowledgeable historians.

It would also be informative to note that Barton claims that Madison (in #4) "could have" made the statement which he claims he did but for which no knowledgeable Madison scholar has ever found an original source.

Additionally, I noted that the AU ( Jul/Aug 1996, Church-State) list of alleged Barton personal comments uses "False" while on Barton's most recent apologetic, he uses "Inaccurate." A small, subtle, change that might not mean much to the unwary.

Dr. Stefan T. Possony, an authority on psychological warfare and revolution, testified before a committee of the Eighty-Sixth Congress that "manipulation of language constitutes one of the Communists' most potent weapons in their drive for world domination." He also said that "to the Communists, words are tools to achieve effects, not means to communicate in the search for truth." ("Language as a Communist Weapon"--Consultation with Dr. Stepfan T. Possony, Committee on Un_American Activities, House of Representatives, Eighty-sixth Congress, First Session, March 2, 1959, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1959. pg. 28)

Before anyone wonders why I have included that last paragraph, let me simply point out that many propaganda techniques are standard because of their successful use. Simply change the name of the organization using them.

Radorth

OK Buffman, we've read them. So which quote did Barton "fabricate"?

As you said, by inserting the last paragraph, language is very powerful and those who misuse it should be considered propagandists. So I think you should explain to us why you are not so, when you accuse someone of fabricating that which they did not.

And atheists who use the Franklin quote out of context and to foster their agenda are different from Barton er, how exactly?

Is it possible many "strict separationists" are no different from Barton, while claiming the higher ground? At least Barton is claiming to clean up his backyard and saying these quotes should not be used until a better soure is found. A major atheist website still claims "Washington never mentioned Jesus Christ" and we have evidence this is widely believed. Is there any atheist site who has denounced this claim and recommending that it be used no more? I'd like to see it. (And of course they never had ANY source for that claim other than their own incomplete scholarship.)

Perhaps this holy war will end soon if both sides clean up their messes.

Rad

Radorth

Oh here we go again with the "dangerous fundy" routine, based on nothing but atheist paranoia.

Does Rad want a prayer said in public schools? No.

Does he wnat the Boy Scouts to get govt help? No.

Has he done one thing to get Roe v Wade overturned? No,

Does he want firemen made to go to church? No

Does he think it was right for the founders to denounce Papists? No.

Does Rad believe everything David Barton says? No.

Does he always vote Republican like Barton does. No.


Does he hope people get that Christians are and were indispensible to their society? Yes.

Does he wish people better understood Christ and his teachings? Yes.

Does he hope the "deist" founders personal beliefs and appreciation of Christian morals were better known? Yes.

Does he hope to expose hypocrisy on the Secweb, and show that we are really not much different from one another. Yes

Yeah I'm a real threat to civil society.

Rad

Buffman

Radorth

...when you accuse someone of fabricating that which they did not.

Can you prove that he did not fabricate them? Can you tell me where the inaccurate quotes originated when specialized, credentialed, history scholars can't find them within the writings of the individual? If you can't, then I claim they were fabricated. Disagree all you wish. Unless you can prove otherwise, you are nothing but a great deal of sound and fury.

Buffman

Radorth

A major atheist website still claims "Washington never mentioned Jesus Christ" and we have evidence this is widely believed.

Well, did Washington ever "MENTION" Jesus Christ? We know that he signed a document written by his aide who wrote the words. But did WASHINGTON ever "MENTION" them? I can't prove that he did. Can you? (See how easy it is to play your kind of little game?)---Why don't you stop using the same canards over and over again? Write the site that is using the the quote and provide them with your source info and ask them to correct their faulty message. What are you afraid off? That they will get your e-mail address at the institution

If you are afraid to do it, then provide me with a link to that quote and I will do it. How's that for a fair deal challenge? I have been attempting to clean up these messes ever since that first Barton tape.

Toto

Rad, once again, SHAPE UP. Instead of saying "a major atheist website" NAME THAT WEBSITE AND GIVE THE URL.

I suspect that what you are talking about is the statement that Washington never mentioned Jesus Christ in his personal papers and correspondence, which is TRUE. Careless readers may have read that and said "Washington never mentioned Jesus Christ," without realizing that there was one proclamation that he signed, drafted by his secretary.

Buffman

Rad

Does he hope people get that Christians are and were indispensible to their society? Yes.

THEIR society? I thought it was designed to be OUR society regardless of an individual's profession of religious or non-religious conscience. Tell me Rad, how many non-Christians were indispensable to the American society? That's the one to which I belong.

Does he wish people better understood Christ and his teachings? Yes.

And what makes Rad think that people don't understand Christ better than he does? Because they don't agree with him? And exactly which denomination of Christ believer is Rad?

http://www.adherents.com/misc/WCE.html

Which one of the 33,830 is Rad's Christian denomination? Does Rad understand Christ better than all the others?

Does he hope the "deist" founders personal beliefs and appreciation of Christian morals were better known? Yes.

Does Rad appreciate that the true origins of ethical and moral values are hardly unique to Christianity? Does Rad claim that everyone who ever lived before his historical Christ were unethical and immoral; and that anyone who has lived since the immaculate conception who didn't believe in the supernatural divinity of the bastard child have been unethical and immoral? Help me out here Rad! Just what is it that you actually believe?

Does he hope to expose hypocrisy on the Secweb, and show that we are really not much different from one another. Yes

Why does Rad believe that it is his mission in life to reduce everyone to his level of comprehension and lack of critical thinking skills?

Yeah I'm a real threat to civil society.

Fear of the unknown, ignorance of the natural world and superstition are always a real threat to a civilized society. Do you disagree, Rad?

Radorth

Absolutely.

Radorth

Interesting lessons learned on the Secweb this year:

Barton never fabricated any quote, but it's OK to keep saying so because secular activists have no agenda and never misqote or misrepresent people.

The only completely bogus quote in the last three months came from an atheist site, but that doesn't excuse Rad from failing to list sources, even though all his quotes, as such, turn out to be real.

Atheist sites can use quotes on Barton's list, but Christians can't.

Atheists may list up to ten quotes without giving any original source.

If atheists make a serious mistake, they have simply "misspoken."

If Christians do it they are liars, are part of some huge conspiracy, and dangerous to society.

Atheists have more integrity than Christians, by definition.

"You Christians" -"You skeptics"- "You Jews"- "You Muslims" etc, is an OK way to address people.

Buffman is harder on atheists who screw up than on Rad.

Atheists can guess peoples real beliefs and motives better than anybody, regardless of how few facts are available.

There is no evidence Jesus was not black, but blacks are so dumb, they didn't wonder why they were forced to work for white people.

Radorth has absolutely nothing worthwhile to say, but his critics worry the readers at II are so dumb, they have to be continually reminded of Rad's personal faults.

Atheists do not use ad hom. They are just "being honest."

Well at least we learned some actual historical facts not available in the skeptics.org library. Hopefully they will get passed along to the higher-ups at positiveatheism.com, etc so they can clean up their own house next year.

Rad