Faith and Freedom Network

69 Comments:

At 11:59 AM, February 16, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Gary, we plan to attend in Spokane and are inviting our entire church. I hope others will do so.
Thank s for all you do for the faith community

 

At 12:01 PM, February 16, 2007,  Ann said...

Please, all home schoolers should attend. Barton is the foremost historian on Christian Heritage.

 

At 12:05 PM, February 16, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Thanks. I don't think most people really know or understand where our country came from spiritually.
Barton's books are the best I have ever read.

 

At 12:09 PM, February 16, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Barton's books are great. Have you seen Newt G.'s new book on Discovering God in America? I'm reading it now.
We are attending in Tacoma. Thanks

 

At 1:30 PM, February 16, 2007,  Anonymous said...

The following quotations were popularized by David Barton of WallBuilders, a fundamentalist Christian-action group in the general camp of Christian Reconstructionism, a movement founded by R.J. Rushdoonie to return the United States to its supposed Christian roots. As reported in the July / August 1996 issue of "Church & State" magazine, Barton has since admitted that the quotations are spurious.

Save this list. If you encounter these quotations in use, challenge them.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
-- Patrick Henry

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
-- George Washington

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
-- Holy Trinity v. U. S. (Supreme Court case)

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God."
-- James Madison

"Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drown from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer."
-- Noah Webster


"There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet."
-- Noah Webster

"The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion."
-- Abraham Lincoln

"The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next."

-- Abraham Lincoln

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or eternal invader."
-- Samuel Adams
[this can be found in Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., The Writings of Samuel Adams (1908), Vol. 4, p. 124 -- Cliff Walker, May 1, 2002]

"I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens."
-- Thomas Jefferson


"America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

 

At 1:57 PM, February 16, 2007,  Human said...

Anon 1:30

Thanks for education. It is so easy for idealogues (on the right or the left) to gather steam for a pure vacumn. Unfortunately, even when truth is spoken, their ideology is more important. Ultimately, as disciples of Jesus Christ (and, thus, neither right nor left), we know such idealogues are nothing more than religious idolaters whose sin must be exposed at every point by those who are called to be Salt and Light.

Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human

 

At 2:02 PM, February 16, 2007,  Human said...

Anons,

The history of America is important - I wonder how many of you are studying it from a non-ideological orientation?? I am making a diligent effort to do so.

While it is true that several communities immigrated to "the new land", they did NOT create the nation of America. America, as a ntion, was created much later than their arrival. In fact, they had no such intent to ever break from Mother England.

Until this truth is well-embedded in each religionist's mind, we will forever be cursing the darkness and failing to light the match that is in our hand - the true history of America.

It is also noted that our Constitution, with its positive elements, has great failures. Essentially it is a compromised document that BARELY passed and that only because Rich White Propertied Men were more capable of organizing than the common man. The Constitution essentially institutionalizes slavery. It creates a far too strong central government (against which the revolution had just been fought).

Clearly, the constitution is a flawed document that continues to need adjustment to genuinely reflect the needs of the people who live in this land.

Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human

 

At 2:06 PM, February 16, 2007,  Human said...

Gary states:

However, as we have moved away from the original intent of our Founders and have embraced secularism of the basis for our lawmaking, we are beginning to see the adverse consequences.

Human inquires:

Alcohol prohibition was the direct result of reconstructionist, evangelical fervor. It was hideously destructive for our country and the lifes of individuals. It seems that following religionists has been most adverse.

Further, slavery was promoted by religionists (see Southern Baptist Convention) - how was that not adverse???

To all:

As you can easily see even with the most basic of historical knowledge, Gary's presentation (to which I don't entirely disagree) is grotesquely simplistic and simply ignores reality.

Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human

 

At 2:08 PM, February 16, 2007,  Human said...

The following is a comment I agree with Gary on:

America's greatness is directly connected to the fact that our Founders recognized that freedom is a gift from God and that government does not "give" freedom, it's role is to protect that freedom.

The only problem is that in reality neither the Government nor FNF advocacies practice this very dictum. Too bad - a lot of good could result if we did follow it.

 

At 2:10 PM, February 16, 2007,  Anonymous said...

You always know when someone who promotes a Strong Good America , with Christian origins , there will be some attacks ..The same folks who defend the definistion of is , is ,,,, Have a problem with footnotes ..

Unconfirmed Quotations

by David Barton

(This article has created controversy in some quarters; read the background behind the “Unconfirmed Quotations” article controversy.)


The following quotations have been seen and heard in numerous books, periodicals, editorials, speeches, etc. In our research, we have not previously used a quote that was not documented to a source in a manner that would be acceptable in a scholarly work or a university text. However, we strongly believe that the debates surrounding the Founders are too important to apply solely an academic standard. Therefore, we unilaterally initiated within our own works a standard of documentation that would exceed the academic standard and instead would conform to the superior legal standard (i.e., relying solely on primary or original sources, using best evidence, rather than relying on the writings of attorneys, professors, or historians).

It is only in using this much higher standard that we call the following quotes “unconfirmed”: that is, while the quotes below have been documented in a completely acceptable fashion for academic works, they are currently “unconfirmed” if relying solely on original sources or sources contemporaneous to the life of the actual individual Founder. These original sources for these quotes may still surface (for example, a major primary document from James Madison surfaced as late as 1946), and in fact you will note that we have actually located the original sources for some to the quotes below that originally we listed as unconfirmed. However, with the remaining quotes listed below, we recommend that you refrain from using them until such time that an original primary source may be found, notwithstanding the fact that the quotes below may be documented to a number of contemporary sources.

One may only speculate as to how these quotes originated. In two cases, the errors appear obvious. In others, there are historical clues and possibilities. In the final analysis, the words in question - despite the fact that they are currently “unconfirmed” in primary source documents - are nevertheless completely consistent not only with the character of these men but also with the character of their era, including U. S. Supreme Court decisions. Nonetheless, for us, only primary documentation will justify pulling these quotes off of the shelf. We offer brief comments where appropriate, to include supporting quotations and citations.

1. It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! -- Patrick Henry (unconfirmed)

Few could dispute that this quotation is consistent with Henry's life and character. (Interestingly, those who advocate a secular society today view Henry as an arch enemy.) One early biographer describes how Henry reprinted and distributed Soame Jennings book, View of the Internal Evidence of Christianity, 1 and also that Henry looked to the restraining and elevating principles of Christianity as the hope of his country's institutions. 2 Bishop Meade, writing of Virginia families in general, says of Henry that, despite possible periods of alienation, his attachment to the [Episcopal] Church of his fathers is clearly established. 3 In one of many courtroom speeches, Henry offered these thoughts (one need not agree with his ideas to understand the context):


I know, sir, how well it becomes a liberal man and a Christian to forget and forgive. As individuals professing a holy religion, it is our bounden duty to forgive injuries done us as individuals. But when the character of Christian you add the character of patriot, you are in a different situation. Our mild and holy system of religion inculcates an admirable maxim of forbearance. If your enemy smite one cheek, turn the other to him. But you must stop there. You cannot apply this to your country. As members of a social community, this maxim does not apply to you. When you consider injuries done to your country your political duty tells you of vengeance. Forgive as a private man, but never forgive public injuries. Observations of this nature are exceedingly unpleasant, but it is my duty to use them. 4
In a 1796 letter to his daughter Henry stated:


Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and, indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast. 5
Bishop Meade, mentioned above, also describes a letter from Rev. Dresser, who was addressing two Church historians. Concerning Patrick Henry, Dresser wrote:


It is stated, in an article which I saw some time ago, from the Protestant Episcopalian, and, I presume, from one of you, that Patrick Henry was once an infidel, &c. His widow and some of his descendants are residing in this county, and I am authorized by one of them to say that the anecdote related is not true. He ever had, I am informed, a very abhorrence of infidelity, and actually wrote an answer to Paine's Age of Reason, but destroyed it before his death. His widow informed me that he received the Communion as often as an opportunity was offered, and on such occasions always fasted until after he had communicated, and spent the day in the greatest retirement. This he did both while Governor and afterward. Had he lived a few years longer, he would have probably done much to check the immoral influence of one of his compatriots [?], whose works are now diffusing the poison of infidelity throughout our land. 6
Henry's religious persuasion is well-established. However, there is more evidence that should be considered. Biographer William Wirt Henry relates that a visiting neighbor recalled Henry holding up the Bible and stating:


This book is worth all the books that ever were printed, and it has been my misfortune that I have never found time to read it with the proper attention and feeling till lately. I trust in the mercy of Heaven that it is not yet too late. 7
Despite his regret for not having spent more time in the Bible, Henry knew the value of Scripture. Taken together with his efforts while in public life, there is an ample foundation for this excerpt from his Last Will and Testament:


This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed. 8
As a final thought, there is a possibility that the unconfirmed quote came from Henry's uncle, the Reverend Patrick Henry. We find no record of the Reverend's letters or writings. Therefore, until more definitive documentation can be presented, please avoid the words in question.

2. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. -- George Washington (unconfirmed)

Although the modern secularists avoid his numerous religious maxims, Washington's views on religion are easily documented. He often spoke on religious themes, to include the ruler of nations, the light of Revelation, and the symbiotic relationship between the Church and the state. There is overwhelming evidence to support this thought as belonging to Washington. However, since the quote has not been documented to date, it appears unlikely to be found. Too much research has been done on the life of Washington to see the prospect of a new quotation.

There is a very real possibility that the quotation has its origin in an 1835 biography by James K. Paulding. In a description of Washington's character, with supporting quotations, Paulding declares Washington to have said:


It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. 9
The similarities are obvious; a paraphrase of these quotes could have easily generated the words in question. However, we have not been able to trace Paulding's cite to a more scholarly reference. He offers no footnotes. For an extensive selection of Washington's religious sayings, see the Maxims of Washington: Political, Social, Moral, and Religious, John F. Schroeder, ed. (Mount Vernon, Virginia: The Mount Vernon Ladies Association, © 1942). (The book has also been reprinted, albeit in a slightly different format. We recommend the older versions.)

3. Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian. -- Holy Trinity v. U. S. (Supreme Court) (inaccurate confirmed! -- Richmond v. Moore, Illinois Supreme Court, 1883)

This quotation appeared in many modern works, each attributing the wording to the U. S. Supreme Court's 1892 decision in the Holy Trinity case. After researching and being unable to locate this quote in that case, we concluded that it was probably was a cut-and-paste typographical error, for several of the phrases do appear in that case, 10 but not in the exact wording given above; we therefore at that time recommended that this quote not be used. Now, however, after more than a decade of searching, we have located and confirmed the original source for this quote: it appears not in an 1892 U. S. Supreme Court case 11 but rather in an 1883 Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Richmond v. Moore. 12 While we previously recommended against using this quote, it is now authenticated and can be cited, providing that it is attributed to the proper source.

4. We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves . . . according to the Ten Commandments of God. -- James Madison (unconfirmed)

While these words have been the most controversial of all unconfirmed quotes, they are consistent with Madison's thoughts on religion and government. They are consistent because the key idea being communicated is self-government, not religious laws or establishments. Our future rests upon the ability of all to govern themselves according to a Biblical standard. Madison could have easily offered the thought.

Concerning a republican form of government, he spoke in the Federalist #39 of "that honourable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." (emphasis added) 13 Here we see an interesting similarity to the quote's wording, which may have led to a paraphrase that was erroneously attributed to Madison.

Speaking against direct religious taxation in his Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison wrote:


While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. 14
The religion of divine origin was obviously Christianity, of which Madison said he was convinced. Therefore, it would be appropriate for Madison to refer to the Ten Commandments as a foundation for self-government. Granted, he fought to abolish religious establishments much of his life, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether Madison could have made such a statement. He could have; the questionable quote is not out of character.

In the context of America's attitude toward religious establishments (which was a State's right withheld from federal cognizance), Madison responded to an essay/sermon by Reverend Jasper Adams with these words:


Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious establishments, the simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Christian religion itself ought not, so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it. 15 [emphasis added]
Obviously, Madison is referring to tax-supported, religious establishments. But it is well-understood that he was adamantly against establishments. The point to notice is Madison's thoughts on Christianity. He called it the "best and purest religion." As mentioned above, Christianity was the religion of which he was convinced. Therefore, in the context of self-government, he could have spoken the words in question.

Furthermore, referring again to Bishop Meade's analysis of Virginian families and churches, Meade stated:


Whatever may have been the private sentiments of Mr. Madison on the subject of religion, he was never known to declare any hostility to it. He always treated it with respect, attended public worship in his neighborhood, invited ministers of religion to his house, had family prayers on such occasions,-though he did not kneel himself at prayers. Episcopal ministers often went there to see his aged and pious mother and administer the Holy Communion to her. I was never at Mr. Madison's but once, and then our conversation took such a turn-though not designed on my part-as to call forth some expressions and arguments which left the impression on my mind that his creed was not strictly regulated by the Bible. At his death, some years after this, his minister-the Rev. Mr. Jones-and some of his neighbors openly expressed their conviction, that, from his conversation and bearing during the latter years of his life, he must be considered as receiving the Christian system to be divine. 16
Thus we see that while Madison may not have been, in today's terms, a fundamentalist, he was known as a Christian and a faithful member of his church. The quote in question would be entirely consistent with the man's life and legacy. Nevertheless, we recommend that this quote be shelved.

As a final thought on Madison, the quote may have come from Madison's cousin, the Bishop James Madison, or from his father, James Madison, Sr. This is similar to Patrick Henry's situation, and is one of the problems we encounter in verifying quotations.

5. Religion . . . [is] the basis and foundation of government. -- James Madison (inaccurate)

Taken from Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, this quote has proven to be inaccurate. The actual phrase refers to the "Declaration of those rights 'which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government.'" (emphasis added) 17 Thus the subject of the statement is the Virginia Declaration of Rights, not religion. One may only speculate as to how the error was made.

6. Whosoever shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world. -- Benjamin Franklin (unconfirmed)

Franklin knew quite well the value of Christianity to society. In the context of teaching history to the youth of Philadelphia, he said:


History will also afford the frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion, from its usefulness to the public; the advantage of a religious character among private persons; the mischiefs of superstition, &c. and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern. 18
This is not to say that Franklin was a Christian; he did not believe in the divinity of Christ. This is easily documented. However, he was well aware of the utility of religion in general and Christianity specifically. In a letter to his daughter, Franklin stated:


Go constantly to church, whoever preaches. The act of devotion in the Common Prayer Book is your principal business there, and if properly attended to, will do more towards amending the heart than sermons generally can do. For they were composed by men of much greater piety and wisdom, than our common composers of sermons can pretend to be; and therefore I wish you would never miss the prayer days; yet I do not mean you should despise sermons, even of the preachers you dislike, for the discourse is often much better than the man, as sweet and clear waters come through very dirty earth. I am the more particular on this head, as you seemed to express a little before I came away some inclination to leave our church, which I would not have you do. 19
A key phrase in our unconfirmed quote is "primitive Christianity." Franklin, like Jefferson, felt the true doctrines of Christ had been perverted. Just days before his death, Franklin wrote to the Reverend Ezra Stiles:


As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is like to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure. 20
Moreover it was Franklin who made the famous appeal for prayer at the Constitutional Convention-an idea which was implemented shortly after the first congress convened. Madison's notes of the convention offer these words:


We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better that the builders of Babel. 21
Franklin spoke favorably and often on the role of religion in America. However, while the questionable quote may have been his, Franklin's writings are well-known and it is unlikely that anything new will surface.

7. The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer. -- Noah Webster (unconfirmed)

8. There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet. -- Noah Webster (unconfirmed)

These words are entirely consistent with the life and character of Noah Webster. His conversion in 1808 to true Christianity, as opposed to a reliance on outward works and moral duties, is well-documented in his letters. And his attitude on the relationship between government and religion is clearly revealed in his writings. Concerning the origin of civil liberty, he declared:


Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion.

. . . . . . . . . .

[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles.

. . . . . . . . . .

This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government. 22
This is but a small portion of Webster's thought on the subject of religion and government. Whether he stated the quotes in question or not, they sound like Webster. There is far too much evidence to deny this. Despite this consistency, we recommend avoiding the unconfirmed quote and using the numerous Webster quotations that have stronger supporting documentation.

9. The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion. -- Abe Lincoln (unconfirmed)


10. The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. -- Abe Lincoln (unconfirmed)

Abraham Lincoln is another of those historical figures whose writings are replete with positive religious references. These quotes could easily be attributed to him. In his First Inaugural he asserted:


Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulties. 23
He offered these thoughts on education early in his life:


That every man may receive at least a moderate education, and thereby be enabled to read the histories of his own and other countries, by which he may duly appreciate the value of our free institutions, appears to be an object of vital importance, even on this account alone, to say nothing of the advantages and satisfaction to be derived from all being able to read the Scriptures, and other works both of a religious and moral nature for themselves. 24
The questionable quotes may have come from Lincoln's pen; the words correspond with his religious opinions. On the other hand, his writings are far from obscure, and most of his words are verified. While they may be out there somewhere, we are not satisfied with the existing documentation.

11. A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. -- Samuel Adams (unconfirmed confirmed!)

This is a perfect example of how we are able to verify quotations. Originally, the statement was suspect because the only source was secondary, and we were uncomfortable with the documentation. However, after acquiring a more thorough version of Samuel Adams' writings, we found the statement in a letter to James Warren dated February 12, 1779. 25

12. I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens. -- Thomas Jefferson (unconfirmed)

This quote can be found attributed to Thomas Jefferson in an 1869 work by Samuel W. Bailey, but as yet we have not found it in a primary source. 26 Jefferson's religious thoughts are well-documented. As he fought the battles of dogmatic, sectarian divisiveness, one can find religious quotations both positive and negative. Therefore, this positive reference to the Bible could easily have flowed from his pen. For example, notice these excerpts from his letters. They reveal both his dislike of sectarianism, as well as his love for what he considered the pure doctrines of Jesus:


An eloquent preacher of your religious society, Richard Motte, in a discourse of much emotion and pathos, is said to have exclaimed aloud to his congregation, that he did not believe there was a Quaker, Presbyterian, Methodist or Baptist in heaven, having paused to give his hearers time to stare and to wonder. He added, that in heaven, God knew no distinctions, but considered all good men as his children, and as brethren of the same family. I believe, with the Quaker preacher, that he who steadily observes those moral precepts in which all religions concur, will never be questioned at the gates of heaven, as to the dogmas in which they all differ. That on entering there, all these are left behind us, and the Aristides and Catos, the Penns and Tillotsons, Presbyterians and Baptists, will find themselves united in all principles which are in concert with the reason of the supreme mind. Of all the systems of morality, ancient and modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus. 27

To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others. 28

But the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of His own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. 29
In fact, Jefferson thought Christianity so important that he personally authored a work for the Indians entitled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth which set forth the teachings of Jesus as delivered in the Gospels. (The Fifty-seventh Congress ordered a reprint of his work. 30) Many people have claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his so called “Bible.” Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson's own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. To deny this is to deny that he swore “upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

13. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great. -- Alexis de Tocqueville (unconfirmed)

Alexis de Tocqueville's work, Democracy in America, should be required reading for all involved in the Church/state debates. He devoted a significant portion of his work to the religious element of American life, as the following thoughts indicate:


Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.
In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.

There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and their debasement, while in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfills all the outward duties of religion with fervor.

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country. 31

While the Tocqueville quote is not in this book, it may be in some other writings of which we are unaware. 32 The fact that there is no primary source for someone quoted so often causes us to view the words as unconfirmed.

14. The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. -- John Quincy Adams (unconfirmed modified confirmation!)

This quote has had wide circulation for decades and can be traced back to an 1860 work by John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution, which reprinted a number of sermons preached during the Revolution. In the overview of that work, Thornton explained:

The church polity [form of government] of New England begat like principles in the state. The pew and the pulpit had been educated to self-government. They were accustomed “TO CONSIDER.” The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams, was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. 33

Thornton, an attorney and historian, grew up during the lifetime of John Quincy Adams and held many interests in common with him. His above statement in connection with Adams is Thornton's summation of part of a lengthy speech delivered by John Quincy Adams during an 1837 Fourth of July celebration at Newburyport, Massachusetts (a speech which Thornton may well have heard in person, but which he certainly later read). In that address, Adams observed that Christmas and the Fourth of July were the two most-celebrated holidays in America, and that both were interrelated. As Adams began his speech, he queried:


Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [July 4th]? . . . Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. . ? 34
Comparing Adams' original 1837 exact quotation with Thornton's 1860 summary of the quote, one immediately sees the similarities. Significantly, in his 1860 work, Thornton accurately related the essence of Adams' message and never presented that phrase as being an exact quotation from Adams; nevertheless, those who used Thornton's work in subsequent generations and writings incorrectly cited Thornton's summary as if it were a direct quotation from John Quincy Adams. Therefore, the "unconfirmed" quote attributed to Adams can be replaced with his exact quotation given above from his 1837 speech.



Summary

We hope these comments and analyses help our readers in their own research and rhetoric. To those who have used the above quotations, do not be discouraged. They have a source. We are simply unable to take them to an original, primary document, which is the standard for which we must all strive. In this regard, we have traversed the learning curve.

As the Church/state debates continue, we are all called to a higher standard of scholarship. Advocates of a secular society use the slightest discrepancy to advance their own intolerant and bigoted agenda. Ignoring their own weaknesses and failures, they attempt to discredit both the message and messenger of America's religious history. Their efforts are futile, however, for the religious foundations of America, to include the interactions between church and state, are well-documented and easily-unearthed. Now is the time to clean things up.

Footnotes
1. Patrick Henry, Life, Correspondence and Speeches, William Wirt Henry, editor (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891), Vol. II, p. 490. (return to text)

2. Wirt Henry's, Life, vol. II, p. 621. (Return to text)

3. Bishop Meade, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1857), Vol. I, p. 221. (return to text)

4. Wirt Henry's, Life, vol. III, pp. 606-607. (return to text)

5. S. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry (Auburn: Miller, Orton & Mulligan, 1854), p. 250. (Return to text)

6. Meade, Old Churches, Vol. II, p. 12. (Return to text)

7. Wirt Henry's, Life, vol. II, p. 621. (Return to text)

8. From a copy of Henry's Last Will and Testament obtained from Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation, Red Hill, Brookneal, VA. (return to text)

9. James K. Paulding, A Life of Washington (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1835), Vol. II, p. 209. (Return to text)

10. For example, “These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States; 143 U. S. 457, 471 (1892). (return to text)

11. Justice David J. Brewer, author of the 1892 Holy Trinity opinion, also wrote a book in 1905 called The United States: A Christian Nation. Brewer opened his work with these words: "We classify nations in various ways. As, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallic, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation-in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world." David J. Brewer, The United States A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), pp. 11-12. (return to text)

12. Richmond v. Moore, 107 Ill. 429, 1883 WL 10319 (Ill.), 47 Am.Rep. 445 (Ill. 1883). (return to text)

13. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist, on the New Constitution Written in 1788 (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818), pp. 203-204, James Madison, Number 39. (Return to text)

14. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance (Massachusetts: Isaiah Thomas, 1786). This can be found in numerous documentary histories and other resources. (Return to text)

15. Religion and Politics in the Early Republic: Jasper Adams and the Church-State Debate, Daniel L. Dreisbach, ed. (Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), p. 117. (Return to text)

16. Meade, Old Churches, Vol. II, pp. 99-100. (return to text)

17. Madison, Memorial , p. 12. (Return to text)

18. Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1749), p. 22. (Return to text)

19. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, ed. (Boston: Tappan, Whittmore, and Mason, 1838), Vol. VII, pp. 269-271, letter to his daughter, Sarah, on November 8, 1764. (Return to text)

20. Sparks, Works of Franklin, Vol. X, p. 424. (return to text)

21. James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, ed. (Washington: Langtree & O'Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 985. (Return to text)

22. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 300, Sec. 578. (return to text)

23. A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, James D. Richardson, editor (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. VI, p. 11, from his First Inaugural, March 4, 1861). (return to text)

24. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Roy P. Basler, editor (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953), Vol. I, p. 8, from his "Communication to the People of Sangamo County," March 9, 1832) (return to text)

25. Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1905), Vol. IV, p. 124. (return to text)

26. Homage of Eminent Persons to The Book, Samuel W. Bailey, ed. (New York: Rand, Avery, & Frye, 1869), p. 67. (return to text)

27. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, pp.377-78, letter to William Canby on September 18, 1813. (Return to text)

28. Bergh, Writings of Jefferson, Vol. X, p.380, letter to Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803. (Return to text)

29. Bergh, Writings of Jefferson, Vol. XIV, p.220, letter to William Short on October 31, 1819. (Return to text)

30. Thomas Jefferson, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904), House of Representatives, Document No. 755, 58th Congress, 2d Session. (Return to text)

31. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337, respectively. (Return to text)

32. For an interesting account of the Tocqueville quote, see John J. Pittney's "The Tocqueville Fraud," in The Weekly Standard, November 13, 1995. (Return to text)

33. John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution (Boston: Gould And Lincoln, 1860), p. xxix. (Return to text)

34. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5. (return to text)



Raising The Academic Standard For Quoting The Founding Fathers

In 1988, David Barton published The Myth of Separation, documenting the Founding Fathers religious beliefs and practices with over 700 footnotes. In that work, he cited from several sources, including history professors, legal scholars, and early textbooks. Although this is common practice in the academic community, David came to believe that historical debates undergirding public policy should be conducted using a standard of evidence that would be accepted by courts: only the “best evidence” should be used (e.g., eyewitness testimony, direct statements and actions by the participants, etc.). In other words, instead of quoting what a professor or judge said about Thomas Jefferson's (or the other 200+ Founding Fathers') views on the First Amendment, let Jefferson's (and the other Founders') own words and actions speak for themselves.

Consequently, David authored a second book (Original Intent, with over 1,400 footnotes) on the same theme as The Myth of Separation in which he does not use Founder's quotes unless they are documented to a primary source; he dropped all “historical” quotes from attorneys, professors, texts, etc.

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. Importantly, some of those quotes had come from works nearly a century-and-a-half old and therefore would seem to have been credible; yet David could not find those quotes in original documents.

David therefore released a paper entitled “Unconfirmed Quotations” in which he listed those dozen or so quotes that he had used in Myth of Separation and which he would voluntarily no longer use. He called on those on all sides of the debate to refrain from using these quotes in any subsequent writings until their veracity could be established in a source that would meet the legal standard of “best evidence.” (Since the release of that article, we have actually been able to find the original documentation for some of those quotes that we originally listed as “unconfirmed” - and which antagonists claim that David had made up!)

Despite David's clear statement in the preface of “Unconfirmed Quotations” that he intended to raise the academic bar, David's antagonists (such as Rob Boston, et. al) claimed David had “admitted he made up his quotes” — a complete mischaracterization of what occurred. On the contrary, David had simply challenged authors on all sides — whether writing for the American Atheist Association or the National Association of Evangelicals, for Americans United for Separation of Church and State or for Christian Coalition - that they should not allege that the Founders said or believed something unless it could be documented in the Founders' own writings or some other equally authoritative source (e.g., the Records of the Continental Congress, Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention, the Debates of the First Congress, etc.).

It is significant that David's critics point to The Myth of Separation when they claim he “admits that he made up his quotes” but they remain completely silent about Original Intent. Both works arrive at exactly the same historical conclusion, but the history is “made up” in the one but not the other? To date, 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. For that matter, they could not do so in The Myth of Separation either. Rather, they just continue to claim he “admits that he makes up his quotes.”

The mischaracterizations of what David did were so egregiously untrue that distinguished attorneys who practice law before the U. S. Supreme Court asked David if they could sue these groups and individuals for libel and slander. Despite the difficult free-speech standards that courts have established to prove libel and slander, the attorneys still believed that they would prevail. To date, David has declined to proceed on the legal front, although such a suit remains a definite possibility. (By the way, some members and supporters of the organizations criticizing David actually resigned in protest over the mischaracterizations made about him by their own organizations; while they did not share David's philosophical viewpoint, they were offended by the blatant misportrayals their own organizations had made about David's work in a scurrilous effort to discredit him.) In short, there is no factual basis behind this charge, nor has any antagonist ever successfully pointed out even one occasion in which David fabricated any quote. David's work stands on its own merits for those who wish to verify his documentation rather than simply accepting mischaracterizations of his work without personal investigation. (Return to Unconfirmed Quotations)

 

At 2:11 PM, February 16, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Barton's response:
August 30, 2003



Barry Hankins
J. M. Dawson Institute
Baylor University
Waco, TX 76798

Mr. Hankins:

I recently was given an article you had authored, “Separation of Church and State is not Just for Liberals.” The copy I received was undated; perhaps it is an older article; nevertheless, since I was a subject of your pen (and since you never took the time to consult me either to confirm or deny what you alleged about me), I thought I would present you with a few facts concerning the misrepresentations you made about me on page 1 of that article:

1. To my knowledge, the only time I have acknowledged or read anything that Robert Alley has written was his attack on me for speaking at Gov. George Allen's Inauguration in January 1994. It may come as a complete surprise to you to learn that I neither read nor follow anything Robert Alley may or may not say about me, nor have I read any article by him about Madison or his writings.

2. Since I do not read Alley's materials nor do I concern myself with his writings, he clearly had no influence on our publication of the “Questionable Quotes” list. Consider: we listed over a dozen questionable quotes but Alley apparently mentioned only the Madison quote; and you assert that was the reason we issued our much more extensive list? Ridiculous! In fact, to our knowledge, my article about the uncertainty of the Madison quote predated his; we did not change our position in response to anything he wrote; rather, I publicly announced that I would no longer use the Madison quote (and others) not because it was inaccurate but rather because I had determined to raise the scholarship of the debate from an academic level to the higher level of legal documentation known as “best evidence” - a level of documentation that most of those in your camp have yet to embrace. (For example, In Search of Christian America, written by three PhDs from your viewpoint, purports to search the Founding Era (1760-1805) for evidences of official acknowledgments of Christianity and concludes that there is a lack of such evidence. However, of the hundreds of sources cited to reach that conclusion, some 80 percent were taken from sources published after 1950 - more than a century-and-a-half after the period they purport to investigate! Such disparate and dissimilar sources would be unacceptable in a court of law.)

3. Alley can neither claim that Madison “never” uttered the “quote in question” about the Ten Commandments nor that it was “false.” As you yourself know, Madison's “Detached Memoranda” (surely one of your favorite documents) was not “discovered” until 1946. More Madison letters previously unknown are found regularly, often in the estates of recently deceased individuals who held private collections or inherited family heirlooms received directly from Madison's hand. Furthermore, much of what is known about Madison and his diverse and often changing viewpoints frequently comes from Madison's contemporaries rather than from his own writings. For example, more of Madison's succinct statements against slavery are available through his personal interviews with Harriet Martineau (published in the early 1800s) than from his own writings. Alley can no more claim that the Madison quote does not exist than I can claim that it does. However, I can show that the Madison “quote in question” has been in circulation for generations, and I can document it (as I did) to non-modern works and works by credentialed historians. Quite simply, neither I nor Alley can say whether or not the Madison quote is false; however, I simply decided that I would no longer quote academics, historians, or doctorates of history to establish what the Founders said (as you regularly do) but instead I would cite only primary source documentation that meets a legal standard of evidence. (I continue to challenge your side to meet the same standard.)

4. Your claim that “The flap does not seem to have slowed Barton's juggernaut” is baseless and irrelevant simply because there was no flap other than what you attempted to concoct. Furthermore, the specific work you so recklessly demean (The Myth of Separation) provided over 750 footnoted citations. Therefore, for us to drop a dozen quotes from that work represented a trivially small percentage and no historical conclusion was changed. For example, rather than continuing to use the uncertain James Madison quote on the Ten Commandments, I replaced it with irrefutably-documented statements by other Founders on the same subject - such as the Ten Commandments quote by John Adams (by the way, Adams - unlike Madison - actually signed the Bill of Rights and is an equally competent legal authority on the subject). As a result of my decision to elevate the level of documentation, we replaced The Myth of Separation with Original Intent - a work with over 1,400 footnotes (rather than the 750 in Myth), and a work that not only meets legal standards of scrutiny but that also arrives at the identical historical conclusions reached in The Myth of Separation.

5. On the other hand, I notice that in books from those of your perspective, few footnotes are presented. For example, in The Godless Constitution - an allegedly “scholarly” university text written by two prominent PhDs - no footnotes are provided. As they openly concede, “we have dispensed with the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes.” While a work such as this with no footnotes is probably acceptable to you simply because of its conclusions, it would not pass legal muster for best evidence; yet my work which does pass the standards of legal scrutiny is completely unacceptable to you. Ironically you frequently embrace and laud the types of works that fail to meet the legal standard of “best evidence” while attacking and demeaning the ones that do.

I recognize that there can be honest differences of opinions between well-intentioned individuals; and I whole-heartedly support your right to free speech — including your right to make uninformed statements, present incomplete and inaccurate information, and offer complete mischaracterizations and misportrayals — as you have done in the part of your article addressing me. Regrettably, the section of your article about me neither meets the standards of basic journalism (where an individual attacked in an article is called and asked to respond to charges) nor of academic scholarship (where footnotes and documentation are provided). In your defense, I did note that you provided one footnote to document my “false” quotes; however, the source of that documentation was actually an attack piece written against me by one of your closest allies — not quite an unbiased objective source! However, objective truth was probably never the goal of your article.

An old lawyers' adage admonishes: “When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.” You seem to have chosen the latter course of action.

David Barton

 

At 3:20 PM, February 16, 2007,  Oshtur Vishanti said...

my goodness does anyone actually read a huge cut and paste like that? How about just a link to where ever you got it next time. Its easy:

[a href="theurlgoeshere"]what gets underlined[/a]

replacing the square brackets with the right and left carats at shift-comman and shift-period.

And of course, gay people can 100% be in line with Christian principles. You do know the difference between principles and dogma right?

 

At 3:22 PM, February 16, 2007,  Mick Sheldon said...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEMOCRAT IN-FIGHTING: "What these liberal bloggers fail to appreciate is that this petty, polarizing approach is not how you ultimately win in politics – especially in an era when most average voters outside the ideological extremes are fed up with the shrill, reflexive partisanship that dominates Washington, and when the fastest growing party in America is no party…. Shut the line-crossers out of press briefings. Deny them jobs that confer party approval. And for god’s sake, please quit kissing Kos’s ring at his convention until he and his acolytes grow out of their high-tech tantrum tactics..."

PELOSI HOUSE SPEECH...

 

At 3:43 PM, February 16, 2007,  Anonymous said...

David Barton's Christian Identity connections:

"In 1991 Barton addressed the Rocky Mountain Bible Retreat of Pastor Pete Peters' Scriptures for America, a group that espouses the racist "Christian Identity" theology. Advocates of this bizarre dogma insist that white Anglo-Saxons are the "true" chosen people of the Bible and charge that today's Jews are usurpers. Aside from being a virulent anti-Semite, Peters has advocated the death penalty for homosexuals. According to the Anti-Defamation League, other speakers at the event included white supremacist leader and 1992 presidential candidate James "Bo" Gritz, a leader of the radical and increasingly violent militia movement, and Malcolm Ross, a Holocaust denier from Canada. In November of that same year, Barton spoke at Kingdom Covenant College in Grants Pass, Oregon, another "Christian Identity" front group with ties to Peters.4

"Asked to explain these actions, Barton's reply amounted to a not very creative "I didn't know they were Nazis" dodge. In a July 1993 letter, Barton assistant Kit Marshall wrote, "At the time we were contacted by Pete Peters, we had absolutely no idea that he was 'part of the Nazi movement.' He contacted us for David to speak for Scriptures for America. The title is quite innocuous. In all the conversations that I personally had with Pete Peters, never once was there a hint that they were part of a Nazi movement. I would also like to point out that simply because David Barton gives a presentation to a group of people does not mean that he endorses all their beliefs."5 An excuse like that might have washed one time, but it stretches the bounds of credulity to accept that Barton was twice duped by innocuous-sounding extremist organizations."

 

At 5:27 PM, February 16, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Fortunately, we never have to shun all people that we don't agree with, in fact, it is even good to speak to them in the hopes of persuading them in the ways of righteousness.
David Barton is doing a great job. Go see him if you can!

 

At 5:32 PM, February 16, 2007,  Mick Sheldon said...

Anom what a smear piece . This gets recycled all the time ...
Amazing how only the extremists liberal bloggers keep using it ..

Look to the Pelosi deal marching in a parade with the kiddie molesters . I wonder if it is on Scopes yet .. where you get it , the public eye .. Amazing why so much is attempted to prove about a guy , obviously with these kinds of beliefs it would show up with his real comments and statements .

Like yours bigotry for instance ..

shhhesh

Have you no shame ..

 

At 5:35 PM, February 16, 2007,  Mick Sheldon said...

Liberals believe Pelosi did not support the child molesters because of their political support for her , but condemn Barton because he is an Evangelcial .

So where is an honest liberal willing to step to the plate here ?

Yep , tolerant bunch .

 

At 6:33 PM, February 16, 2007,  Anonymous said...

I have seen a lot of web sites, but have never seen a response like this to the announcement of the Barton events.
Let's all go and see what happens in the Qand A part

 

At 6:37 PM, February 16, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Gary
I admire your courage in all you are doing to advance Judeo- Christian values. No question you are making an impact. I have been reading your blogs for more than two years and have never donated to your organization. Keep up the good work. My check is in the mail

 

At 6:39 PM, February 16, 2007,  Anonymous said...

our church is promoting the event in Tacoma. Tell friends to be sure to come

 

At 6:52 PM, February 16, 2007,  H.K. said...

Barton has held his research to a much higher, in fact the highest possible level, while people who are swallowing Al Gore's propaganda are piling on to question his work while chocking on the undocumented "facts" that even some liberals are backing away from in Gore's documentary.
It's really about agenda, not facts.

 

At 4:49 AM, February 17, 2007,  Mick Sheldon said...

ohstur said
And of course, gay people can 100% be in line with Christian principles.

Of course that is true , just we have none on these blogs tp prove it .

 

At 10:21 AM, February 17, 2007,  Oshtur Vishanti said...

Look to the Pelosi deal marching in a parade with the kiddie molesters .

Facts:
NAMBLA is not given permission to march in any parade in the US. In Seattle in the mid 1990's when a NAMBLA representative (he was actually planning on marching alone) told the march committee that he was going to march he was told that if he insisted on doing so the committee would just cancel the Seattle parade that year. He withdrew his application.

NAMBLA does 'crash' the San Francisco and New York City gay pride parade occasionally, just stepping out and starting to walk with the parade from the crowd (just as hundreds of regular citizens do at most parades). There is really nothing that can be done about this since so many others are allowed to walk with the parade without having officially joined it.

NAMBLA is universally booed as they pass on these occasions, and the parade participants in front and behind stay as far away as possible from them.

NAMBLA has always been a tiny organization with an Australian government criminal investigation in its heyday reporting it had about 2,000 members worldwide. It purposely stays just this side of the law and manages to do so because it pretends it is a 'political action group' similar to F&FN and others. It is of course dwarfed in size by the less legal heterosexual groups dedicated to sex with minors.

I would question the significance of someone being in a parade where a small group of malcontents crash it without permission, without warning and without the person's knowledge during the parade itself.

I would also wonder exactly what 'Christian principles' are involved in trying to disparage someone by the actions others that they have no actually association with or control of beyond being blocks apart from them in the same town at the same civic function where the disparaged is there officially and the other is not.

and of course, gay people can 100% be in line with Christian principles.

Of course that is true , just we have none on these blogs tp prove it .

Mick there there are no straight ones I've noticed either so I guess the point is those claiming to be Christian on these blogs really need to work much much harder at this goal.

 

At 12:26 PM, February 17, 2007,  Mick Sheldon said...

My point about pelosi was she was unfairly characterised as someone who supports child molesters .

To be unfairly charactercized is impossible to defend , for one some will always believe it , two when you go to defend it you are defending a negative .

Way too much time on these blogs are spent on unfair smearing of character,

I stand by my comments .

 

At 1:20 PM, February 17, 2007,  Oshtur Vishanti said...

oh Mick, I agree, I was just getting the facts out there since this crops up all the time (the Wikipedia.org NAMBLA article is well footnoted and jives with what I know about them.)

But you are the one that said 'liberals' don't like Barton because he's 'Evangelical'. Is that any less a smear? Who are these liberals? What exactly is 'evangelical'? I would dislike anyone who distorts history to serve an agenda. So if someone was doing so to make history seem to reflect well on their religious faith is that 'because they are an evangelical' or more because they are a dishonest person?

From the quotes posted here it does seem he has a preconceived answer he is trying to reach considering some of the historical figures he is soundbiting from actually had opinions far different than the ones he is alluding. I for one don't think that is part and parcel of Evangelicalism, more of hucksterism.

 

At 1:40 PM, February 17, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Well that makes it all clear, these aren't false qoutations, they are just "unconfirmed".

In that spirit, I'd like to add a few new unconfirmed quotations:

Gary Randall: "After a hard day of parting Christianist idiots from their hard-earned money, I like to go on meth binges and arrange orgies with hookers, gay and straight"

Jon Russll: " I prefer to wear a silk camisole under my suits at work, while I really prefer a bra and panties, I find that the underwires chaffe under a suit."

Mick Sheldon: "My dirty little secret is that my granddaughter is actually my daughter".

Now you may claim these quotes are untrue, but documentation to support them may yet arise.....

 

At 2:17 PM, February 17, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Hey Mick,

You're an invenerate liar or an idiot (I suspect both), the quote you are flogging in comments is not from Pelosi, and was not said on the floor of the house. It is from the rantings of one Dan Gerstien, whose main claim to fame is his unhinged activities attacking Ned Lamont in the Ct primary. Anyone with a stomach for vitriol can read the entire exerable screed here Proof that Mick's and idiot and/or a liar

Or, as Barton would say, you are merely using an "unconfirmed quotation".

 

At 3:27 PM, February 17, 2007,  Mick Sheldon said...

Oshtur .. Those quotes were not originated by him . There are many quotes that say are attributed to Lincoln , such as a famous one that deals with the class room that can not be substantiated . But used as factual statements in history books even . .. One thing I will say for Barton , he foonotes everything , I mean everything . I can find a quote from a 1930 history book , I believe it was the Madison one and the Ten Commandments .. Never substantiated as far as real documentation . Sort of here say I guess. But to blame the religious right on 1930 quotes , come on , to me that is in the Pelosi supporting child molester category ..


The vast amount of Barton's research is actual court records and such , the guy has won awards ... You only hear this crap from the blogger crazies . Those who actually believe Faith and Freedom is actually a threat to democracy . < actually education on bills from a Christian perspective , but no political victories> PFLAG has more to do with Washington politics then Faith and Freedom ..


Where I would go to odds with Barton is the fact is I really doubt we were a Christian Nation , just like we are not now ..
I read my Bible , I really do not think the average person does ..
I really don't think a high percentage do ... Anyone know the percentage ... ? Our History was Defintely influenced by the Bible was the only book in many homes at one time ,colleges were places of devout religious instruction , and our roots , laws , and TOLERANCE come from people with a strong belief in scriptures . At least we were not portrayed as bigots , liars , . I see a direct distortion on Barton , just like you feel you need to downplay Christian influence on our history ... It bothers you ... You tell me , I think its great ...

I spent a few hours with a homosexual activists a couple of months ago , he asked me out for coffee actually to apologize for csome comments he made about me . They were leaked to me by the token conservative member of a Human Rights Council . Great conversation actually , but what sort of got me was his understanding he was basically a token homosexual on the school district's human rights committee , and we wondered which they were concerned about more , people of Faith or Homosexual .. When it comes right down to it , most school administrators are really concerned about keeping their funding , they want no waves , may be a leftly slant , but not really willing to make a statement .. We figured the school district was more adamant of keeping conservative Christians out , but really had no use for homosexuals .. Like I said , we had an insightfull conversation .

Yes Barton does use an emphasis of Faith and supporting it . Just as H0ward Zinn makes an effort to portray American impact from religion as a negative . and in fact uses his socialistic beliefs as a strong emphasis of why he sees America as so unfair ... Homosexuals you know well use homosexuals in history , sometimes just the possibility of being gay as heros to promote high self esteem .. We all need heroes, I may not share Barton;s total understaning of American Hstory , but if you were to dig up quotes from the Founding Fathers , look at the schools and the curricullum of our country , you would find much more RESPECT and Honor for those with religion as we do now .. And the influence , well when Thomas Jefferson ran for President , abook was written about him , no small task back then about his Christian Beliefs . A Adams was using his Deist convictions < at that time a sure way to loose an election> Now you think we get a look at history where if you were not a Christian you woulod loose an election , my point , Bush being an Evangelcial Christian is more of a minus to many people . An Evangelical is a Bible believer , that is all , I guess its way of saying a Fundamentalist without people thinking you are going to blow up something or play with snakes on your weekends . You think Christians are portrayed actually ,,, Ha ,,, just like Nancy Pelosiby people who disagree with her .. I will say some ... Politics sucks if you ask me , I love the issues , but the animosity , check out the remarks about my Grand Daughter ..



And my point with pelosi , I claim idiot with the other anomomous character , actually I grabbed the quote fairly quick because I figured Pelosi as a smart politician said it .
Anyway I am an invenerate liar , one thing about this blog , it is stepped up , now I have to go to the dictionary to see the names that people call each other .


http://orbusmax.com/

Actually I claim idiot on this one . Pelosi was right above the quote on her link for her comments on a House speech .

 

At 3:44 PM, February 17, 2007,  Mick Sheldon said...

Anom,

One thing that is pretty sick anology dealing with family members .
.

And also Barton has won quite a few awards for his research , he footnotes just about everything ..

Those quotes are footnoted that came into question , just if you study history , there are times when certain historical quotations arise , but there was a large gap between the actual event and the quote appearing .. Hence where did they come from when real historians investigate ,

I am not , I just like to read their stuff.


You can't ask the author because they are dead , say a 1915 book on Lincoln , and other authors have used that author as a footnote to substantiate their quote .. But the quote first shows up in his 1915 book .

Hence you get many people repeating the same quote when they write their 1945 history book dealing with Lincoln . ,

I find Barton quite good at what he does , most historians actually do also . He goes to the original documents and sources far more then most historians .. Thats a fact !!No you will not get the whole picture from him , but at least he gets stuff in that picture that has disappeared .

History books use to include Washington's Farewell Address , I read my kids history book for school and they completly ommited some of the warnings he gave , all dealt with religion .. And that is what Makes Barton so popular within the Evangelical Community , he does not omit those comments , and to your dissatisfaction he highlights them !

 

At 4:06 PM, February 17, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Awards from Christianist groups, perhaps but he is not a respected historian by any stretch of the imagination. People win words form neo-nazi groups as well, doesn't make the recipient respected.

As for "unconfirmed quotes", this is just a BS argument to keep using quotes he wishes were real. It doesn't matter if they appear in other works. A quote is either a complete and accurate accounting of someone's words or not. There is no grey area whatsoever.

Perhaps you deny this now, but papers made public after your death will reveal it to be true. Again, by the rules Barton is using this is just an unconfirmed quotation that may be proven true ion the future.

 

At 4:48 PM, February 17, 2007,  Mick Sheldon said...

Interesting only critics are folks like the Separation of Church and people such as yourself . , and as far as quotes , you know how many there are regarding Christianity in how history ,, Are you for real , like you would need to make them up ? .. Bill Clinton can be quoted promoting religious faith , he had commercials on Christian Radio campaigning when he ran for President , what are you talking about ? as if you need to make up quotes with people supporting God ?

Like you would need to make up quotes where Pat Roberston has said something stupid ..
You are just being a bit bizzare .

I am 52 years old , And admit have not always told the truth , been honorable , and since accepting my Faith 20 years ago not exactly always the best example of Christian Charity ..

But people that know me , even those who disagree with me never have doubted my sincerity , or honesty once they known me .. It was the way I was brought up , nor have people ever doubted the honesty of my siblings . I suggest to you , just like my sister who is a Lesbian, her honesty does not reflect because of her sexuality , it was the way she was brought up .. But I do find it interesting that people such as yourself will find it their duty to promote a lack on intehrity on either of our persoalities because of your own pathetic view that different means evil and lack of integrity on the others part . .


The only time I get nailed for being a liar is from people such as yourself ., who can not prove their views with cognitive thought , or accept the fact people fail to see . I suggest it may be you who might receive a Nazi award , not David Barton .

 

At 6:04 PM, February 17, 2007,  Oshtur Vishanti said...

Mick, maybe its more that he doesn't fill in the gaps that don't play to the crowd - that when many of these people are talking about God they are talking about a far more generic God that supports Christian principles, not Christian dogma.

Look at Gary, he calls for Christian principles and then advocates things that to my understanding actually require the exact opposite.

And as for our current anonymous, I do wish he wasn't on 'my side' - things are hard enough as it is. ;) Well off to a Lunar New Year murder mystery party (I get to play the know-it-all scholar; I hope I can pull it off).

 

At 8:01 PM, February 17, 2007,  Mick Sheldon said...

This post has been removed by the author.

 

At 1:06 AM, February 18, 2007,  Mick Sheldon said...

Ohstur I would say you are playing a role that should be quite comfortable .

Right about the gaps .
But I see Barton filling in gaps that for various reasons are left out now .

I would not read him for say why Lee ordered Littleroundtop attacked over and over again , or why World War One took so long for us to get into .


Appreciate the comment about anom .

 

At 10:43 AM, February 18, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Mick, sweetie, I've proven quite soundly, with full backup that you were falsely presenting a quote from a neo-con hack as being an excerpt from a floor speech by Pelosi.

As for the plethora of religous-oriented quotes from government officials that reference religion, doesn't that make Barton's continued use of "unconfirmed quotes" all the more ridiculous and offensive? I'm not claiming he made them up, but clearly SOMEONE did. I don't see how repeating a second hand falsehood is honorable.

Barton is NOT a historian, he has no credibility amound ACTUAL historians. As for Nazi awards, Barton is the one, who speaks at neo-nazi gatherings, not me. I also can't help but note that you still haven't identified this award, which you feel confers so much credibility on Barton. THAT was my point, just saying someone has won awards is meaningless, only awards from credible groups confer credibility.

 

At 1:38 PM, February 18, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Here you go honey .Your the historical expert.. Do your own research ..

http://www.wallbuilders.com/index.htm

 

At 1:51 PM, February 18, 2007,  Mick Sheldon said...

The neo con hack bio is below .

Now are you a liar ? Or stupid ?




about DGC - biography

Dan Gerstein is a versatile, perceptive, battle-tested communications strategist and nationally-recognized political commentator with a successful solo consulting practice based in New York City.

Following a distinguished 11-year stint working in national politics, Gerstein formed Dan Gerstein Consulting (DGC) in 2004. DGC specializes in helping organizations, businesses, and the occasional politician win public arguments. Clients range from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools to Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions to Kirsten Gillibrand’s winning campaign for Congress in New York.

Most recently, Gerstein, 39, helped engineer Joe Lieberman’s historic re-election in the nationally-watched U.S. Senate race in Connecticut. He served as communications director and a lead strategist for Lieberman’s general election campaign, which was honored by National Journal as the political “Comeback of the Year” for 2006.

In addition to his work as a communications consultant, Gerstein is a multi-platformed political pundit and analyst. He has appeared frequently on national and local television and radio news programs -- including on Fox News, MSNBC, and NY1 -- to discuss national political news and trends. He has also written several op-eds for publications such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. And in early 2006 Gerstein branched out online with his own blog, Dangerous Thoughts.

Prior to moving to New York, Gerstein spent 10 years working for Senator Lieberman in a variety of senior positions, including as a strategist for Lieberman’s 2004 presidential campaign. Gerstein orchestrated the initial public launch of Lieberman’s pathbreaking candidacy for president in Connecticut. He then went on to serve as the campaign’s deputy communications director, where he coordinated the strategic planning process, directed the policy and speechwriting operations and led daily briefings of the candidate.

Gerstein also served as chief national spokesman for Lieberman’s vice-presidential campaign in 2000, managing relations with national and local reporters, assisting in development of communications strategy and rapid response efforts, and writing statements and select speeches. One of the speeches Gerstein worked with Lieberman on was a widely-praised address on the role of religion in public life at the University of Notre Dame.

When not on the campaign trail, Gerstein served as communications director in Lieberman’s Senate office from 1999-2004, acting as chief message strategist, spokesman and speechwriter, as well as a senior policy advisor. Gerstein began his tenure in Lieberman’s office in 1995 as a legislative aide, specializing in education, communication, and cultural issues.

Gerstein made his mark on Capitol Hill in several ways. He collaborated with Lieberman on his renowned floor statement regarding the impeachment of President Clinton. He was the chief architect of Lieberman’s high-profile values agenda, helping to craft the V-chip law and initiating an FTC investigation into the marketing of adult-rated entertainment products to children. He was a leading strategist behind the passage of the groundbreaking No Child Left Behind education reform bill. And he drafted legislation to expand the federal charter school program that became law in 1998.

Gerstein is a native of West Hartford, Connecticut, and a graduate of Harvard College, with a B.A. in History. His first professional experience was a four-year run as a staff reporter for the Hartford Courant, where he covered local sports, community affairs, and politics.

Gerstein currently resides in Manhattan, where he is active in local politics and civic life. He is the co-founder of Food for Thought, a monthly discussion group that brings together accomplished young professionals from across the city’s political spectrum to chew on new, thought-provoking ideas. He is also a member of the New York Public Library’s Young Lions organization and the New York Film Forum. And he is a volunteer with the Taste of New York benefit for Share Our Strength, one of the nation’s leading anti-hunger advocacy groups.

 

At 3:18 PM, February 18, 2007,  Human said...

Mick,

With all due respect, there is nothing in the above bio that would indicate Gerstein is anything other than a neo-con hack. It is just a bit of marketing we are all familiar with. Further, we know Leiberman is a right wing fascist hack himself - why would his staff be not merely the moon reflecting the sun.

Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human

 

At 3:20 PM, February 18, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Let's worked for Lieberman, who is a neo-con. Not that Lieberman is a Democrat anymore, but there are some neo-cons in the party. Gee, do you think that might have something to with Lieberman leaving the party?

Gerstien's real claim to fame, which your love letter ingores, is his attempt to shout down Ned Lamont during a visit to a CT diner during the primary - real class that, I can see why you repect him so.

Your failure to cite a source or credit the author of the words you cut and paste (as usual) is just another indication of your complete lack of integrity.

 

At 3:25 PM, February 18, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Thanks for link, pumpkin, but found Barton's site some time ago. Since Mick lacks either the intelligence or integrity (perhaps both) to support his own claims, I'll point out that, according to Barton's bio on his own site, the awards he has recieved are all from political organizations that share his extremist views. As I said hardly something that lends credibility as a "historian".

 

At 3:27 PM, February 18, 2007,  Human said...

I appreciate the above focus on source material.

It seems the large question is simple -

so what??

The reality is that American constitution, which is the only document we have to determining what is "American" in any meaningful way, is most decidely a non-Christian document and does not proscribe any religion.

There, the quote above don't even really matter.

Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human

Sincerely,

 

At 5:42 PM, February 18, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Mick don't play their game.
It is a waste of time and energy.
There is one highly disturbed man posting again and again under different names and anonymous.
You are encouraging him by playing his game.

How did the comments get driven up to 41 on a post that is several days old? You post one, he posts 3-4. When he (Human/Vishanti)stops posting (i've only seen it twice) there are no more posts. It is all him posting again and again. Most of it is a lie any way. You want to help a disturbed man slime us all with his lies?

It is sick and it has ruined this site for the rest of us.

 

At 5:59 PM, February 18, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Mick the mean and smart alec anonymous posts (i.e "mick sweetie" "Honey" etc.)
are Human a.k.a. Vishanti.
Ignore them. They are from a troubled man whose only life is his fantacy life on line. And that is very sad--but no need to allow yourself to be abused.

 

At 6:45 PM, February 18, 2007,  Oshtur Vishanti said...

Mick, is he filling in gaps or just telling a group what they want to hear? We know Washington was a Freemason, never took communion at his church and was called a deist by those he knew. Jefferson was big on Christian principles and very down on what he called the 'superstition of Christianity'. His tomb has an inscription about how he vowed to fight religious fundamentalists and their desire of tyranny over the minds of men.

Barton allows those listening to fill in the gaps the way they want - someone mentions God once and he lets them assume that they would have supported the particular sect of the listener even though he must know they wouldn't have and maybe even actively opposed it.

Seems a bit of deliberate pandering to the masses more than educating them.

 

At 8:44 PM, February 18, 2007,  Human said...

...hmmm...seems as the truth comes out and these false teachings are exposed, Satan rears his ugly head through his emissaries (Anon 5:42, 5:59) falsely accusing the
brethern as is his very name.

I would recommend anyone read some of the archived blogs and you will see much of the same discussion as we have had - some of it well done on both sides - some simply rant. The only view I have not seen is mine - that Jesus is my God and that the view put forth by FNF are generally false and sometimes simply directly contrary to Christ.

Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human

 

At 10:11 AM, February 19, 2007,  Mimi from Massachusetts said...

Hello Human,

Joe Leiberman is a "right-wing fascist hack?" My goodness. Why?

 

At 10:30 AM, February 19, 2007,  Human said...

Hey Mimi - looks like I woke you up...;-)

That may be a bit of an overstatment (or, not) - consider it a reflection of my ire for his lemming like, irrational support of violence against peaceful human beings (read: dropping bombs on children in Iraq) and the Israli terrorist regime (read: shooting missles down Main Street in Gaza killing children and families with US munitions), etc.

Hmmm...after writing that, maybe my characterization is not all that bad. However, as always, I am open for discussion.

Hope you are well.

Human

 

At 12:26 PM, February 19, 2007,  Mick Sheldon said...

Actually the debate started with ME with Human quoting Ms Marcotte in a rant against Republicans . She just lost her job with Presidential Candidate John Edwards because of her many quotes
that she wish she could say were made up . for instance the one about
Mary, the mother of Jesus, having sex with the "Lord among other things and got called on it right after John Edwards hired her . This other guy anom defended that as as just right wing attacks?




Actually it was more like the DC media police . I am sure right wing folks picked up in the gotcha last wars .

As far as to the democrat who is a neo con because I guess he supported Lierberman .

I did not know the defintion of neo con included democrats . And I do recall Lierberman , and even Hillary getting nailed for Iraq positions . More so Lieberman . But he votes their way on the other issues ... Does he not ..




But never thought of Lieberman as a neo con . This other guy , who is a democrat who anom says is a secret republican , a right wing conspiracy I guess , because he comes out and talks about the crazy nasty left wing bloggers stopping with the hate rants ..

Lets see Mary having sex with Jesus , and M------ F------ Christians and such .. Not exactly helping the Bible belt and Catholic votes .



Right , don't listen ... Christians suck , the blogger was making political sense , I wish most of the comments about Christianity would get into voters hands .

Only plays well on blogs , when the average guy , regardless of religion reads that stuff .. It hurts democratical NATIONAL candidates . 5 liberals telling a Christian he has no integrity , a liar , listens to a dead god is an idea of a winning debate ? How many times do debates get down to that level on blogs . Many ...


He had links to Huffington Post and such on his web ..He supporterd and helped a democrat Congressman get elected . . Because he
is coming out and telling the lefty wingnuts to cool itThe lefty democrat
during Clinton's impeachement defended him . Liberman did too ,
a democrat only would do that .

Why would they undermine democrats ?


Youthink BAMA will be coming out for Deism or Christianity when he is campaigning through South Carolina or Massachussets .
The lefty democrat
during Clinton's impeachement defended him . Liberman did too ,
a democrat only would do that .

Why would they undermine democrats ?

,


,
. The vast majority of the Constititonal Delegates were members of their own colony legislatures , those legislatures all had oaths that were needed to be taken acknowledging their belief in Jesus Christ , God or both . Lefty orgainzations have these constitutional states constitutions even on their pages , these are just facts .

To imply this nation was based on deism , or that the majority of the Founders were is nonsense . Of course deist had input , it was trendy, but politically a deist was in the closet . Bible thumping had the pc test in those days .
Still does somewhat ..


.. But it explains the hatred towards Barton ..
Thank you .. I did not understand exactly .. I did not think he was that big of deal actually .. He has a great piece on Black History that is used in the African American community . Right it based on the legislatures right after the Civil War , the blacks had many elected reps in the south till Jim Crow and the KKK came back into play . I learned from it , and its true .. And yeah it was really a slam against democrats , that was in there too . Otherwise It would have been something a public school could have used in
my opinion .




Like I said before , Barton he will allow us to see Washington's Farewll Address , and his warnings not only to political loyalty and what it can do to undermine our Republic but the need for religion and morality in our daily lives .. To me persoannly that speaks to Christianity , but if I was a Jew that speak to Judaism .. The thing I like about our Founders , they thought religion was important .. Thats enough to get some lefties nasty nasty .

 

At 2:40 PM, February 19, 2007,  Human said...

Mick,

I don't think anyone "hates Barton." It is his credentials and methods which have issues as far as I understand.

The larger question I asked above, however, has still not been answered:

It seems the larger question is simple -

So What (whether the "founders" were Christian or not or whether the quotes were accurate or not)??

The reality is that American constitution, which is the only document we have to determining what is "American" in any meaningful way, is most decidely a non-Christian document and does not proscribe any religion.

There, the quote above don't even really matter.

 

At 3:55 PM, February 19, 2007,  Allen said...

Human
First time on this site. You seriously don't believe all this stuff you write here do you? At first pass, I agree with others, that you are writing under several ID's. I anylize writing patterns for a living.
I believe I have seen you writing on other websites as well.
Are you a paid blogger? And if so, who would pay you? If you are not a paid blogger, why do you spend so much time on this site when you have such distain for what it stands for?
You need to get a life.

 

At 3:58 PM, February 19, 2007,  Anonymous said...

I agree. Could you find somewhere else to camp out?

 

At 4:21 PM, February 19, 2007,  Human said...

Allen,

Since it is the first time you are on this site, you might consider having the decency to introduce yourself to the community.

You might also actually make a specific statement rather than use simply an ad hominem attack. That doesn't say much for your credential (notwithstanding you are dead wrong since OV and I have completely different styles).

Regardless, I don't really believe you anyway - I suspect you are one of the two emissaries who gurgle up from Hell from time to time.

Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human

 

At 5:31 PM, February 19, 2007,  Oshtur Vishanti said...

The thing I like about our Founders , they thought religion was important .. Thats enough to get some lefties nasty nasty .

No just the ones that say a particular religion is, especially its dogma when our Founding Fathers were about religious principles.

'Hate' Barton? No but I find hucksters and people trying to rewrite history to pander to the masses disturbing and that their supporters pretend they believe it because it fits their agendas even though cursory research on their part would reveal it as unChristian demagogic distortions.

 

At 6:11 AM, February 20, 2007,  Oshtur Vishanti said...

A nice article about Ben Franklin's attitudes towards rationalism and religion is here. Money quote:

As regards the issue of religion and public life, Franklin mistrusted enthusiastic rationalists as much as he did enthusiastic believers. He always worried about political oppression by the clergy and thought that wise policy should keep them as far from politics as possible. But he would not then think it wise to despise and humiliate those who long for the clergy to rule, especially since the despisers are often as bullheaded as those they condemn.

 

At 11:59 AM, February 20, 2007,  Mick Sheldon said...

Ben was cool .. Actually went around his house in the nude . He was a character .

This thing against barton is ore then just concern of Historical accuracy .. How many people think separation of chuch and state is in our Consititution. How many people think Jefferson wrote the first Amendment . In fact he was in France in the time .

I think the myths of in accuraccy in not from my perspective of the larger picture . By the way , this is the oath Washington signed , hiscolony had an oath to the Church of England . Was he a deist , maybe .. Hard to know a persons heart , I leave that for Human . The Founders were very concerned about making sure the Federal Government was neutral on Religion , not against anyone or promoting one . Some did promote Christianity .. But the oath here I got from a secular source , which almost all my history is from , Barton is part of what I read , and it should be anyone's .
He does not contradict history .. No more then Black History Month does .



I, A B, do declare that I will be conformable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, as by law established.,
"1765. May 20th. – Thomas Withers Coffer, Thomas Ford, John Ford.

"19th August. – Geo. Washington, Daniel M‘Carty

 

At 1:11 PM, February 20, 2007,  Anonymous said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

At 3:28 PM, February 20, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Ah yes, Restore America, because sometime pseudo-fascism just isn't enough.

 

At 5:13 PM, February 20, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Osthur

How do you know the story about Franklin is true. Maybe someone made it up or maybe he never really felt that way

 

At 5:27 PM, February 20, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Allen I too have seen Human/Vishanti on other sites.

 

At 8:25 PM, February 20, 2007,  Anonymous said...

OMG! anonymous, allen, mimi and mick are all the same person!!!

 

At 9:33 PM, February 20, 2007,  Oshtur Vishanti said...

Osthur

How do you know the story about Franklin is true. Maybe someone made it up or maybe he never really felt that way

Well by one of the premiere Franklin scholars, good chance he has an understanding of the man. And considering the more typical view is that he would be even less supportive of modern evangelicals its a nice moderate 'win' for the F&FN side of the tracks.

And yes Allen, there is an unusual person who has gotten it in their head that every note from someone who can effectively support their viewpoints is the same person.

Actually its far more likely that that he is himself several posters and is desperately trying to save face by attempting to drag anyone he disagrees with down in to a similar state of duplicitousness.

 

At 11:20 AM, February 21, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Right on article Gary. Barton is great....go see him if you get a chance!

The leftists on this site are hoping you don't because they are afraid people will actually learn the truth about our nation's great history.

 

At 2:19 PM, February 22, 2007,  Anonymous said...

ummm that would be "the leftist" on this sit as one highly disturbed man has hijacked this site posting again and again all day long under different names and under anonymous.

 

At 11:00 PM, February 22, 2007,  Human said...

Anon 11:20

This nation was born of rebellion against a government that presumably God installed (Rom 13:10).

If you are genuinely interested in someone other than the choir attending - you can contact me at further57@yahoo.com - I will attend with you if you are genuinely willing to submit your mind and behavior to Jesus Christ vs. right wing religion. Your call. Please tell me if you have written since I don't check that box often.

Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human

 

At 5:13 PM, February 23, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Ok Human that is sick. You are no Christian and we all know it.

 

At 10:51 PM, February 23, 2007,  Human said...

Anon - Your heart is so full of the Satan that you do not even know how to think anymore - you have become the pathetic beasts that Jude and IIPet 2 reference - now I see what they sound like - I have never run into someone as demonized as youself.

 

At 9:28 AM, February 24, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Humna be quite and get a life.
You are a fraud and everyone knows it.

No my heart is not full of Satan. It is quite the opposite. If you were a Christian you would know that.

 

At 5:14 PM, February 24, 2007,  Human said...

If your heart was full of Christ, you would praying for me (as I do for you) instead of condemning me.

 

At 10:11 AM, February 25, 2007,  Anonymous said...

Oh human I have. Perhaps you remember the night it was clear that you were posting as Rev. B.? You are still here on earth aren't you? You know exactly what I mean.

But you made your choice and continued right on doing what you do. There is no reason for you to harrass this site and everyone on it just because your own choices have made you miserable. Telling lie after lie? Attacking good people? Playing games with scripture which is sacred to most people on here? Ruining this site for the rest of us? What you are doing is evil, and that is not a word I ever use--until now.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home