Bandar Domino Tergacor Terbaik di Indonesia
10 hours ago
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Sunday Faith Blog
Sometimes, when I've posted about the remarkable information of David Barton, he's been insulted by commenters.........Please, listen to the truth, the facts, this is an amazing history of Christianity in America and how the forefathers certainly planned it to be part of America's future......would that it were. Please pray that happens. We want a free and peaceful America, we want Israel protected.........God bless America.
"The fruit of righteousness will be peace; the effect of righteousness will be quietness and confidence forever." Isaiah 32:17
z
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
Wow, Z, David Barton is wearing a black shirt with colorful armbands. I'm sure some of the members of the lunatic fringe will interpret that as being an indication that he's somehow associated with Ron Paul. Did he raise his arm in some sort of a salute, as well?
Waylon
Very interesting Z, and educational as well. As you well know, as do I, Barton is well schooled in the founder's history and has the documents to back it up.
To the skeptics I say, whatever you may think, Barton did not paint those paintings in the Capitol building. They speak for themselves.
Waylon, who are the lunatic fringe? I'd really like to know.
Pris
Really Waylon, what salute? He was pointing to the paintings and the statue. Relax.
Pris
Pris, I'm sure the lunatic fringe is self identifying without me naming names. I thought you were a regular blog reader here and you would be able to recognize lunacy when you see it.
I'll take your word for it and there was no salute to be seen on the video.
Waylon
According to Beamish, locally celebrated Wise Guy, Chief Libeler, Resident-Bully and Would-be Bouncer at GeeeeeZ, CPAC has just given the nod to a leftist who is also a racist, an anti-Semite, and a spiritual descendant of Adolf Hitler. [See Washington Times article cited below]What this may say about CPAC is up to you to decide. It is also up to you to decide what it may say about Beamish. How you choose to receive this news, and what you decide about its significance will also help to define you.
~ FreeThinke
Texas Rep. Ron Paul Captures CPAC Presidential Preference Straw Poll
By Ralph Z. Hallow - The Washington Times
Texas Rep. Ron Paul has won the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2012 presidential preference straw poll of 3,742 activists, the chairman of the huge annual gathering of conservative activists announced on Saturday.
The poll, sponsored this year for the first time by The Washington Times, is seen as one of the earliest tests of grassroots popularity among the party’s dominant conservative wing, and Mr. Paul, who ran unsuccessfully for the nomination in 2008, has traditionally done well in the CPAC voting.
The Republican lawmaker, long a favorite of the party’s libertarian wing, took 30 percent of the votes cast, followed by Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 23 percent. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has said he will not be a candidate in 2012, and New Mexico former Gov. Gary Johnson tied for third, with 6 percent of the vote.
Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich followed with 5 percent.
Tied at 4 percent were Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Trailing them was former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who garnered just 3 percent of the vote.
Asked in the survey if they were generally happy with the field of GOP contenders lining up to challenge President Obama next year, 56 percent of CPAC voters said they were generally satisfied with the current crop of candidates, while 43 percent said they were not.
The announcement of the vote came at the end of the third and final day of the CPAC gathering in Washington.
This year’s event attracted a record attendance of over 11,000, and more than 3,700 attendees participated in this year’s straw poll — up more than 1,300 from a year ago.
The Washington Times, LLC.
Buh BYE!
I never pay much attention when I'm told to "listen to the truth".
Always beds the question of what standing the request has to actually know the truth.
A request to listen with an open mind would be appropriate and it's pretty well known which side I think is lacking there.
pray we get our Nation back Z...........
Waylon, I didn't ask for names, I asked for your definition of "lunatic fringe" This term is thrown around pretty loosely.
Some folks call Christians "the lunatic fringe". That doesn't make them so, now does it?
As for David Barton, I've seen him several times on Beck, and he speaks of our founders as they relate to Christianity, and historical documents from the founding of our country.
I've never once heard him talk about his politics or politics in general. You'd have to ask him.
If you're speaking of Ron Paul, I don't see any connection, and furthermore, I don't support him in any way. Are the young people who do, "lunatics" or just ill informed?
As for Barton's red, white, and blue armbands, I have no idea what they signify, if anything in particular. I'm not willing to jump to some crazy conclusion about them either, because I don't know.
Pris
Pris, I'd consider individuals who engage in over-the-top name calling and when asked to back up any wild assertions they make they resort to more hyperbolic invective to insult others but offer no proof of their assertions such as Ron Paul is a Nazi and if you don't think so ... well you're just a moron (to paraphrase here). As for me, I haven't called any Christians "the lunatic fringe" for being Christians per se. There may be some Christian sects which I would classify as that, though.
As for David Barton, like you, I've seen him on Glenn Beck a few times. Other than that I don't claim any great familiarity with him. BTW, I thought he seemed like a "nice guy" on Beck's program. On the other hand, it can hardly be just an accident or accidental poor taste that he'd dress up in a black shirt with arm bands, can it?
Waylon
Since the topic is religion I came across an interesting bit about one of their members leaving the church because he thought the church was wrong in not supporting Proposition 8(director Paul Haggis is now an apostate). He thought that the church was discriminating against homosexuals. Seems there is no unanimity on that subject even among the Christian religion.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright
Waylon
Waylon, your link didn't work. It said "Error, content not found".
Unless or until I know what those armbands mean, I can't comment on it. For all I know it's meaning is benign. I've never seen that before.
Their seal says "Watchmen on the Wall". Most likely the armbands represent that.
I agree that Christian (if you can call it that) group for instance who torment mourners at funerals, are loony haters. That's a good example of lunatic fringe.
However, opposing same sex marriage
IMO is not "lunatic fringe", and it isn't only Christians who do.
I oppose it, but I have no problem with homosexuals. I do think many are as narrow minded as they accuse others of being though.
I know you haven't called Christians "lunatic fringe", and didn't imply you did. I said "some folks", which is true.
Pris
Waylon, I don't know.
Listen to the words, the facts are there and I only post this in reaction to secularists suggesting the opposite of what the video shows.
I'll look again when I'm finished with my comments here.
I've seen Barton interviewed MANY times and he's never uttered a word or shown a sign of any kind of fringe anything, unless you think studying our Christian roots is fringe, and I think a lot of people do.
Pris is a commenter and contributor...I thought she asked a perfectly good question in 'who are the lunatic fringe' because, frankly, some of us are tired of being considered that ourselves with absolutely no thoughts that aren't shared by at least half of this country! "FRINGE?"
Ducky, he's loaded with facts, where you find them satisfactory to your leanings or not! geeez
Waylon; there are plenty of things with no unanimity in the Christian religion...homosexuality is one of them. But, the scripture is the scripture; whatever any church says.
It's like thinking all Christians have pink bubble hair dos and sit on golden thrones and beg for money because people see that on Christian TV. I don't know a person remotely like ANY of those people yet I'm lumped in with them! Lots of differing attitudes, opinions, etc., especially when veering from the Word.
Pris, you're right about some lunatic fringe groups, and some are CHristian, that's for SURE. ..like those 'churches' screaming GOD HATES FAGS at soldier funerals. Show me in the Bible where it says God hates any sinner.
Listening with an open mind does not mean one has to swallow leftist bile. I believe that most people at Z’s blog do listen; and having done so carefully, reject socialist pap. In any case, this was Z’s Sunday Faith Blog and all she gets from mental midgets is political claptrap.
Now as it just so happens, the communist left rejects David Barton out of hand—and we understand why. It is not their mission to entertain any of Barton’s arguments. To the contrary, their mission is to demean American exceptionalism at every turn, and this of course mandates that they impugn Mr. Barton’s integrity as well. What should we conclude from this?
I've googled for ten minutes on why David Barton wears that uniform and arm band and all I see is some ridiculous comment about separation of church and state...which makes no sense at all.
What's sad is we seem to want perfection from every single living human being that makes any kind of a difference, who informs, educates, etc.
I think his outfit is just plain WEIRD now that Waylon brings it up...I hadn't honestly noticed it before.......
Does that detract from the facts which he backs up? Not for me.
I'm very sure he does no contrived 'salute', that's for sure. How long would he think THAT would last with a media so out to get him?
Hi Z,
Stopped by to see what was up with the z-bots. I can't pass this up. Let me count the lies of David Barton.
The bible he held up is the Aitken bible. It was printed by Robert Aitken, not Congress. Aitken made several requests of the Continental Congress. The only one granted was for Congress to commission some chaplains to verify the accuracy of the printing.
Bibles had been imported from England before the Revolution. Printers in the States were only printing pamphlets and newspapers. They were notoriously full of errors. Congress was willing to promote any printer who could accurately do a printing of such a large book like the bible. Aitken had other requests of Congress.
that his Bible "be published under the Authority of Congress,"(3) and that he "be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of the Sacred Scriptures."(4) He also asked Congress to purchase some of his Bibles and distribute them to the states.
None of them was granted. Here is the entire text of the Resolution.
Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.
Barton goes on to lie about "a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools". Those words are taken from a letter written by Aitken, not the resolution of Congress.
Aitken was unable to sell his bible to Americans, even without competition from English bibles. He petitioned Congress on two other occasions to buy and distribute his bibles to the states and to give them to soldiers after the Revolution. He was turned down. He was looking for a bailout.
If I get some time, I'll point out more of Barton's lies. He's a charlatan.
Z, the article that I linked to is a lengthy one discussing the Church of Scientology and how some of those who have left the church, like Paul Haggis (after 35 years) have had to deal with a problem that may be best described as one in which you can check in but never leave, at least not without a war being waged.
There's a correction to an earlier post in which I said it was the stance of the Church against Proposition 8 that caused the split between Haggis and the church. It was the sexual orientation of his daughter(s) which became an issue when Haggis felt he needed to support them while the church wouldn't lend its support to him for his daughters and they had been part of the church for years before.
Pris, I tried the link and it worked here. Maybe you're being censored!
Waylon
Waylon, Church of Scientology is a philosophy.. It doesn't represent mainstream Christian churches at all.
Sometimes, I wonder if people really think all christians are perfect. It's a terrible misunderstanding (actually it's utterly ridiculous!) that reflects poorly on Christians who actually walk the walk and fail as much as secularists but keep on keeping on to live up to the Word of God.
Craig...don't bother to clip more from Google...but thanks for coming by. I'm not Barton hero-worshiper... My point is that a lot of what he says IS right and there are all too many who'll pick on points they can pick on to run all he says down; He's very well hated by many people and you won't find many supportive articles on him. Spare yourself the time, I'll delete the rest of your 'education' only because it has no bearing on the point of my post...the huge part CHristianity played in the founding of this country.
Thanks for coming by.
You want Israel protected but you post a video of a man who is associated with Christian Identity theology which says that White anglos are the chosen people and Jews are usurpers.
Some crowd to hang with.
Ducky, Gad, how long did it take you to dig that up for me? I've looked and looked now and can't find it. "White ANglos the Chosen People?" :-) Please produce that information....
It's a crowd I prefer to the liberal secular crowd ANY time of day...and, of course, no matter what nuttiness you or Craig can come finally come up with against Barton, negates neither all of his information OR anything on ALL Christians!
Ducky, I see it now...DailyKos and other highly secular, leftist blogs.......I still can't find where HE says he ID's with that, but ...if Daily Kos says it...okay! :-)
I won't be arguing this here anymore on this post....fire away, miss my point...whatever.
The point of my post is an important one and it's clear why secularists are fighting anything Barton says; I know that, with many people, if ONE THING he said is questionable, they feel ALL must be negated. Not fair and, truly, not too smart?
"...an amazing history of Christianity in America and how the forefathers certainly planned it to be part of America's future."
no doubt about that.
OH, my goodness. I found this, and then I'm finished.."Barton's ideological past becomes creepiest with Christian Identity, a group he associated with early in his career:Barton found an eager audience for his Christian nationalist history on the right-wing fringe. In 1991, as the ADL has reported, he spoke at a summer gathering of Scriptures for America, a group founded by Pete Peters, a pastor in the Christian Identity movement."
Um...sounds like he got sucked in by NUTS, doesn't it. Yes, he spoke at a gathering ..I guess one COULD say "he ASSOCIATED with that"!! Sounds like he left this group or the critical article would have made a bigger deal of it..1991..one speech. ya.
I love the 'right wing fringe' moniker...why don't they ever saddle Jeremiah Wright or William Dohrn or Van JOnes with "left wing fringe" do you figure? :-)
I'm done. have a nice night..
Z,
I've heard David Barton many times, a very astute historian no doubt. Yet without even hearing the video I just wanted to thank you for a tremendous post. The verse from Isaiah that you chose is one that means quite much to me. Thanks for another home-run. God Bless.
Thank you, David. He's done pretty much nothing but study the history of our country and its Christian roots, you're right.
I'm glad the quote meant so much to you!
I just listened to the video. Excellent, as per usual. God Bless.
Let's see:
Columbus -- Roman Catholic, oh-oh
Pocahontas -- questionable historic accuracy.
Pilgrims -- I'd rather have sharia.
"Pris, I tried the link and it worked here. Maybe you're being censored!"
Waylon, all I can tell you is, I copied and pasted the link you provided. I got what I said I got. Oh right, I'm being censored. Very funny!
Pris
"censored?" It's NOT ME!! :-)
Waylon's link worked fine for me...after reading it. Waylon, do you think the Church Of Scientology is Christian??
Z, you see? Christians are painted as "fringe". Just as the the Daily Kos says. They have the answers right?
This is today in America.
The Craigs, Ducky's, and some others will sooner accept this as fringe. And why? because they can. It's politically correct, thereby acceptable.
Are Islamists fringe? Well, it appears not. We have to be careful not to rush to judgement where they're concerned.
Political correctness must will out!
Well, Christians don't hang homosexuals, and they don't stone women to death. But, they're lunatic fringe, so who cares, right?
The Bible may say homosexuality is a sin, but that is for God to judge, not man, yet, it is we who are to be judged by man, right?
Why? because a Christian educator wears a black shirt with unknown armbands?
Or once spoke to a group the ADL finds questionable? Well we all know how unbiased the ADL is don't we?
Frankly, I really don't care what the naysayers have to offer. And I can say with absolute certainty, I don't give a damn about what the church of Scientology has to do with this.
Some of you have taken a perfectly reasonable, interesting post, and could have learned something, and turned it into a mish mash of nonsensical claptrap not worthy of any respect whatsoever.
Pris
Scotty's right..HOLY SMOKE! In my response to Waylon regarding Scientology, my mind was saying CHRISTIAN SCIENCE....oops!
Waylon, the "CHURCH" of Scientology isn't really even a church; it has absolutely ZERO connection to Christianity. Thanks Scotty...yikes, I went way astray on that!
Pris, you're so right in all that you said....a really heinous misread on Christians is that they HATE gays or HATE anybody who's not perfect! MAN, it's not till you're Christian that you REALLY know HOW imperfect you are!! I don't mean that you don't clean your room or can't cook lasagne, I mean in really important things, the tougher things (unless you REALLY can't cook...:-)
Nobody should judge the sinner (and we are ALL sinners) and we are all sinners....we love them but we're not too crazy about their or our own transgressions.
But, there's always the REAL nuts who secularists and the media glom on to the minute a nut who bills himself as Christian does something.
Yet, as you say....Islam has a pass.
TIME magazine's picture of the young muslim girl with no nose left due to her 'charming' islamic husband is being discussed only from the viewpoint of TIME having published it "was it indelicate?" etc....in all the articles I have read on this, NOT ONE has mentioned "HER MUSLIM SLIME HUSBAND DID THIS TO HER!" not ONE.
We are a very lost place and our media's doing all of us a great injustice by not calling things for what they ARE as we did in the old days when things went BETTER
Barton tells the truth. Waylon and Ducky tell lies and pretend it is truth. They see the truth and call it a lie. Because to them, truth is relative.
Funny...that's exactly what the Bible said they would do.
No, z, I accept accurate history. Now if you want to accept Puritan theocracy as an uninterrupted thread in New England history then you are going to have t deal with Hawthorne, Thoreau, Emerson and everyone else who rejected them.
Their only defender may be Melville and he was pretty clear that the Puritans were vicious and turned on each other ("Pierre"). So your David Baton propaganda is only going to be uncontested by the uninformed.
Well, Christians don't hang homosexuals, and they don't stone women to death.
----------------
Pris, be aware that Barton is connected to Dominionists who advocate the death penalty for homosexuals. Careful who you hang out with.
Ducky, "uninterrupted thread?" Where do you GET this stuff? Why do you speak for me and speak in ways I never dreamed? It's just unbelievable. By the way, I'm talking founding fathers, what do I care about Melville and Thoreau, of all people?
You don't see that various groups have various opinions and just because THOREAU isn't Christian has no bearing on whether or not the Founding Fathers felt Christianity was important in this country? Which it IS??
By the way, I'm not on the defensive here about Christianity in this country!! And I've been acting like I am. I'm OVER THAT.
It is vitally important....that it is NOT as important anymore reflects obviously in what's happening in this country's culture, morals, etc etc etc.
To not see that is...NUTS.
Let's slam CHristians and give Muslims every damned chance in hell before condemning them, right Ducky? that's apparent in EVERY SINGLE THING you write on this subject. Absolutely everything. It's a dangerous, silly, naive viewpoint.
Also, PLEASE present your background information; find somewhere that shows Barton is for killing gays, okay? I'd love to see that :-)
Craig, here's the Aitkens information:
http://www.theworldsgreatbooks.com/Aitken%20Bible.htm
And one day the aliens landed here, proclaiming their discovery a "new world" yet we'd been here all along.
They exited their craft, wearing armor and weapons of a metalworkmanship far beyond our means to fuel the energy requirements for doing so without serious environmental disruption of our nomadic foraging and hunting grounds. We could not stop them. Many fell to their efficient weapons of mass destruction.
With their invasion came hierarchical command structures and coerced behavioral and occupational conformity. You can see this from the reverse-engineering of some of their invasion craft, all compartmentalized into function and duties to the hierarchy and doubtlessly insular even in its rationing of what food, water, medicines, and ammunition it could carry with its soldiers through the long journey from the obviously hellish, barbaric, authoritarian world they came from. As if their first city were designed and built by a murderer for his own protection.
The conquerors were fierce. Those that foolishly aligned with them were relegated to second class statuses or betrayed and purged later as they expanded the harsh military jurisdiction codes of their invasion craft to apply to subjegated continents.
And pretty soon all that remained of the first ones, the ones who lived and fought the invasion when it began, who could keep a part of their lands, was a declaration, uttered incessantly in futile antiquity:
"Make them pay to park here."
Founding Fathers? What's that got to do with the Puritans, z.
He points out three paintings, none of them has anything to do with the founders.
If you dn't believe Thoreau, Emerson, the Abolitionists and much of what came from New England before the Civil War was an important part of the founding then your sense of history is inaccurate.
Ducky, all the paintings have something to do with Christianity...and all of that leads to the founding fathers continuing in that endeavor.
Thoreau, Emerson...I'm not writing them off, I'm saying they're irrelevant to this subject. Their philosophies have nothing to do with CHristian America, they are entitled to hold their own place in American history, however. I'm not denying that but there is no connection to them and my subject.
You're all about pilgrims, I didn't mention them..
And, if you watched the video, how can you write off all he said about so many churches being take-offs from having started IN the capitol, and so much else which makes my point? How can you write off so much and focus on things you want to bring up? It's a kind of weird 'gift' you have! Honestly!
goodnight
blessed irony! :)
According to Beamish, locally celebrated Wise Guy, Chief Libeler, Resident-Bully and Would-be Bouncer at GeeeeeZ, CPAC has just given the nod to a leftist who is also a racist, an anti-Semite, and a spiritual descendant of Adolf Hitler. [See Washington Times article cited below]What this may say about CPAC is up to you to decide. It is also up to you to decide what it may say about Beamish. How you choose to receive this news, and what you decide about its significance will also help to define you.
Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll, a easily manipulated and thus unscientific accounting. It is not a measure of how many people at CPAC voted to endorse Ron Paul but rather the number of multiple ballots that were jammed in it by his cultish, childish, theatrics-prone followers. The CPAC organization says as much. In a actual one-vote-per-person verified and controlled poll set to counter fraud and abuse, Ron Paul would have performed as he always does in such polls. Dead last.
Ron Paul's indefensible and financially cemented ties to anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi, white supremacist organizations are apparent enough to anyone caring to investigate. His ego's promiscuity knows no bounds, leaping at every opportunity to fellate an interviewer's microphone no matter if it is a 9/11 troofer's, a nutlog Area 51 investigatin' New World Order fightin' Holocaust denyin' Blue M&Ms are United Nations nanochips conspiracy theory radio host's, or merely that of a Jewish comedian masquerading as a raging homosexual Austrian talk show host.
I would think it far more insulting and libelous to Ron Paul's intellect and character to suggest he doesn't know who he panders to and draws support from.
As for "spiritual descendancy from Adolf Hitler," sorry. I don't deal in abstracts.
Hitler didn't post links to white supremacist websites and cut and paste smear jobs from anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers. YOU DID, FreakDink.
blessed Irony! :)
Was in reference to a previous comment that simply evaporated. Let's see if it does better this time.
@BEamish. And one day the aliens landed here, proclaiming their discovery a "new world" yet we'd been here all along.
Did they come in a ship named Santa Maria - the "founding Fathers"? lol.
folks, let's stick to the topic a little better. I don't want to continue that battle.
thanks.
Actually, they built an outpost colony named "Enoch" in the land of Nod....
folks, let's stick to the topic a little better. I don't want to continue that battle.
thanks.
Sorry I got distracted by the "anonymous" Paulbot sock puppet show performed by one who mendaciously feigns feeling "bullied" because he's been asked to leave and take his stinky anti-Semitic racist socks with him, yet adamantly refuses to do so. Like a bully.
As for Barton's presentation, it's a rather dubious presentation of history-as-agenda. I'm not certain I want to contemplate the implications of what remembering that Congress used to meet for worship in a Capitol Building room full of statues means to Barton.
If he's saying "Look, America's earliest political leaders were Christians" and stops there, he's not setting off my alarms.
If he's saying "Let's take on our Manifest Destiny to make Egypt the 51st state" well, that's something else entirely.
Z,
I looked at the link you gave me and it contains many of the same errors and distortions Barton uses.
"The bible of the American Revolution" was a name given to the Aitken bible in 1930 by two guys who were trying to sell leaves and copies of leaves in compilation books titled,
An Original Leaf from the Bible of the Revolution, and an Essay Concerning It By Robert R. Dearden, Jr. and Douglas S. Watson.
They were trying to hype the value of the book.
Congress passed a resolution to make every attempt to import 20,000 Bibles in English “from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the Union.”
Dr. Allison petitioned Congress for the importation of quality paper and type face. That was determined not to be practical, so the idea was floated to loan money for the importation of bibles. It was never passed as a resolution by the Continental Congress no money was loaned.
Congressional Resolution was adopted granting Aitken permission and financial support
This is a bald faced lie. The Resolution wasn't granting permission, it was an endorsement that Aitken could use any way he wanted. Congress didn't give Aitken a dime to print his bible. Aitken ended up losing 3000 pounds on his printing of 10,000 bibles. The reason they are so rare is that very few were sold and the unsold copies were eventually thrown out.
Z, Barton goes on to make several untrue statements in the video. You made it clear you're not interested in hearing the facts and will delete any further attempts by me to debunk him. I'm responding now to a direct reply from you, so I hope you don't delete this.
The Craigs, Ducky's, and some others will sooner accept this as fringe. And why? because they can. It's politically correct, thereby acceptable.
Instead of telling me what I think, you could easily ask me.
I agree, religion/Christianity was part of the culture in the late 17th century. To say it is the foundation of the establishment of our country is not supported by facts. It's clear that David Barton misrepresents, distorts, quote mines and flat out lies to paint a picture of our founding that never existed. He is easily refuted using his own footnoted sources. He gets away with it because few people are willing to check his sources and are satisfied by the appearance of a 'footnote'.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-phony history. If there is a case to be made, then make it. Honestly. This whole revision is being used to push an 'agenda'. Denying rights to certain groups, teaching Creationism/ anti-science, abortion (I get the opposition to it, but the case against must be on merit and not, "the bible says so".), and on and on. I have a beef with Islam or any other religion that might try and foist their beliefs on me. It just so happens, Christians are the dominant religion here and some,not all, are pushing, what I consider, a Theocracy.
Imagine if these words appeared in a piece of legislation or treaty today;
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims)
Think anyone would make a stink? You probably know this is Article 11 of the "Treaty of Tripoli". It was published in the major newspapers of the day, ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by John Adams.
Just sayin'.
I don't know what Barton's point is, but I usually avoid government contra religion and religion contra government arguments by positing a entirely different argument:
We should not quibble over whether or not there should be institutionally led prayers in public schools.
We should not care whether or not a public school presents the view that critical inquiry can logically hold that mankind is the product of intelligently designed functions inherent to or of the universe by an unseen cosmic initiator. We should not care whether or not some men religiously assert that mankind simply rose from Anaximander's dead fish as divined by incoherent primitive speculations involving bizarre necromantic rituals with fossilized rock impressions.
No, we shouldn't bother with this rigmarole at all. Instead, we should assert that these social arguments are unnecessary without public schools Americans, especially those without children, are compelled to fund.
It's about money and government power, and not about that Johnny might come home wondering what side of his family tree walked out of the mouth of a beached fish.
Imagine if these words appeared in a piece of legislation or treaty today;
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims)
Think anyone would make a stink? You probably know this is Article 11 of the "Treaty of Tripoli". It was published in the major newspapers of the day, ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by John Adams.
::raises hand::
I would make a stink.
The Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 committed the United States [in Article 10 of that treaty] to make a tribute payment to the Tripolitan States as extorted ransom against further piracy and slavetaking against American commercial vessels, their crews and their passengers.
Today it would be like offering Osama Bin Laden and his followers billions of dollars not to hijack and crash commercial airliners into our civilian infrastructure anymore.
Now, this timid surrender-as-foriegn-policy tactic might today well be "acceptable" to historically ignorant, logically deficient, militantly imbecilic anti-American politicians like Ron Paul and his fellow leftists at an ANSWER rally or a window-smashing anti-capitalist WTO riot, but to sovereignty-minded libertarians and national security conservatives like myself and everyone else in the right-wing, it's a suicide note.
We saw how the Treaty of Tripoli went. It resulted in more piracy, more hostage-taking, more enslavement of American citizens captured at sea, ended only after 12 years of hard fought war and the honorable mission of the United States Navy and Marine Corps.
Does anyone remember what happened when the Franks paid a ransom of silver to Scandinavian Vikings to persuade them to not raid Frankish villages for plunder?
The Vikings took the silver, raised a larger army, captured the Frankish silver mines, and brutally forced the Franks to dig up more silver.
Ron Paulism is stupid in any era.
Ducky could be correct as far as Barton’s affiliation with the dominionist world view. He certainly uses a lot of the catch phrases. A LOT of the “TV Preachers” are unashamedly dominionist.
As a Christian, I pretty much view what Barton does a waste of time. I think it misses the Mark 16 commandment,
Mar 16:15 Then he said to them, "As you go throughout the world, proclaim the Good News to all creation.
If we are to accept the Bible for what it is and what is says, it’s all a waste of time and takes away from the more important things.
Depending on what day it is, I often struggle with the issue of how much a Christian should be involved in politics. There’s that dirty/seedy side of politics I see and wonder if that’s where one should be. It also requires a lot of compromise, one look at what happen at CPAC would prove that point……so I wonder.
If one takes a stroll through Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Revelation it would appear it’s all moot.
Don't forget Ecclesiastes ;)
Craig "To say it is the foundation of the establishment of our country is not supported by facts."
You need to read all the writings of the founders. One can't help but be influenced when one is so steeped in CHristianity as they were.
Scotty, we're meant to be stewards...and I agree with your thoughts but I always remember that, too.
Craig, I think you, like many, confuse Christian belief and values, with the church or clergy.
It's clear that our founders disowned anything resembling the Church of England.
Some had problems with the clergy, or the church, but to extrapolate that into non belief, or a lack of influence of Christianity in our founding, is the error that's frequently made.
Our founders were Christians or Deists, and that's obvious. What they weren't, were supporters of an establishment by the government of a religion, or the church.
Craig said - "I agree, religion/Christianity was part of the culture in the late 17th century. To say it is the foundation of the establishment of our country is not supported by facts."
The Declaration of Independence; "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pusuit of Happiness."
The above quote from the Declaration of Independence is a fact. It substantiates the argument that belief in the Creator was very much instrumental in our founding.
If this is not the foundation of our country, what is it?
IMO, you confuse establishment of religion, or the Church, with Christian belief, either intentionally, or mistakenly.
It was not merely part of the culture, it was mirrored all through our founding because our founding fathers were believers.
All David Barton does is bring this to the forefront through historical documents and writings, to disabuse those arguments which for far too long, have denied the Christian influence on our founding.
And that, is what sticks in your craw.
After all, if we gain our rights from the Creator, the left want's that refuted and discredited, because they believe our rights should come from our government. How else can they gain control?
We have never had a theocracy, and as far as I know, no one is seeking that, except of course Islam.
We have recognized our Christian foundation through American traditions. It is part of our culture, try as you might to negate it, and we are not willing to comply with your wishes.
Pris
Pris, thanks...I've been thinking about this a little this morning and I believe it actually is a fear of some secularists (and Christians and others of faith) that Christians want a theocracy the minute they ask to please not take crosses down or to leave the Ten Commandments where they were, don't take them down.
My sidebar on my blog home page has a quote from C. S. Lewis which I think very well illustrates how the Christianity of nearly ALL of the founding fathers reflects on this country. Here it is:
"I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else by it."
That's self-evident in about every piece of writing by our fathers.
Mr. Obama has left "Creator" out 3 times now from his reciting of that part of the Dec. of Ind. you cited....that's fairly stunning; mostly so that the media didn't mention it. Of course, they're probably thrilled, but it is dishonest and uncurious on their part not to delve into those ommissions; Any Republican president would have been seriously taken to task.
Imagine if Palin or Bachmann left any words our while reciting any piece of Americana? It would be everywhere.
I don't feel ANY of us needs to defend CHristianity. It's something I've seen take over peoples' lives and make their lives immeasurably better, it's snuck up on me and many others when we were least expecting it and didn't even WANT it necessarily... well, to go on would be ridiculous...it would overload my comments pages!
But, suffice it to say this country WOULD be far better off, and WAS, if we do live by the true words of Christianity (and Judaism), not the nutty evangelist money-grubbers, not those faking faith and mocking soldiers with "God hates fags"...ETC
""I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else by it.""
Yes Z. This says it beautifully.
Pris
The above quote from the Declaration of Independence is a fact. It substantiates the argument that belief in the Creator was very much instrumental in our founding.
Jefferson also mentions "Nature's God" and "Laws of Nature". His idea of "Creator" doesn't, in any way, resemble the "Creator" one would associate with Christianity. He denied the divinity of Jesus, as did Franklin and Madison and probably many more, and the Trinity.
I have no doubt that some of the Founders and Framers were devout Christians. Many would have said their values derived from their religion. Many others believed those values aren't inherent in or exclusive to Christianity.
I've read the Federalist Papers, Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention and religion, Christianity or Christian Values just isn't a topic much discussed. I don't see the need for people like Barton to portray the centrality of Christianity at the founding where it didn't exist, unless it's to prop up their cause.
All David Barton does is bring this to the forefront through historical documents and writings, to disabuse those arguments which for far too long, have denied the Christian influence on our founding.
No, he doesn't. That's my point in posting how he has distorted or lied. When he said "26 (?, whatever # he used) of the signers were Seminary students", that's misleading and he knows it. In the 17th and 18th century, Seminary was what all institutions of higher learning were called. He makes it sound like they were all studying for the clergy. At that time, training for the clergy was done at a Theological Seminary. Maybe one or two of the founders did that but you wouldn't know if you got your history from Barton. Really, very little of what he 'teaches' is true.
After all, if we gain our rights from the Creator, the left want's that refuted and discredited, because they believe our rights should come from our government.[Correct] How else can they gain control?
The next line from the Declaration, after the line you quoted;
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Jefferson believed it too.
We have recognized our Christian foundation through American traditions. It is part of our culture, try as you might to negate it, and we are not willing to comply with your wishes.
No, I don't want to negate it. Over-inflating it is just as bad.
Wow, Craig, I'm actually surprised at your arguments because they're so thin.
I said that I believe the founding forefathers looked at their faith as the CS Lewis comment I quoted, plus they are MUCH more overt in many of their writings..Jesus Christ is mentioned many more times than I knew until I really researched.
Nobody's over-inflating...nobody's denying Christianity's goodness isn't echoed in our faiths....Everybody knows governments are instituted by MEN, what do you expect, God sitting as President of the United States???\
You pick Jefferson as an example when it's so well known he was the least of the believers, though he DID believe and mentions Christ, too, in much of his writings.
Man, Google Barton and see the onslaught...some deserved, some showing REAL fear of what he says..
The hilarious part is some school parents and the School Board condemning him for teaching Middle East History from a Christian point of view; this from schools pushing to have Islamic history taught including fasting and praying five times a day,..you can't make this stuff up. THat's FINE, but do NOT teach Middle Eastern history with Christianity involved! :-)/
"Our founders were Christians or Deists, and that's obvious. What they weren't, were supporters of an establishment by the government of a religion, or the church."
Craig, the quote above, is from my comment. What is it about a Deist, that you don't understand?
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
If I may be so bold to add: Yes, the consent of the governed, who derive their rights from the creator!
It is the people who loan these powers to the government through our consent, not the other way around.
Pris
As Papaw taught me while showing me how to use the sights to shoot accurately with an M1 Garand - he handed me the Constitution and said "This lists your rights." Then he handed me the rifle and said "This keeps them."
The US Goverment was set up to do a few, clearly defined, highly limited things.
"Giving me rights" wasn't one of them.
We give the government consent, not the other way around. Pris said it well.
The government is constrained from infringing upon a pre-existing natural [God-given] right, like self-defense.
You pick Jefferson as an example when it's so well known he was the least of the believers, though he DID believe and mentions Christ, too, in much of his writings.
Z,
I didn't "pick" Jefferson. Pris brought up the line from the Declaration as an illustration of the Founders belief in a Creator. Something I never denied. I merely pointed out that Jefferson's idea of Creator, impersonal first cause, might not be so easily conflated with the God of the bible. For the record, Jefferson admired the character Jesus for his philosophy. Jefferson didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, the Trinity and thought the miracles in the bible were nonsense.
My only reason for commenting is David Barton. If the centrality of Christianity in the formation of our nation and the shaping of our govt. is so obvious, why does Barton need to distort, misrepresent and lie? He's been proven to be a liar.
"Giving me rights" wasn't one of them.
Just as I thought. Those 27 Amendments are superfluous.
I don't know Barton, I just admire that SOMEONE is speaking up in fighting the insane, overt slamming of things Christian in this country, as if that's a plague or something.
If he 'lies', as you and others put it (and oh, my GOSH, he must be doing something right because there's a cottage industry of Barton-haters on Google!) he's exaggerating to make great points.
Craig, exactly what God would Jefferson be referring to? Allah? Ra the Sun God? Get real, please.
For heaven's sake, I mention the laws of nature. How does that make me a non believer?
What religion or religious belief do you suppose they were imbued with? What Bible?
You're really reaching now.
Pris
Post a Comment