FAIL.
Original Intent: the Courts, the Constitution and Religion has about fifty pages of footnotes backing up his assertions ... that's a lot of documentation.
Upvote
0
Obama's Biblical Hostility
- Thread starter NightHawkeye
- Start date
Original Intent: the Courts, the Constitution and Religion has about fifty pages of footnotes backing up his assertions ... that's a lot of documentation.
Fred, I have no interest in perusing atheist websites. Dave Barton has been an irritant to some atheists for many years. That may be a good thing.
You claimed Dave Barton "lied". If that were really true, then you would be able to succinctly post a verifiable lie. The FACT remains that you have not done that. One might wonder why.
Upvote
0
David Barton is lying when he says:
"The Supreme Court in 1947 lifted the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" from a speech Thomas Jefferson made in 1801. Later in the speech, Jefferson went on to say, "That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."
"The Supreme Court in 1947 lifted the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" from a speech Thomas Jefferson made in 1801. Later in the speech, Jefferson went on to say, "That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."
Upvote
0
David Barton is a liar when she says:
In 1844 the Supreme Court ruled that public schools must include Christian worship.
In 1844 the Supreme Court ruled that public schools must include Christian worship.
Upvote
0
That's not really saying anything. If I were to take for example the theory of evolution, and then take some evolutionists personal letters to friend, and footnote it as some kind of scientific statement made by the evolutionist towards the theory itself, that would be deceptive. Is there a difference between purposeful deception and lying?
...welcome to the world of David Barton, because that is what many of his footnotes are if not out and out fabrication of quotes he has been caught making up.
Upvote
0
Barton's target audience is low intellegent people who don't care about truth and aren't going to read his footnotes.
Upvote
0
Here's what Wikipedia says:
In an article titled "Unconfirmed Quotations", Barton conceded that he has not located primary sources for eleven alleged quotes from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions (hence, the title of the article), but maintained that the quotes were "completely consistent" with the views of the Founders. This drew criticism from Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who accused Barton of "shoddy workmanship", and said that despite these and other corrections, Barton's work "remains rife with distortions of history and court rulings". WallBuilders responded to its critics by saying that Barton followed "common practice in the academic community" in citing secondary sources, and that in publishing "Unconfirmed Quotations", Barton's intent was to raise the academic bar in historical debates pertinent to public policy.
The Texas Monthly noted that Barton has denied saying that in his famous letter to Danbury Baptists "Jefferson referred to the wall of separation between church and state as 'one-directional'that is, it was meant to restrain government from infringing on the church's domain but not the other way around. There is no such language in the letter." The article goes on to note that this denial is contradicted by a 1990 version of Barton's video America's Godly Heritage in which Barton states:
I note that Wikipedia indicates David Barton knows and publicly asserts that the statement is incorrect. Even if he believed it to be true at one time, he has long since concluded otherwise.The Texas Monthly noted that Barton has denied saying that in his famous letter to Danbury Baptists "Jefferson referred to the wall of separation between church and state as 'one-directional'that is, it was meant to restrain government from infringing on the church's domain but not the other way around. There is no such language in the letter." The article goes on to note that this denial is contradicted by a 1990 version of Barton's video America's Godly Heritage in which Barton states:
On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured themhe said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
Upvote
0
I fail to see what your point here is, Fred. The founding fathers were largely Christian. That's well-documented FACT and has been discussed extensively on this forum.
You provided no reference anyway, so it's unclear what your issue is, much less what would need to be refuted.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
LOL ... With your own high intelligence, Fred, I would expect you to have a reference for that. Would you mind providing that reference? Thanks.
Upvote
0
Even Barton's critics on this one, merely criticize the extent of his interpretation: Sects, Lies and Videotape: David Barton's Distorted History
Barton: In 1844 the Supreme Court ruled that public schools must include Christian worship.
Response: This is an oversimplified interpretation of a complex Supreme Court decision in a case known as Vidal v. Girard's Executors. The controversy centered around the request of Stephen Girard, a wealthy Pennsylvanian whose will instructed that his money be used to set up a school for orphans. Girard, a native of France who was wary of clericalism, stipulated in the will that no members of the clergy could hold office in the school or even visit the campus.
Girard's heirs challenged the bequest, but the Supreme Court, In a unanimous opinion, refused to nullify the stipulation. The will, the justices noted, had barred only clergy, not religious instruction entirely. The court also noted that the religious freedom provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution were broad enough to provide "complete protection of every variety of religious opinion...and must have been intended to extend equally to all sects, whether they were Jews or infidels."
In any case it appears that Barton no longer makes this claim ...Response: This is an oversimplified interpretation of a complex Supreme Court decision in a case known as Vidal v. Girard's Executors. The controversy centered around the request of Stephen Girard, a wealthy Pennsylvanian whose will instructed that his money be used to set up a school for orphans. Girard, a native of France who was wary of clericalism, stipulated in the will that no members of the clergy could hold office in the school or even visit the campus.
Girard's heirs challenged the bequest, but the Supreme Court, In a unanimous opinion, refused to nullify the stipulation. The will, the justices noted, had barred only clergy, not religious instruction entirely. The court also noted that the religious freedom provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution were broad enough to provide "complete protection of every variety of religious opinion...and must have been intended to extend equally to all sects, whether they were Jews or infidels."
Upvote
0
Here's an excerpt from a letter written to Thomas Jefferson by John Adams, which David Barton loves to use to mislead the low intellegent people who find him appealing:
John Adams's "Christian Principles" excluded the idea that God even existed as well as the idea that Jesus was the Son of God.
You gotta be real careful when you read the writtings of John Adams. He had some rather unortodox beliefs regarding religion.
And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence.
John Adams had a rather unusual idea of "Christian Principles." For example, his "Christian Principles" excluded anything that an atheist didn't believe.
John Adams's "Christian Principles" excluded the idea that God even existed as well as the idea that Jesus was the Son of God.
You gotta be real careful when you read the writtings of John Adams. He had some rather unortodox beliefs regarding religion.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Blackwater Babe
Well-Known Member
Its called an analysis and an opinion. Not requiring a footnote.
One I agree with, by the way.
Its pretty simple, claims of fact require citations. Simple opinions do not.
Upvote
0
tulc
loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
uhmmm...I think you forgot a word NHe what Fred from Dallas said was:
which actually makes a difference. While evangelicals are Christians, not oall Christians are evangelicals.Fred in Dallas said:
tulc(just pointing out something you may not have noticed)
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I challenge anyone to find even one instance of one of the founders refering to himself or another person as an "evangelical."uhmmm...I think you forgot a word NHe what Fred from Dallas said was:
which actually makes a difference. While evangelicals are Christians, not oall Christians are evangelicals.
tulc(just pointing out something you may not have noticed)
Upvote
0
For Fred:
Derek Davis, a legal and church scholar at Baylor University, the world's largest Baptist university. "He's not a trained historian. He can be very convincing to an uninitiated audience. He's intelligent. He's well-spoken. But a lot of what he presents is a distortion of the truth."
Baylor U
...uninitiated means those who don't know better.
Upvote
0
I have known Derek for at least 15 years. He is my kind of Baptist and a really cool dude.
He sends me some of his writtings for input/criticism before he publishes them.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
So ... is that now David Barton's reprehensible lie, Fred? Has Barton accused the founding fathers of being evangelicals? If so, can you provide a reference for that?
Just so we can discuss it in proper context ... exact words can be important to proper understanding. Thanks.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
